Author Topic: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby  (Read 5246 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MoraWintersoul

  • Gloom Cookie
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5308
  • Gender: Female
  • Transadriatic progressive buddy of Wasteland
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2014, 05:17:13 PM »
What is so special about the contraception requirement that was infringing on Hobby Lobby's rights soooo much?
It's bad because they say so.

Quote
Don't try to BS Milena about Kevin Moore facts, she will obscure quote you in the face.
You consistently make so much sense, and express yourself so eloquently, that I've decided you're basically a female version of robwebster.

Offline Grizz

  • Posts: 1603
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #36 on: July 04, 2014, 07:29:52 PM »
What is so special about the contraception requirement that was infringing on Hobby Lobby's rights soooo much?
"We have to pay into healthcare that encourages our employees to fornicate? There ought to be an ordinance on that sort of thing!"
"I raised the baby, I changed the baby's diapers.  Whenever the baby had projectile diarrhea, I was there in the line of fire.  I even got a little in my mouth!  I sacrificed so much for my baby.  Now my baby hates me and thinks Mike Mangini is its real father!"

Online antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10281
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #37 on: July 04, 2014, 09:08:23 PM »
What is so special about the contraception requirement that was infringing on Hobby Lobby's rights soooo much?
"We have to pay into healthcare that encourages our employees to fornicate? There ought to be an ordinance on that sort of thing!"

It's not contraception per se, it's contraception that they deemed to be abortive in nature. So, the morning after pill, and IUDs. Their (Hobby Lobby's) stated reasoning was that providing these specific products to their employees would be condoning and supporting abortion, which they believe to be very very bad and against their deeply held religious beliefs.

I'm not sure how an IUD could be considered abortive, but I don't know much about the thing.

Offline Grizz

  • Posts: 1603
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #38 on: July 04, 2014, 10:19:17 PM »
I don't know how the other could be considered abortive. According to Princeton, it is doubted that Plan B works at all after fertilization.
"I raised the baby, I changed the baby's diapers.  Whenever the baby had projectile diarrhea, I was there in the line of fire.  I even got a little in my mouth!  I sacrificed so much for my baby.  Now my baby hates me and thinks Mike Mangini is its real father!"

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8016
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #39 on: July 04, 2014, 10:30:00 PM »
What is so special about the contraception requirement that was infringing on Hobby Lobby's rights soooo much?
"We have to pay into healthcare that encourages our employees to fornicate? There ought to be an ordinance on that sort of thing!"

It's not contraception per se, it's contraception that they deemed to be abortive in nature. So, the morning after pill, and IUDs. Their (Hobby Lobby's) stated reasoning was that providing these specific products to their employees would be condoning and supporting abortion, which they believe to be very very bad and against their deeply held religious beliefs.

I'm not sure how an IUD could be considered abortive, but I don't know much about the thing.

If I remember my sex-ed properly...   An IUD irritates the walls of the uterus, and prevents fertilized eggs from "nesting" to the walls of the uterus where it can safely grow.    Thus, a fertilized egg simply gets flushed from the system.    For those that believe that life begins at conception, this would be considered "abortive"...
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Grizz

  • Posts: 1603
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #40 on: July 04, 2014, 11:20:33 PM »
Well, conception can really encompass implantation and fertilization. It's not specific enough and I'm not sure if a lot of anti-choicers are anti-IUD.
"I raised the baby, I changed the baby's diapers.  Whenever the baby had projectile diarrhea, I was there in the line of fire.  I even got a little in my mouth!  I sacrificed so much for my baby.  Now my baby hates me and thinks Mike Mangini is its real father!"

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2523
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #41 on: July 05, 2014, 09:49:00 PM »
On a side note, I hate the term anti-choice. It's just as loaded of a term as pro-life.

Offline TempusVox

  • Descendant of Primus
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5208
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #42 on: July 07, 2014, 06:34:53 PM »
help me understand why the issue is not our freedom in regard to choosing our insurance.
Federal law says that employers the size of Hobby Lobby have to provide health insurance and that insurance is supposed to include contraception (Obamacare). Hobby Lobby's majority shareholders are fundamentalist Christian assholes (and ignorant, to boot) who claim that being forced to provide contraception and abortion drugs to their employees is in violation of their beliefs (which is essentially correct, aside from the abortion nonsense). The court, in deciding this, has ruled that the religious beliefs of a corporation trump federal law (Obamacare) which has quite a few people nervous.

The trickle down effect, which is what also relates to the freedom problem, is that a couple of states are run by even more asshollish Christian fundamentalists and are passing laws to protect employers from other federal laws. Most noteworthy is Kansas which wants to prevent Christians from having to hire gay employees under the religious freedom point, which I suspect is fantastically contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

With regard to Kansas, at present, there is no federal law that protects against sexual orientation bias. The EEOC has ruled against this form of discrimination numerous times. Right now there are two bills being proposed which would offer LGBT protection (H.R. 1755; S. 815); but the Tea Party has vowed to fight it with their dying breath (personally, I wish something would kill them all off, but hey thats just me) The fact that it's not already protected in this country is bullshit. I mean other than coming out and asking if someone is gay, how you gonna know? It's also another work around to keep gay marriage from becoming a reality. Lets say gay marriage is allowed in your state, but your company doesn't have to hire homosexuals. Well thats an easy way to keep gays from getting married then isn't it?

Personally, I also think forcing your religious beliefs on someone else is fucking bullshit. The fact that people hide behind Christianity is also bullshit. I think it's no secret, but I am a Christian, and I'm a Conservative (Reagan Conservative, which I know makes me liberal now but I digress), and I fully support gay marriage. If I believe that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and also freedom from religious persecution, then I must support that right. But also, as a Christian I believe there are a hell of a lot of much more serious issues that we need to be worried about that effect us all. Let me just say that my wife and I have spent considerable time this year contemplating leaving the United States for good. I have the means to support myself very well in any country I choose. I own a place in Toronto; and we've been looking at several places in Scotland, as well as in the Caribbean. I'm just sick of the priorities in this country being so out of whack. It's sad.

But I agree with Hef. This decision has cracked open the door for a ton of other outrageous bullshit.
You don't HAVE a soul.You ARE a soul.You HAVE a body.
"I came here to drink milk and kick ass; and I just finished my milk."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19276
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #43 on: July 07, 2014, 06:53:51 PM »
help me understand why the issue is not our freedom in regard to choosing our insurance.
Federal law says that employers the size of Hobby Lobby have to provide health insurance and that insurance is supposed to include contraception (Obamacare). Hobby Lobby's majority shareholders are fundamentalist Christian assholes (and ignorant, to boot) who claim that being forced to provide contraception and abortion drugs to their employees is in violation of their beliefs (which is essentially correct, aside from the abortion nonsense). The court, in deciding this, has ruled that the religious beliefs of a corporation trump federal law (Obamacare) which has quite a few people nervous.

The trickle down effect, which is what also relates to the freedom problem, is that a couple of states are run by even more asshollish Christian fundamentalists and are passing laws to protect employers from other federal laws. Most noteworthy is Kansas which wants to prevent Christians from having to hire gay employees under the religious freedom point, which I suspect is fantastically contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

With regard to Kansas, at present, there is no federal law that protects against sexual orientation bias. The EEOC has ruled against this form of discrimination numerous times. Right now there are two bills being proposed which would offer LGBT protection (H.R. 1755; S. 815); but the Tea Party has vowed to fight it with their dying breath (personally, I wish something would kill them all off, but hey thats just me) The fact that it's not already protected in this country is bullshit. I mean other than coming out and asking if someone is gay, how you gonna know? It's also another work around to keep gay marriage from becoming a reality. Lets say gay marriage is allowed in your state, but your company doesn't have to hire homosexuals. Well thats an easy way to keep gays from getting married then isn't it?

Personally, I also think forcing your religious beliefs on someone else is fucking bullshit. The fact that people hide behind Christianity is also bullshit. I think it's no secret, but I am a Christian, and I'm a Conservative (Reagan Conservative, which I know makes me liberal now but I digress), and I fully support gay marriage. If I believe that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and also freedom from religious persecution, then I must support that right. But also, as a Christian I believe there are a hell of a lot of much more serious issues that we need to be worried about that effect us all. Let me just say that my wife and I have spent considerable time this year contemplating leaving the United States for good. I have the means to support myself very well in any country I choose. I own a place in Toronto; and we've been looking at several places in Scotland, as well as in the Caribbean. I'm just sick of the priorities in this country being so out of whack. It's sad.

But I agree with Hef. This decision has cracked open the door for a ton of other outrageous bullshit.
Upon further review, I misrepresented the Kansas deal. It's not hiring and EEOC stuff but even having to serve them. The wedding cake bakers or the tailors or the florists or some shit don't want to have to deal with homos, so the legislature is going to pass a law that enables you to tell them to GTFO. Same problems apply, really, but a different legal avenue. Not honestly sure what the legal situation with that is, but I know some states will come down on you for discrimination in those instances.

My stepbrother once said "if that idiot actually manages to get elected president I'm leaving the country!" He's been a Venezuelan for the last 14 years. The only person I know who actually had the balls to follow through on that oft said remark.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2014, 03:50:42 PM »
People are upset at the fact that the supreme court, the elites in government who are suppose to represent the people, sided with a corporation.

The Supreme Court justices do NOT represent the people.  That is the job of the legislators.   Courts are intended to apply a uniform interpretation of the law, and the US Supreme Court (through what's called stare decisis) sets that interpretation for future courts to use.  There are no "sides" in that definition (even if a result would tend to be more advantageous to one side other the other).

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #45 on: July 08, 2014, 04:26:37 PM »
I mean this politely and hopefully helpfully, but there are a number of misconceptions in this thread about this decision.

- It is not "new" and not part of the decision (but merely a restatement of well-accepted doctrine) that a corporation is a "person".  As such, the meme is misleading in that regard.  It is interesting that the Court expanded the notion of "person" (which is really just a construct to allow corporations to be sued; I would think that most of you would support that) to include "religious exercise".
- The fears of a "slippery slope" are largely unfounded.    The Court actually specifically deflected several of the potential arguments mentioned here by differentiating them from the current case (that is generally not something the Court does; a typical resopnse would be to the effect that "the Court does not address that specific question here.")
- The Court continually referred back to the notion that the mandate is not "the least restrictive means of achieving the government interest". 
- The decision is not applicable to corporations.    It is applicable to closely-held corprorations only, which are a discrete subset of the general label "corporation".    There are already several subsets of corporations that are not held to the mandate as well, so this is not new, and not a massive undermining of Obamacare or women's rights, though obviously supporters of both would have you believe just that.  Having said that, the inclusion of a subset that is FOR-PROFIT is new.

The Court here followed the letter of the underlying statute, for better or worse.   And Congress can always go back and amend the law to close this gap and prevent future, more extreme challenges. 

"A strong democracy is how it deals with the most unsavoury of ideas."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19276
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2014, 04:46:53 PM »
I mean this politely and hopefully helpfully, but there are a number of misconceptions in this thread about this decision.

- It is not "new" and not part of the decision (but merely a restatement of well-accepted doctrine) that a corporation is a "person".  As such, the meme is misleading in that regard.  It is interesting that the Court expanded the notion of "person" (which is really just a construct to allow corporations to be sued; I would think that most of you would support that) to include "religious exercise".
- The fears of a "slippery slope" are largely unfounded.    The Court actually specifically deflected several of the potential arguments mentioned here by differentiating them from the current case (that is generally not something the Court does; a typical resopnse would be to the effect that "the Court does not address that specific question here.")
- The Court continually referred back to the notion that the mandate is not "the least restrictive means of achieving the government interest". 
- The decision is not applicable to corporations.    It is applicable to closely-held corprorations only, which are a discrete subset of the general label "corporation".    There are already several subsets of corporations that are not held to the mandate as well, so this is not new, and not a massive undermining of Obamacare or women's rights, though obviously supporters of both would have you believe just that.  Having said that, the inclusion of a subset that is FOR-PROFIT is new.

The Court here followed the letter of the underlying statute, for better or worse.   And Congress can always go back and amend the law to close this gap and prevent future, more extreme challenges. 

"A strong democracy is how it deals with the most unsavoury of ideas."
This is just curiosity since we're largely on the same page, but do you read these decisions or is that too much like taking your work home with you? I agree that it was peculiar for (of all people) Alito to craft this as narrowly as he did and when I get time I'd like to read some of the specifics of that.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10281
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #47 on: July 08, 2014, 11:33:53 PM »
I think, overall, the opinion opens the door to all sorts of different challenges. Whether they will succeed or not is another question, but aside from Alito saying "it's limited to the facts of this case" there didn't seem to be much actual reasoning supporting the narrow conclusion.

I skimmed, though.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #48 on: July 09, 2014, 07:57:13 AM »
This is just curiosity since we're largely on the same page, but do you read these decisions or is that too much like taking your work home with you? I agree that it was peculiar for (of all people) Alito to craft this as narrowly as he did and when I get time I'd like to read some of the specifics of that.

Generally I do not read them, not because it is taking work home, but because they are boring.  :)   Certain cases, I will read, just from personal curiosity. 

Having said that, I am fascinated by the psychology of the Court.   There are many cases where the Court takes a case (they don't have to hear anything if they don't want to) and I can't help but think they are hoping for an opportunity to shape the law.   But that opportunity is only there if the lawyers for the parties give them the tools to do so.   Like anything else, they are beholden to the facts and arguments they are given.   I have no proof of this, but I suspect that this was one such case, where the idea of the case was promising, but the arguments put in front of the court didn't support any broad or profound precedent.   I think their is a basis for their decision, but I suspect they were hoping for more. 

Offline DerekTheater

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #49 on: October 12, 2014, 05:14:45 PM »
Their business, they can do what they want.

Offline Grizz

  • Posts: 1603
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #50 on: October 12, 2014, 07:21:15 PM »
...but it's OUR government, and OUR healthcare policies.
"I raised the baby, I changed the baby's diapers.  Whenever the baby had projectile diarrhea, I was there in the line of fire.  I even got a little in my mouth!  I sacrificed so much for my baby.  Now my baby hates me and thinks Mike Mangini is its real father!"

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #51 on: October 12, 2014, 09:02:31 PM »
Their business, they can do what they want.

Right, exactly.  This is the reason that I have the right to refuse to hire blacks and gays at the company I own -- it's my business, and I can do what I want.

Offline DerekTheater

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #52 on: October 13, 2014, 10:22:46 AM »
Their business, they can do what they want.

Right, exactly.  This is the reason that I have the right to refuse to hire blacks and gays at the company I own -- it's my business, and I can do what I want.

Go ahead and do that. I wouldn't care. I just wouldn't go to your business and I would tell other folks to avoid buying anything there.

I'm in favor of business owners doing whatever they want, but they also have to suffer the consequences. If someone wants to be a racist or a homophobe, let them deal with what goes along with being a racist or a homophobe in 2014.

Offline DerekTheater

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #53 on: October 13, 2014, 10:23:53 AM »
...but it's OUR government, and OUR healthcare policies.

I realize I'm at risk of sounding like a stereotypical Republican here, but if a business doesn't want to pay for something for you, you should buy it yourself or find a business that does.

Online Orbert

  • Recovering Musician
  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 15020
  • Gender: Male
  • In and around the lake
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2014, 10:53:33 AM »
Part of me agrees with you, the part that says that if you own a business, you should have the right to do whatever the hell you want.  Hire who you want, serve or not serve whomever you want, do business with whomever you want, or not.  And if this means that they get no business or someone burns their place down or whatever, then that's what they brought upon themselves.

The other part of me says Hey, in this country, we don't do that.  That's discrimination, and there are laws against shit like that.  Also, without those laws, there would be entire parts of the country that simply continue the way they've done it for years, and certain people simply cannot go there.  They won't get served, they won't get hired, they won't get helped, and God help them if their car breaks down and they need help, because no one within 100 miles is going to do anything for them, because they don't have to.  And honestly, fuck that.  That's why there are laws against shit like that.  It happens anyway, but I'm glad we're trying to at least address it.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19276
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #55 on: October 13, 2014, 11:12:36 AM »
The bottom line is that as much as I support a business's right to do whateverthehell it wants, that stops at the point of violating the law. If the law is bullshit, work to change it. What I don't like is having an exception carved out for political reasons, nor do I like the pretense being based on hypocrisy and stupidity. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #56 on: October 13, 2014, 11:53:18 AM »
Go ahead and do that. I wouldn't care. I just wouldn't go to your business and I would tell other folks to avoid buying anything there.

This is a lovely libertarian fantasy and to be perfectly honest I would *love* it if the world worked this way but it doesn't.  There's a reason the FDA and OSHA were founded, and that racial integration only happened with the force of law behind it.  The Civil Rights Act exists for a reason, and that reason is not that the free market was doing a peachy job of making sure everyone's opportunities were equal.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2776
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #57 on: October 13, 2014, 12:16:49 PM »
Uh...what do the FDA and OSHA have to do with equal opportunity?
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #58 on: October 13, 2014, 12:21:16 PM »
Nothing, those are just examples of other government solutions to problems that were a) caused by corporations and that were b) unlikely or impossible to be solved by the free market alone.  Sorry if my examples weren't clear.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8016
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2014, 06:28:47 PM »
The bottom line is that as much as I support a business's right to do whateverthehell it wants, that stops at the point of violating the law. If the law is bullshit, work to change it. What I don't like is having an exception carved out for political reasons, nor do I like the pretense being based on hypocrisy and stupidity.

You just DEFINED politics!!   :rollin :rollin :rollin
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline DerekTheater

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #60 on: October 13, 2014, 07:06:10 PM »
I highly doubt the south would still be segregated. Gay marriage did not have to be forced upon all fifty states for attitudes on that issue to change in the right direction. Same with marijuana. As time passes, attitudes change and peace generally becomes a more popular position.

I don't think it's a libertarian fantasy to not force those with unpopular beliefs to conform with popular opinion. Even if it means I am sometimes defending bigots.

I take it this a liberal-slanted politics forum? This will be a nice change from an old haunt of mine, the Rush forum's politics board. Everybody there was either a conservative Republican or conservative Libertarian, so there wasn't much of a reason to post. I look forward to engaging with some lefties!

Offline Grizz

  • Posts: 1603
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #61 on: October 13, 2014, 07:26:36 PM »
No, not really, there are plenty of conservative ideologies here. unfortunately
"I raised the baby, I changed the baby's diapers.  Whenever the baby had projectile diarrhea, I was there in the line of fire.  I even got a little in my mouth!  I sacrificed so much for my baby.  Now my baby hates me and thinks Mike Mangini is its real father!"

Offline DerekTheater

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #62 on: October 13, 2014, 07:34:07 PM »
As long as there's a good mix, discussion stays good.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19276
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #63 on: October 13, 2014, 07:38:04 PM »
I highly doubt the south would still be segregated. Gay marriage did not have to be forced upon all fifty states for attitudes on that issue to change in the right direction. Same with marijuana. As time passes, attitudes change and peace generally becomes a more popular position.
That's good because it wasn't.

Quote
I don't think it's a libertarian fantasy to not force those with unpopular beliefs to conform with popular opinion. Even if it means I am sometimes defending bigots.
I agree and I tend to be the fist to defend a bigot's right to be an asshole. I have no idea how popular opinion is a factor in the Hobby Lobby case, though. Although I'd say that it was definitely a factor with regards to gay marriage, which you also seem to be opposed to. The vocal minority's insistence on codifying their will into law resulted in exactly the opposite come Windsor.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline DerekTheater

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #64 on: October 13, 2014, 07:50:52 PM »
I know it wasn't. That is, in fact, exactly what I said. "Gay marriage did not have to be forced upon all fifty states..." means that gay marriage was not made legal across the nation. My point was that attitudes change over time without laws having to force those attitudes.

And I'm not sure why you're making assumptions about my beliefs. I am not in favor of marriage being recognized by the government to begin with, but considering that it's not going anywhere, allowing gays to marry would obviously be a better alternative to what we have now in many states.

As for Hobby Lobby, I did not follow this "issue" all that much, but I generally believe that a business doesn't have to provide a worker with jack shit other than a wage and relatively safe conditions.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19276
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #65 on: October 13, 2014, 07:57:35 PM »
And I'm not sure why you're making assumptions about my beliefs. I am not in favor of marriage being recognized by the government to begin with, but considering that it's not going anywhere, allowing gays to marry would obviously be a better alternative to what we have now in many states.
Fair enough, and I mostly agree.

Quote
As for Hobby Lobby, I did not follow this "issue" all that much, but I generally believe that a business doesn't have to provide a worker with jack shit other than a wage and relatively safe conditions.
Then it seems your objection would be with Obamacare, rather than this particular decision.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline DerekTheater

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #66 on: October 13, 2014, 08:02:44 PM »
I'm not a fan of Obamacare, no.

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5458
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #67 on: October 13, 2014, 08:28:26 PM »
I take it this a liberal-slanted politics forum? This will be a nice change from an old haunt of mine, the Rush forum's politics board. Everybody there was either a conservative Republican or conservative Libertarian, so there wasn't much of a reason to post. I look forward to engaging with some lefties!

There are still one or two strong left people that post here, but most of them left this subforum or got kicked out. (Same goes for a few strong right people) Most discussion seems to be about 30% right, 50% mixed/center, 20$ left, (at least from what I can tell). There are still some great discussions in here though.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #68 on: October 13, 2014, 08:55:02 PM »
I don't think it's a libertarian fantasy to not force those with unpopular beliefs to conform with popular opinion.

In this particular case there's a difference between being tolerant of those with unpopular opinions and not tolerating discrimination on the part of those in power.

Offline DerekTheater

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby
« Reply #69 on: October 14, 2014, 12:42:17 PM »
I don't think it's a libertarian fantasy to not force those with unpopular beliefs to conform with popular opinion.

In this particular case there's a difference between being tolerant of those with unpopular opinions and not tolerating discrimination on the part of those in power.

Meh. My views have been stated. Agree to disagree.