The Supremes Tackle Birth Control

Opening that floodgate would be nuts.

I'd be a rastafarian faster than you could blink. praise be to jah.

....
I've met many Christian business-owners who, owing to the tenets of their religion, do crazy things like donating generously to charity, paying their employees well, and offering ex-cons a chance at a better life by employing them. But there are plenty of others who will use their alleged religion as a dodge to cheat the government. As I mentioned above, that latter group is explicitly violating the teachings of Christ, which is all the more proof that their religion isn't the actual motivating factor.

The devil can quote scripture.

i have been actively involved with regards to gay marriage and women's rights for a long time. for someone who whines so much about people typecasting you, you do an awful lot of it yourself. individual rights and civil liberties are the foundation of conservatism.

TOPICALLY RELEVANT POST INCOMING
But the entire point of incorporation is to create an entity that is wholly separate from the individuals. How is the infusion of religion into a for-profit corporation's identity necessary to its ability to obtain profits? Hobby Lobby and that other one are peddling craft materials and cabinets and not anything that could be construed as inherently religious. I get the concept of corporate personhood endowing some rights, but does it actually need a religion?

The people suing the government seem to want all the benefits of incorporation plus all the benefits afforded to individuals. How can that be seen as a good thing?

Do you seriously imagine that you're going to convince anyone of anything by claiming that other people are not what they say they are? I mean, no one takes you seriously, anyhow, but that ***is below kindergarten level of argumentation.

No you haven't. Good try. LOOK YOU GOT PLUSES!!!!

ehh what the hell. it's the internet I guess you can pretend to be anything.

Is this your first day on the internet?

Edit: and so you can avoid an awkward moment, better sit down for this one. All mithra are not women irl.

Well he did just admit his modus operandi in P&R is to troll.

bigotry is intolerance toward people who hold different beliefs than your own. look no farther than people trying to legislate their own definitions of words like marriage and murder, that's what those signs are calling bigotry.

You act as if changing your mind on a topic is cardinal sin. Do you really expect everyone to be uniform on a topic at any point in time? Your world really is black 'n white isn't it. We're all capable of changing and there is nothing to be ashamed of by making course corrections based on new data.

Some people are going to behind an issue at its genesis, often because they're directly impacted by it. See black people during civil rights, the first wave of gay activists or environmentalists. Others will join through being convinced that the status quo needs to be changed after reading something like Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Jungle or Silent Spring.

Others won't change until the public opinion sways in favor of the motion like politicians and sheep lack of a better term. We're all 'sheep' on one topic or another so I don't feel a way about using the term. How many people realized bigotry against black people was wrong through watching All in the Family? More than you'd think.

Others will fence sit because of personal indecision or split emotions on the issue. Many of these people are the ones that'll hold onto a Biblical passage until the bastion falls and another Biblical passage is used to create yet another bulwark.

Still more will defend the status quo till the very end because their worldview is so entwined with a certain way of life. These be the types that have spent so much time hating others that they can't see reality without a group to kick around.

Others won't change until the issue becomes personal. You know, like when your daughter is the one carrying the child of a one night stand or drops being gay on you.

For the record I didn't really start thinking much of the LBGT issue until I made friends with a gay dude who turned out to be as normal as the next geeky introvert. Cool guy, likes dudes, was my personal BLM, trusted him with my XI account (life). It was then that I realized that what I had been taught was *** and that all of this manufactured hatred was no better than any other ethnic disputes.

Why is the line drawn at profit? Why are nonprofits that handle immense amounts of money and hold large influence any different because they don't make a profit per se?

Yeah yeah you're soooooo certain. You've been creeping on people and stalking them in real life for the last 10-20yrs so that you can say that with such certainty.

Cause everyone you objectify as the opposition is certainty fickle about their morals, that advocating equality for all is merely a trend.

If you hadn't been stalking everyone on this forum, so you can say such things about posters with such certainty; I'd say:

"You don't get out much do you?"


edit: I think he knows you're not Charlie Baker.
double edit: I don't see how Sparthosx is correcting Jassik when he is directly addressing you. Notice he's quoting and responding to you not Jassik.

Well he did just admit his modus operandi in P&R is to troll.

Don't give the troll as much credit as writing this response implies. Gobshite tried to tell me where and when I attended college because the stated reality interfered with the crap he was peddling.

I didn't really mean to imply a line there. I mostly put that in there so Kingmissthepoint couldn't nitpick again.

Non-profits aren't exempt unless they're inherently religious (churches and such), in which case religious identity is inseparable from their purpose. This isn't applicable to the type of corporation Hobby Lobby actually is, i.e. a for-profit whose purpose is to sell crafting goods. The fact that their stakeholders are religious doesn't transfer those beliefs to their business unless they would like to change to a non-profit organization with an expressly stated religious purpose.

Stop being so literal.

I remember you making certain claims about city living and similar so I inquired per your credibility by asking vague questions about the size of your municipality which you interpreted as me trying to figure out what size shoes you wear and how to best kill your mother. You're a paranoid lunatic with schizophrenic delusions.

But dude, cmon now. Do you even remember discussing where you though I lived, where I work where I went to school, who I've met, what I do? You have been projecting on me since day 1. It's not even awkward to me anymore, it's just you and I'm used to it.

And I know that the first people to call others bigots are trying to hide something about themselves, furthermore I am certain the most vocal supporters that I see here were completely silent on the issue the entire lives until recently; and they are the first to call names.

Why does profit make the difference?

There ya go again.

And no the discussion was about the difficulty of getting out of the inner cities when you are born into poverty there; and also that Democrats preside over every single one of the top 10 impoverished cities in America. I said then and believe now this is exactly what Democrats want, a culture of dependency inside cities, densely populated vote farm for their Democratic masters.

Did you not read what he wrote? Profit or not-for-profit aren't the critical aspect. The critical aspect is whether an organization exists explicitly for the sake of promoting a religion and its tenets.

Telling a Catholic church that it has to provide abortifacients under its employee compensation plan is interfering with an inherently religious institution. Telling a crafting store that it has to comply with the law is not.