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.
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.
Flame infraction! - Senori
Quote from White House »
President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them.
Hobby Lobby is not making personal health care decisions for it's employees. Its not forcing them to have sex which incidently leads to the need for contraceptives and Its not preventing them from getting contraceptives or having sex. No choice is being made for employees. An employee does not get to decide whether or not a company provides insurance. In essesse they have it backwards...POTUS is trying to get employees/government to make religious and moral decisions for the companies.
“Today’s decision jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these companies.”
Okay, so Hobby Lobby is not to make personal health care decisons for women but the supreme court/hobby lobby is somehow responsible for women making decisions to have sex and not buy or obtain certian kinds contraceptives before hand thereby jepordizing their health. I guess the white house fails to understand if they had not broken the law in the impelmentation of the ACA, these women would not be having these purported issues.
That’s why we’ve taken steps to ensure that no religious institution will have to pay or provide for contraceptive coverage. We’ve also made accommodations for non-profit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds
This is where the government failed and failed hard. They obviously agree the contraceptives issues is entwined with 1st admendment issues except they attempted to exclude certain entities while including others. In other words, the government decided who or what gets relgious freedom from this law and who doesnt.
“But we believe that the owners of for-profit companies should not be allowed to assert their personal religious views to deny their employees federally mandated benefits.”
So POTUS belives he gets decide who gets relgious freedom and who doesnt and its seems to be the only metric he uses is profit. I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why profit should prelcude the same religious accomdations made to other coroporations.
Contraceptives aren't tattoos. They're a little more useful than that. The major problem that you're overlooking is that the company where someone happened to be able to find work is now able to deny part of the healthcare coverage based on their beliefs. When put into effect on a large scale this absolutely contributes to an environment in which women have less protections. This is only one step on the way to the right-wing goal of legal control of women's bodies.
How can a woman have less protection when they started with no protection at all?
I am not a lawyer, so my understanding of the opinion is probably imperfect, but it seems to spend some time on the fact that the plaintiff believes the contraception methods in question to be abortifacients (contrary to the standard definition of such). Is the ruling related to other rulings on abortion? (And if so, is 'sincerely held religious belief' taking the place of fact?)
(Also it seems to be laser-targeted on the contraception issue, mentioning that such things as vaccinations will not be affected by this ruling, despite the sincerely held beliefs of some faiths that refuse them.)
Saving life and stopping the creation of life are two different things. Further, we are talking about four contraceptives, not all contraceptives. I do not think the ruling would be the same if hobby lobby rejected all contraceptives. So in this case, it appears the be the type of contraceptive and not contraceptives as a whole. There are other options for contraceptives and the government has other means to provide it if they are going to mandate it as an entitlment.
From a plethora of sources it seems evident that the demographic anomaly of blacks being disproportionately over-represented in our major sports is not a result of a unique biological predisposition to excel.
It doesn't need to be 100% reliable, or the best indicator, in order to be a useful one. You were the one who made the blanket claims about the absolute uselessness of considering race in this regard.
No, I said it was irrational. I've never speak in absolutes, or at least try not. I think observing skin color is useful in determing race, not basketball skills.
At that level all of the traits/characteristics known to be linked to a given race can be useful.
Its irrational to use skin color to determine who plays basketball better. Of all the measurables you can use to determine skill, race is one of the most arbitary metrics. Race is not a factor when professional sports teams select a player in the draft and they are known to measure everything about an athlete.
It's not a straw man. The observance of racial disparity of people playing basketball on TV is not a valid indicator of skill for any random person. You are basically picking people based on color. Say you can only look and examine their skin color and I can look and examine their shoes. I would be willing to bet the results of my team will outshine yours. Another example. The best basketball players are often tall but this does not make all tall people better basketball players.
Obviously the color of the skin isn't magically providing traits. But OTOH we do know that the same gene pool that provides that color also tends to produce other traits. Knowledge of those traits and how they correlate with race could conceivably be useful in MANY decision making processes, something you denied but I showed you with a very simple example.
I still deny it. The observance of racial disparity of people playing basketball on TV is not a valid indicator of skill for any random person. You are basically picking people based on color.
Lets take another example: Say we are vaccinating for a disease and we know that people of race X are most susceptible to the disease. With limited quantities of the vaccine available we have to choose who gets the vaccine. We can ignore race and apply the vaccine randomly, or we can consider race and apply accordingly. The latter will have higher efficacy, yes?
I refute the premise. You only provide two options for the application. Random or by race. Maybe a simple test will produce the best candidates for the vacine. Your hypothetical leaves a lot to be desired. I do not accept a premise that holds absolutely that one race is more susceptible than another. You've designed your hypothetical in such a way it can only lead to one conclusion, when if allowed to take in other much more reliable variables and evidence (such as testing for the disease) the answer will possibly change.
Study after study has indicated geographical and culture conditions is more responsible for medical conditions than the color of skin. While you can attempt to use race to determine a characteristic, its unreliable, mostly because its just a color and too broad of a identifier to determine any random individuals characteristics.
Again, relevance? Not sure how discussing the characteristics of the literal color is useful here. (when we know that color in the context of race can be linked to various traits)
You are selecting a team of basketball players solely based on the color of their skin. I bet I could build a better basketball team by looking at the shoes they are wearing. I disagree, I think the color of a persons skin is an indicator of nothing more than color of their skin.
when we know that color in the context of race can be linked to various traits
Color of skin magically provides traits to people? This is not a sane argument.
Obviously, I'm pointing out the irrelevance of skin color when it comes to determining the basketball skill of a human being.
IDK, it seems like there are a number of decision making processes for which knowing "racial superiority" for a given activity could be useful. If I have to pick a team of basketball players and all I have to go on is skin color it would be useful for me to know that people of one color tend to be best at the sport, yes?
Can you please tell us the inherent characteristics of the color black?
If you have no intention of reading evidence, statistics, or data, then there really isn't much of a point in me typing things in your direction, is there?
Give me a rational reason to rank the inherent characteristics of a color, this is exactly what you do when you say black anything is better than white anything.
After skimming the opinion it seems the critical issue was the majority not seeing a distinguishable difference between non-profit and for-profit corporation when applied to the RFRA, i.e. a corporation is a corporation regardless of their profit status and non-profits corporations are indisputably protected by the RFRA and there is no stipulations in the law that precludes "for-profit" or "corporations" from its protections but it does seem to acknowledge the difference between closely held and widely held corporations.
I'm lost as to what your point is. If you think providing irrelevant empirical evidence somehow validates an argument, well good for you. Storm front uses the empirical evidence to obfuscate the issue and I agree, they are very clever at it.
My point was mainly for Crushing00 about his post; not to trivialize your own post, billydaman. It was a fine post.
Anyway, the CliffsNotes version of my point is just because someone shoulders the burden of proof (i.e. makes a 'rational argument' as Crushing00 defines it) doesn't mean they're automatically exempt from being racist. That's why I put in bold: A well read racist shouldering the burden of proof is STILL a racist. That was the main crux of my argument.
Does that clear things up a bit for you, billydaman?
It's absurd. It seems to me you think of rational argument is only about showing empirical evidence or using big words but they must also be able to apply and demonstrate why that evidence is pertinent in a logical, sound way that will stand up to scrutiny.
I'll make it simple for you, name the only logical reason to measure racial superiority at an activity (A: its to find out racial superiority) then tell me why its rational to find out which race is inherently superior. No matter how much evidence, statistics or facts you produce nothing changes the irrationality of measuring racial superiority. This central idea has been the primary logic to destroy arguments such as privilege or any other fundamentally racist premise. There is no need to read the evidence, statistics or data.
You refute the entire premise of a debate centering around racial superiority due to the irrational nature of it. It is not sane to think the color of your skin has any bearing on your abilities or characteristics as a human being, other than the color of your skin. You are essentially arguing which color of the pie has the best inherent qualities..
Caucasians are inherently more intelligent than African Americans
Quote from in the first few paragraphs or pro"s argument »
After all, if genetics play any role in the higher IQs observed in Caucasian Americans, then Caucasian Americans are "inherently" more intelligent.
So, what I have to do in this debate is show that Caucasian Americans have higher average IQs than African Americans, and that this is influenced, at least partially, by genetic factors.
Quote from second or third rebuttal way down the page of pro"s argument »
My opponent has an odd view of what this debate is about. He basically claims that I have to show that there is some genetic link between race and intelligence.This would lead me to having to defend the absurd position that all whites are smarter than all blacks. As I said, that is clearly not true.
Although tedious, its rather easy to see the not so subtle pivots in pro's argument.
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.
Flame infraction! - Senori
Hobby Lobby is not making personal health care decisions for it's employees. Its not forcing them to have sex which incidently leads to the need for contraceptives and Its not preventing them from getting contraceptives or having sex. No choice is being made for employees. An employee does not get to decide whether or not a company provides insurance. In essesse they have it backwards...POTUS is trying to get employees/government to make religious and moral decisions for the companies.
Okay, so Hobby Lobby is not to make personal health care decisons for women but the supreme court/hobby lobby is somehow responsible for women making decisions to have sex and not buy or obtain certian kinds contraceptives before hand thereby jepordizing their health. I guess the white house fails to understand if they had not broken the law in the impelmentation of the ACA, these women would not be having these purported issues.
This is where the government failed and failed hard. They obviously agree the contraceptives issues is entwined with 1st admendment issues except they attempted to exclude certain entities while including others. In other words, the government decided who or what gets relgious freedom from this law and who doesnt.
So POTUS belives he gets decide who gets relgious freedom and who doesnt and its seems to be the only metric he uses is profit. I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why profit should prelcude the same religious accomdations made to other coroporations.
How can a woman have less protection when they started with no protection at all?
I get it, its "fair" to mandate someone to pay for something for someone else, if you object, you hate women. Sounds like a chain-mail.
Saving life and stopping the creation of life are two different things. Further, we are talking about four contraceptives, not all contraceptives. I do not think the ruling would be the same if hobby lobby rejected all contraceptives. So in this case, it appears the be the type of contraceptive and not contraceptives as a whole. There are other options for contraceptives and the government has other means to provide it if they are going to mandate it as an entitlment.
http://www.science.smith.edu/exer_sci/ESS200/Raceh/Raceh.htm
No, I said it was irrational. I've never speak in absolutes, or at least try not. I think observing skin color is useful in determing race, not basketball skills.
Its irrational to use skin color to determine who plays basketball better. Of all the measurables you can use to determine skill, race is one of the most arbitary metrics. Race is not a factor when professional sports teams select a player in the draft and they are known to measure everything about an athlete.
It's not a straw man. The observance of racial disparity of people playing basketball on TV is not a valid indicator of skill for any random person. You are basically picking people based on color. Say you can only look and examine their skin color and I can look and examine their shoes. I would be willing to bet the results of my team will outshine yours. Another example. The best basketball players are often tall but this does not make all tall people better basketball players.
I still deny it. The observance of racial disparity of people playing basketball on TV is not a valid indicator of skill for any random person. You are basically picking people based on color.
I refute the premise. You only provide two options for the application. Random or by race. Maybe a simple test will produce the best candidates for the vacine. Your hypothetical leaves a lot to be desired. I do not accept a premise that holds absolutely that one race is more susceptible than another. You've designed your hypothetical in such a way it can only lead to one conclusion, when if allowed to take in other much more reliable variables and evidence (such as testing for the disease) the answer will possibly change.
Study after study has indicated geographical and culture conditions is more responsible for medical conditions than the color of skin. While you can attempt to use race to determine a characteristic, its unreliable, mostly because its just a color and too broad of a identifier to determine any random individuals characteristics.
You are selecting a team of basketball players solely based on the color of their skin. I bet I could build a better basketball team by looking at the shoes they are wearing. I disagree, I think the color of a persons skin is an indicator of nothing more than color of their skin.
Color of skin magically provides traits to people? This is not a sane argument.
Obviously, I'm pointing out the irrelevance of skin color when it comes to determining the basketball skill of a human being.
So nothing in there about basketball? Am I right?
Can you please tell us the inherent characteristics of the color black?
Give me a rational reason to rank the inherent characteristics of a color, this is exactly what you do when you say black anything is better than white anything.
It's absurd. It seems to me you think of rational argument is only about showing empirical evidence or using big words but they must also be able to apply and demonstrate why that evidence is pertinent in a logical, sound way that will stand up to scrutiny.
I'll make it simple for you, name the only logical reason to measure racial superiority at an activity (A: its to find out racial superiority) then tell me why its rational to find out which race is inherently superior. No matter how much evidence, statistics or facts you produce nothing changes the irrationality of measuring racial superiority. This central idea has been the primary logic to destroy arguments such as privilege or any other fundamentally racist premise. There is no need to read the evidence, statistics or data.
You refute the entire premise of a debate centering around racial superiority due to the irrational nature of it. It is not sane to think the color of your skin has any bearing on your abilities or characteristics as a human being, other than the color of your skin. You are essentially arguing which color of the pie has the best inherent qualities..
Although tedious, its rather easy to see the not so subtle pivots in pro's argument.