I hate the idea of insurance covering self-inflicted conditions myself, but what other kinds of conditions are there anymore? That's just what you're paying for when you pay for insurance. Unless you aren't.
So, here's the thing. Sex happens. Or at least, it happens to those who aren't shut ins. Socially, providing free or subsidized health care is stupidly beneficial for such an extremely low cost. It reduces poverty, crime, pollution, and public costs; it also improves economies and general person well-being.
The only argument against it is, literally, one based around punishment.
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
The only argument against it is, literally, one based around punishment.
It seems to me you lack the capacity to understand the argument(s).
(1.) People generally do not like the government telling them to directly pay for something for someone else.
(2.) There is a long history of moral objection to contraceptives and it has nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with the creation of life.
(3.) Freedom of religion. People do not generally like the government telling them to directly pay for something for someone else when it directly conflicts with their religious beliefs.
(4.) What the government did was illegal.
Only in liberal fantasy land does this have anything to do with "punishment". In case you do not understand, the "punishment" straw-man was created to win your vote and is not based on any reasonable argument presented by Hobby Lobby. You've been duped and it seems you are blissfully happy about it. Keep in mind, I'm a person who thinks the government should provide contraceptive care for no other reason than it's practical. I also believe Hobby Lobby is being rather stupid but that does not mean we should violate the owners religious beliefs. You want these people to be mandated to violate their beliefs all because they make a profit or face the punishment of paying huge fines. What is disgusting is, you rather these people get no coverage of any sort from Hobby Lobby rather than not provide coverage for four out of 20 contraceptives.
It seems like the really important part of the majority ruling is the suggestion that the current religious exemption for non-profits is probably fine and can be extended to for-profit businesses. The result would be that Hobby Lobby gets to sign a piece paper and pretend like they aren't paying for contraceptives while the employees get it covered by the insurance company. It's really just a bit of sleight-of-hand, as clearly insurance companies will factor in this cost to the overall price of their plans in some non-explicit fashion, and the money they get from Hobby Lobby will ultimately be spent on contraceptives, but maybe St. Peter will be fooled when the CEO shows up to heaven with his waiver form.
This is only one step on the way to the right-wing goal of legal control of women's bodies.
I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously when you seem to honestly believe your struggle is against Saturday morning cartoon supervillainy.
I'm more concerned about what this means factually. The Supreme Court just ruled that if someone's religion says contraceptives cause abortions, then contraceptives cause abortion. Does this mean I get to start a wacky religion where aspirin cures cancer, then aspirin really will cure cancer?
Your flights of fancy, though taking a different direction than those of our Swedish friend above, present a no more persuasive case.
Now, can somebody opposing this decision please say something informed and concrete? Tiax, how about you? Or Jay13x, are you still watching this thread? Redeem your side from this alarmist outgassing. Please. It is your social duty to your fellow citizen's health - I have a headache and I want it to go away.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Now, can somebody opposing this decision please say something informed and concrete? Tiax, how about you? Or Jay13x, are you still watching this thread? Redeem your side from this alarmist outgassing. Please. It is your social duty to your fellow citizen's health - I have a headache and I want it to go away.
Hint: If you need help coming up with coherent arguments, read Scalia's majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith (this is the case that led Congress to pass the RFRA). It's pretty sad that arguably the most right-wing justice on SCOTUS has better arguments against religious exceptions than anyone in this thread so far.
Now, can somebody opposing this decision please say something informed and concrete? Tiax, how about you?
Meh, I have trouble getting too worked up about it. The opinion proposes work-arounds that are so trivial as to render the exemption meaningless. The administration can easily get Hobby Lobby employees contraception coverage today if they want to. Hobby Lobby will get to sign a waiver form, but they'll end up paying for contraceptive coverage anyway because money is fungible. I think the ruling's kind of silly in this regard - I don't think there's any real difference between the challenged rule and the proposed work-around.
This is only one step on the way to the right-wing goal of legal control of women's bodies.
I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously when you seem to honestly believe your struggle is against Saturday morning cartoon supervillainy.
I'm more concerned about what this means factually. The Supreme Court just ruled that if someone's religion says contraceptives cause abortions, then contraceptives cause abortion. Does this mean I get to start a wacky religion where aspirin cures cancer, then aspirin really will cure cancer?
Your flights of fancy, though taking a different direction than those of our Swedish friend above, present a no more persuasive case.
Now, can somebody opposing this decision please say something informed and concrete? Tiax, how about you? Or Jay13x, are you still watching this thread? Redeem your side from this alarmist outgassing. Please. It is your social duty to your fellow citizen's health - I have a headache and I want it to go away.
The war on women is real. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Women
It's sounds like Saturday morning cartoon villainry, sure, but that's actually what's happening. Republicans don't want women having sex at all unless it's for procreation, and they don't want them to have abortions unless it's for reasons that they already approved (like incest and rape).
George Takei made a pretty good point that Americans wouldn't allow Muslims to impose Sharia law through the supreme court.
I see those kinds of proposed exceptions as more of a cover. Numerous republicans have spoken about silver lining to rape being the "gift" of a child. Once they got sexual freedom/**** shaming exhausted as talking points exhausted by getting abortion banned except in those circumstances then we'd see pivots to other talking points fir further abortion restrictions
The Supreme Court just ruled that if someone's religion says contraceptives cause abortions, then contraceptives cause abortion.
No they didn't, and honestly that's an intentionally imbecilic reading of the case. In this thread it has been gone over extensively why this is wrong, but to sum it up (again):
The medical definition of abortion is irrelevant to the case, and there was no decision on it.
Hobby Lobby objects to any contraceptives that act in manner X, which Hobby Lobby defines as "abortificients". Hobby Lobby is using the term in an admittedly broader meaning than it's medical term. Hobby Lobby could have called them Gargleflatze's or Schnozzbergers and it would have made LITERALLY no difference in the outcome of the case.
The court ruled that Hobby Lobby is not required to pay for Gargleflatzes, because doing so would violate Hobby Lobbies freedom of religion under the RFRA.
The fact that Hobby Lobby called them "abortificients" instead of "gargleflatzes" has zero bearing on the case, and the court made absolutely no ruling on Hobby Lobby's definition of the term.
"When I say a word, it means what I say it means, no more, no less." I wonder, if their use of 'abortifacients [sic]' means they can be sued for fraud?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Control of women's bodies is exactly what is at stake. If women themselves don't have it, someone else does. The right-wing opposition to feminism in general makes it quite clear that the proponents of much-vaunted traditional values have never wanted women to choose for themselves what to do.
Just like the left-wing opposition to capitalism makes it quite clear that proponents of much-vaunted communist values have never wanted people to have abundant food and goods. Communists don't merely have good moral intentions that they are trying to apply injudiciously; they are actively and consciously malevolent. I know all this because I heard it from a John Bircher; they are as you know the most objective and reliable source on the goals of the left.
The war on women is real. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Women
It's sounds like Saturday morning cartoon villainry, sure, but that's actually what's happening. Republicans don't want women having sex at all unless it's for procreation, and they don't want them to have abortions unless it's for reasons that they already approved (like incest and rape).
Read your own link, dude. It's a Democratic propaganda term, nothing more. The liberal equivalent of Fox News' "War on Christmas". And it saddens me how credulously you swallow and regurgitate nonsense like "Republicans don't want women having sex at all unless it's for procreation". Would you believe someone if they said that Democrats want to turn everyone gay? Of course not. It's freaking absurd.
Combo player is a long-lost cause, but I hope you can still learn to see past the wanton demonization and other partisan bull*****, and examine the reality of the issues with an open mind. You can understand your opponents better if you actually try to do so. That means learning about Republicans from Republicans, not from Democratic propagandists. (And vice versa, of course.) Individuals may be self-serving liars and scumbags, but you will find that it's very difficult for a broad philosophical movement like liberalism or conservatism not to be rooted in genuine goodwill. Liberals and conservatives disagree because they have different ideas about the best ways to help people, not because the conservatives villainously want to hurt people and liberals heroically try to defend them. If you find yourself thinking along that Saturday-morning-cartoon line, stop, backtrack, and think again.
George Takei made a pretty good point that Americans wouldn't allow Muslims to impose Sharia law through the supreme court.
If a Muslim group is trying to conduct their own affairs according to Sharia law and they're not committing any crimes in doing so, then the Supreme Court damn well better let them. American backlash against this would be an example of anti-Islamic bigotry, not admirable in the slightest, and contrary to the principles enshrined in the First Amendment. I say this as an atheist who hates pretty much everything mainstream Islam stands for.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I have to agree with Sotomayor's dissent here - the act of filling out a brief form is about as minimally restrictive of an accommodation as one could imagine. The idea that this places an unreasonable burden on anyone's freedom of religion is asinine, especially in light of Alito's remarks about this exemption in the Hobby Lobby case. Can anyone defend why Wheaton deserves an injunction here?
Control of women's bodies is exactly what is at stake. If women themselves don't have it, someone else does. The right-wing opposition to feminism in general makes it quite clear that the proponents of much-vaunted traditional values have never wanted women to choose for themselves what to do.
Just like the left-wing opposition to capitalism makes it quite clear that proponents of much-vaunted communist values have never wanted people to have abundant food and goods. Communists don't merely have good moral intentions that they are trying to apply injudiciously; they are actively and consciously malevolent. I know all this because I heard it from a John Bircher; they are as you know the most objective and reliable source on the goals of the left.
The war on women is real. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Women
It's sounds like Saturday morning cartoon villainry, sure, but that's actually what's happening. Republicans don't want women having sex at all unless it's for procreation, and they don't want them to have abortions unless it's for reasons that they already approved (like incest and rape).
Read your own link, dude. It's a Democratic propaganda term, nothing more. The liberal equivalent of Fox News' "War on Christmas". And it saddens me how credulously you swallow and regurgitate nonsense like "Republicans don't want women having sex at all unless it's for procreation". Would you believe someone if they said that Democrats want to turn everyone gay? Of course not. It's freaking absurd.
Combo player is a long-lost cause, but I hope you can still learn to see past the wanton demonization and other partisan bull*****, and examine the reality of the issues with an open mind. You can understand your opponents better if you actually try to do so. That means learning about Republicans from Republicans, not from Democratic propagandists. (And vice versa, of course.) Individuals may be self-serving liars and scumbags, but you will find that it's very difficult for a broad philosophical movement like liberalism or conservatism not to be rooted in genuine goodwill. Liberals and conservatives disagree because they have different ideas about the best ways to help people, not because the conservatives villainously want to hurt people and liberals heroically try to defend them. If you find yourself thinking along that Saturday-morning-cartoon line, stop, backtrack, and think again.
George Takei made a pretty good point that Americans wouldn't allow Muslims to impose Sharia law through the supreme court.
If a Muslim group is trying to conduct their own affairs according to Sharia law and they're not committing any crimes in doing so, then the Supreme Court damn well better let them. American backlash against this would be an example of anti-Islamic bigotry, not admirable in the slightest, and contrary to the principles enshrined in the First Amendment. I say this as an atheist who hates pretty much everything mainstream Islam stands for.
Soooo, how do I stop hating republicans? And by impose I meant that they would enforce sharia law on everyone, not just that group.
For only the second time in four years, I'm going to intentionally break the rules
Quote from billydaman »
I've come to the conclussion that most of the liberals, incusing the POTUS, talking about this issue are loons who are incapbale of expressing a non-distorted, logically cohereant statement against this ruling.
There are plenty of reasons why black people don’t vote republican that have nothing to do hand-outs and everything to do with politicians being racist pricks infront of cameras, amongsts other things.
You see the science of Neurology is crucial to understanding the separation of the two idealogies.
And in the brain of the conservative, the limbic system most associated with small mindedness and stupidity, is larger then in any other human or sub-human in the WORLD.
Conservatives on this forum have been called racist pricks, stupid and women haters, among other things that get overlooked by the moderators here. Call the liberals who are arguing against this ruling loons and it gets moderated. Its once again selective enforcement of the rules and results in the forums moderators hiding behind the their power to get rid of people they do not like.
I'm constantly amazed at how the moderators and the senior staff of this forum overlooks the clear evidence of selective enforcement and deny my appeals with out a single ******* word on why I'm held to a different standard. They can not or will not even attempt to explain why my post are strictly enforced while other inflammatory comments go unchecked, I could list example after example. Tiax can repeat and troll incessantly with out nary of a word, I repeated my self a single time, I get an infraction. This the why the forum leans so far left. Liberals can not tolerate getting the same treatment as conservatives get. I'm not even a ******* conservative either. My guess is the liberal base on the forum got all butt hurt over it and reported me consequently their saviors needed to protect them.
thought I'd at least earn an honest infraction before they ban me for good because its obvious to me by now, they are not interested in hearing any appeals that center around the clear and evident bias of the moderators, which I've pointed out to them several times among the several bull***** infractions I've received. I've resorted to breaking the rules so at least some people will see the bull***** these moderators pull and if I'm able to stop one person from patronizing this site in the few hours this post will last, I'll be happy.
Oh by the way, maybe the ACA should cover flotation devices because if it does not, its an attack on swimmers. It is not an attack on women when you do not buy contraceptives for a leisure activity.
To clarify for those of you who have the wisdom not to follow forum drama, that was billydaman, flaming out. Per standard procedure, his posts will remain for the record, but should anyone feel compelled to discuss them or him, the proper place for that is either my or Senori's helpdesk, not this thread.
Carry on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is only one step on the way to the right-wing goal of legal control of women's bodies.
I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously when you seem to honestly believe your struggle is against Saturday morning cartoon supervillainy.
I'm more concerned about what this means factually. The Supreme Court just ruled that if someone's religion says contraceptives cause abortions, then contraceptives cause abortion. Does this mean I get to start a wacky religion where aspirin cures cancer, then aspirin really will cure cancer?
Your flights of fancy, though taking a different direction than those of our Swedish friend above, present a no more persuasive case.
Now, can somebody opposing this decision please say something informed and concrete? Tiax, how about you? Or Jay13x, are you still watching this thread? Redeem your side from this alarmist outgassing. Please. It is your social duty to your fellow citizen's health - I have a headache and I want it to go away.
I haven't been following the thread since last month (I needed a break from Debate), but yikes has this devolved. There is a lot of propaganda out there (on both sides). Look, the ruling sucks and I was disappointed by it, but it's not the end of the world. Seeing how broadly this applies will be the real issue here, since 90% of companies in the US meet the requirement for closely held corporations, it has opened up the flood gates. I have a few points to make:
It's definitely a little much to say that women are being oppressed with this decision, mostly because it's a lot more broad than that. I will say that having inadequate access to preventive medicine is harmful to anyone. No one is taking it away from you, but public health overall would be improved if it was there.
'Birth Control' is a colloquial term. Everything I said before about the uses are true, the difficulty is separating the medical terms from the common use of the term, because we've often been referring to these two separate things interchangeably in this thread. I mentioned before that it's billed separately when it's used for a health issue, but there are really only three possible outcomes from this: either doctors just start prescribing it as a preventive medicine for ovarian cysts, or insurance companies stop covering certain products altogether regardless of use, or a whole lot of women simply aren't going to be able to afford them. I'm not really sure how it will pan out, probably a mix of all three. The appropriate next step here for the Feds is to subsidize the cost of birth control, like we do for vaccines. How realistic this is, I don't know.
Birth control is not a **** pill for 'recreational activities', contrary to popular belief. Most families in this country only want and can support 2 children, but women generally have a good 35 years where they're capable of having children. But sex is an important part of reaffirming love and commitment in a relationship, so you're not really pro-family values if you think it's for fun alone. And when you combine the inherent sex drive of humans with the poor sexual education we provide people and the difficulty accessing health resources and the stigma surrounding unmarried women who engage in sex, it's really not surprising that places like Texas have the highest rates of unmarried mothers.
And then there are more than the health ramifications. Women who have full control over their reproduction and access to health care are going to be better able to contribute to society (and this goes all the way back to proper sexual education: I'm looking at you, Texas). Pregnancy is dangerous for women, not just from a health standpoint but an economic and social one. Child care is not cheap or easy to come by, which is why so many people choose to leave work to raise their children. They're expected to be primary care takers for their children, and ostracized when they can't balance the need to bring home money and take perfect care of their children. And the women least likely to be able to afford birth control on their own are the most at risk for being kept in poverty, or falling into poverty because of pregnancy.
Honestly, this ruling was a blow, because I personally don't think that religious beliefs should be given credence over public health. The coverage of birth control was in the ACA for reason, it's almost unanimously viewed by healthcare and public health people as a huge boon for the health of women. So while people are understandably angry, it doesn't actually change anything for the women who didn't have it covered before.
This 'War on Women' stuff is definitely alarmist, or at the very least inaccurate, because women aren't deliberately being targeted by this. The problem is an archaic belief system that, while valuable pre-modern medicine in keeping children pumping out, is significantly less so when we've got legitimate overpopulation concerns.
For fear of summoning our resident MRA expert I am going to chime in on re: War on women. Yes it's real. Remind me who opposed the paycheck fairness act? Who opposed that domestic violence bill? Who has decided what birth control women can use? No war on women here, folks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
That doesn't make conservatism any less of an enemy to these groups...
Your problem is as ever that you insist on viewing the world solely as a battleground for monolithic homogeneous interest groups. I see no indication you've even considered the fact that about half of the conservatives who are supposedly "waging a war on women" are women. This may blow your mind, but just like men they have a wide variety of positions on a wide variety of different topics related to gender relations and women's health. Because of this variety both in topics and in people, saying that a group is "enemy to women" isn't simply defamatory; it's so vague as to not convey any useful information. So I will ask you once again: rather than waving your hands and claiming that Team One is at war with Team Two as if that meant something, examine this specific Supreme Court decision and tell us what specifically is good and/or bad about it.
My hope is that the ruling really ends up blowing up in the courts face and as time passes, ends up doing just about the opposite of what groups like Hobby Lobby intended.
For fear of summoning our resident MRA expert I am going to chime in on re: War on women. Yes it's real. Remind me who opposed the paycheck fairness act? Who opposed that domestic violence bill? Who has decided what birth control women can use? No war on women here, folks.
Did you read the paycheck fairness act? It was a waste of time that did nothing but give trial lawyers a new avenue to make bank.
The domestic violence bill should have been passed, but what do you say to 40% of domestic abuse victims being male but only 15% of domestic violence cases have a male victim? You don't think that is a huge problem?
Women can still use whatever birth control they want. To my knowledge, Hobby Lobby isn't drug testing these women and firing them if they have said birth control in their systems.
This is a cool idea that I fully support, but let me explain why it won't get them anywhere. The easiest way is via analogy.
Almost everybody can make a slam-dunk on a basketball hoop that's 4-5 feet (1.5m) above the ground. It's super easy. But a regulation hoop (10ft/3m) is challenging to dunk, and only tall or talented people can do it.
A normal law like the ACA only has to meet the "rational basis standard" to be constitutional. This standard is like dunking on a 4ft hoop. Almost every law will meet this standard. Hobby Lobby got their exception from the law because the RFRA imposes a "strict scrutiny" standard on laws that impact freedom of religion. The ACA could dunk on a low hoop, but Hobby Lobby's challenge raised the hoop up to 10ft and it couldn't make it. (A 15ft hoop might be a better analogy. It's very hard to satisfy strict scrutiny.)
But Roe v Wade says that first-trimester abortion is a fundamental right, meaning all laws that regulate it need to meet the strict scrutiny test from the start. A law regulating abortion has to be dunking on a 10ft hoop right out of the gates. So the satanists aren't raising the hoop by invoking the RFRA. They're just challenging the law under the same standard that anyone - satanist or not - could challenge the law.
We talked around this issue, as you insisted (rightfully) that it needs to exist for anyone to invest in a company, and my point was that imposing religious beliefs on a corporate entity would be an unfair one-way street though it.
If you actually think this I genuinely do not know what to say to you. I honestly did not take autism into account.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
So, here's the thing. Sex happens. Or at least, it happens to those who aren't shut ins. Socially, providing free or subsidized health care is stupidly beneficial for such an extremely low cost. It reduces poverty, crime, pollution, and public costs; it also improves economies and general person well-being.
The only argument against it is, literally, one based around punishment.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
It seems to me you lack the capacity to understand the argument(s).
(1.) People generally do not like the government telling them to directly pay for something for someone else.
(2.) There is a long history of moral objection to contraceptives and it has nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with the creation of life.
(3.) Freedom of religion. People do not generally like the government telling them to directly pay for something for someone else when it directly conflicts with their religious beliefs.
(4.) What the government did was illegal.
Only in liberal fantasy land does this have anything to do with "punishment". In case you do not understand, the "punishment" straw-man was created to win your vote and is not based on any reasonable argument presented by Hobby Lobby. You've been duped and it seems you are blissfully happy about it. Keep in mind, I'm a person who thinks the government should provide contraceptive care for no other reason than it's practical. I also believe Hobby Lobby is being rather stupid but that does not mean we should violate the owners religious beliefs. You want these people to be mandated to violate their beliefs all because they make a profit or face the punishment of paying huge fines. What is disgusting is, you rather these people get no coverage of any sort from Hobby Lobby rather than not provide coverage for four out of 20 contraceptives.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Your flights of fancy, though taking a different direction than those of our Swedish friend above, present a no more persuasive case.
Now, can somebody opposing this decision please say something informed and concrete? Tiax, how about you? Or Jay13x, are you still watching this thread? Redeem your side from this alarmist outgassing. Please. It is your social duty to your fellow citizen's health - I have a headache and I want it to go away.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Hint: If you need help coming up with coherent arguments, read Scalia's majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith (this is the case that led Congress to pass the RFRA). It's pretty sad that arguably the most right-wing justice on SCOTUS has better arguments against religious exceptions than anyone in this thread so far.
Meh, I have trouble getting too worked up about it. The opinion proposes work-arounds that are so trivial as to render the exemption meaningless. The administration can easily get Hobby Lobby employees contraception coverage today if they want to. Hobby Lobby will get to sign a waiver form, but they'll end up paying for contraceptive coverage anyway because money is fungible. I think the ruling's kind of silly in this regard - I don't think there's any real difference between the challenged rule and the proposed work-around.
The war on women is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Women
It's sounds like Saturday morning cartoon villainry, sure, but that's actually what's happening. Republicans don't want women having sex at all unless it's for procreation, and they don't want them to have abortions unless it's for reasons that they already approved (like incest and rape).
George Takei made a pretty good point that Americans wouldn't allow Muslims to impose Sharia law through the supreme court.
"When I say a word, it means what I say it means, no more, no less." I wonder, if their use of 'abortifacients [sic]' means they can be sued for fraud?
On phasing:
Thank you. Was that so difficult?
Read your own link, dude. It's a Democratic propaganda term, nothing more. The liberal equivalent of Fox News' "War on Christmas". And it saddens me how credulously you swallow and regurgitate nonsense like "Republicans don't want women having sex at all unless it's for procreation". Would you believe someone if they said that Democrats want to turn everyone gay? Of course not. It's freaking absurd.
Combo player is a long-lost cause, but I hope you can still learn to see past the wanton demonization and other partisan bull*****, and examine the reality of the issues with an open mind. You can understand your opponents better if you actually try to do so. That means learning about Republicans from Republicans, not from Democratic propagandists. (And vice versa, of course.) Individuals may be self-serving liars and scumbags, but you will find that it's very difficult for a broad philosophical movement like liberalism or conservatism not to be rooted in genuine goodwill. Liberals and conservatives disagree because they have different ideas about the best ways to help people, not because the conservatives villainously want to hurt people and liberals heroically try to defend them. If you find yourself thinking along that Saturday-morning-cartoon line, stop, backtrack, and think again.
If a Muslim group is trying to conduct their own affairs according to Sharia law and they're not committing any crimes in doing so, then the Supreme Court damn well better let them. American backlash against this would be an example of anti-Islamic bigotry, not admirable in the slightest, and contrary to the principles enshrined in the First Amendment. I say this as an atheist who hates pretty much everything mainstream Islam stands for.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
http://images.politico.com/global/2014/07/03/13a1284.pdf
I have to agree with Sotomayor's dissent here - the act of filling out a brief form is about as minimally restrictive of an accommodation as one could imagine. The idea that this places an unreasonable burden on anyone's freedom of religion is asinine, especially in light of Alito's remarks about this exemption in the Hobby Lobby case. Can anyone defend why Wheaton deserves an injunction here?
Soooo, how do I stop hating republicans? And by impose I meant that they would enforce sharia law on everyone, not just that group.
I know that's what you meant. I was trying to remind you that it was disanalogous to the case at hand.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Conservatives on this forum have been called racist pricks, stupid and women haters, among other things that get overlooked by the moderators here. Call the liberals who are arguing against this ruling loons and it gets moderated. Its once again selective enforcement of the rules and results in the forums moderators hiding behind the their power to get rid of people they do not like.
I'm constantly amazed at how the moderators and the senior staff of this forum overlooks the clear evidence of selective enforcement and deny my appeals with out a single ******* word on why I'm held to a different standard. They can not or will not even attempt to explain why my post are strictly enforced while other inflammatory comments go unchecked, I could list example after example. Tiax can repeat and troll incessantly with out nary of a word, I repeated my self a single time, I get an infraction. This the why the forum leans so far left. Liberals can not tolerate getting the same treatment as conservatives get. I'm not even a ******* conservative either. My guess is the liberal base on the forum got all butt hurt over it and reported me consequently their saviors needed to protect them.
thought I'd at least earn an honest infraction before they ban me for good because its obvious to me by now, they are not interested in hearing any appeals that center around the clear and evident bias of the moderators, which I've pointed out to them several times among the several bull***** infractions I've received. I've resorted to breaking the rules so at least some people will see the bull***** these moderators pull and if I'm able to stop one person from patronizing this site in the few hours this post will last, I'll be happy.
its okay to call a group of people racist pricks
its not okay to call a group of people loons
You try to figure it out....
its okay to call a group of people racist pricks
its not okay to call a group of people loons
You try to figure it out....
Carry on.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I haven't been following the thread since last month (I needed a break from Debate), but yikes has this devolved. There is a lot of propaganda out there (on both sides). Look, the ruling sucks and I was disappointed by it, but it's not the end of the world. Seeing how broadly this applies will be the real issue here, since 90% of companies in the US meet the requirement for closely held corporations, it has opened up the flood gates. I have a few points to make:
It's definitely a little much to say that women are being oppressed with this decision, mostly because it's a lot more broad than that. I will say that having inadequate access to preventive medicine is harmful to anyone. No one is taking it away from you, but public health overall would be improved if it was there.
'Birth Control' is a colloquial term. Everything I said before about the uses are true, the difficulty is separating the medical terms from the common use of the term, because we've often been referring to these two separate things interchangeably in this thread. I mentioned before that it's billed separately when it's used for a health issue, but there are really only three possible outcomes from this: either doctors just start prescribing it as a preventive medicine for ovarian cysts, or insurance companies stop covering certain products altogether regardless of use, or a whole lot of women simply aren't going to be able to afford them. I'm not really sure how it will pan out, probably a mix of all three. The appropriate next step here for the Feds is to subsidize the cost of birth control, like we do for vaccines. How realistic this is, I don't know.
Birth control is not a **** pill for 'recreational activities', contrary to popular belief. Most families in this country only want and can support 2 children, but women generally have a good 35 years where they're capable of having children. But sex is an important part of reaffirming love and commitment in a relationship, so you're not really pro-family values if you think it's for fun alone. And when you combine the inherent sex drive of humans with the poor sexual education we provide people and the difficulty accessing health resources and the stigma surrounding unmarried women who engage in sex, it's really not surprising that places like Texas have the highest rates of unmarried mothers.
And then there are more than the health ramifications. Women who have full control over their reproduction and access to health care are going to be better able to contribute to society (and this goes all the way back to proper sexual education: I'm looking at you, Texas). Pregnancy is dangerous for women, not just from a health standpoint but an economic and social one. Child care is not cheap or easy to come by, which is why so many people choose to leave work to raise their children. They're expected to be primary care takers for their children, and ostracized when they can't balance the need to bring home money and take perfect care of their children. And the women least likely to be able to afford birth control on their own are the most at risk for being kept in poverty, or falling into poverty because of pregnancy.
Honestly, this ruling was a blow, because I personally don't think that religious beliefs should be given credence over public health. The coverage of birth control was in the ACA for reason, it's almost unanimously viewed by healthcare and public health people as a huge boon for the health of women. So while people are understandably angry, it doesn't actually change anything for the women who didn't have it covered before.
This 'War on Women' stuff is definitely alarmist, or at the very least inaccurate, because women aren't deliberately being targeted by this. The problem is an archaic belief system that, while valuable pre-modern medicine in keeping children pumping out, is significantly less so when we've got legitimate overpopulation concerns.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
It does, however, absolve them of the charge of insincerity you were leveling at them.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Did you read the paycheck fairness act? It was a waste of time that did nothing but give trial lawyers a new avenue to make bank.
The domestic violence bill should have been passed, but what do you say to 40% of domestic abuse victims being male but only 15% of domestic violence cases have a male victim? You don't think that is a huge problem?
Women can still use whatever birth control they want. To my knowledge, Hobby Lobby isn't drug testing these women and firing them if they have said birth control in their systems.
That is the diametric opposite of specificity.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The best possible response.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
This is a cool idea that I fully support, but let me explain why it won't get them anywhere. The easiest way is via analogy.
Almost everybody can make a slam-dunk on a basketball hoop that's 4-5 feet (1.5m) above the ground. It's super easy. But a regulation hoop (10ft/3m) is challenging to dunk, and only tall or talented people can do it.
A normal law like the ACA only has to meet the "rational basis standard" to be constitutional. This standard is like dunking on a 4ft hoop. Almost every law will meet this standard. Hobby Lobby got their exception from the law because the RFRA imposes a "strict scrutiny" standard on laws that impact freedom of religion. The ACA could dunk on a low hoop, but Hobby Lobby's challenge raised the hoop up to 10ft and it couldn't make it. (A 15ft hoop might be a better analogy. It's very hard to satisfy strict scrutiny.)
But Roe v Wade says that first-trimester abortion is a fundamental right, meaning all laws that regulate it need to meet the strict scrutiny test from the start. A law regulating abortion has to be dunking on a 10ft hoop right out of the gates. So the satanists aren't raising the hoop by invoking the RFRA. They're just challenging the law under the same standard that anyone - satanist or not - could challenge the law.
We talked around this issue, as you insisted (rightfully) that it needs to exist for anyone to invest in a company, and my point was that imposing religious beliefs on a corporate entity would be an unfair one-way street though it.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath