Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Do Corporations 'Believe'?Follow

#77 Mar 26 2014 at 8:45 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
So you're saying that you see things that aren't there?
I'm not so far gone that I see your points making any sense in any real world context, so I'm still good.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#78 Mar 26 2014 at 9:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So you're saying that you see things that aren't there?
I'm not so far gone that I see your points making any sense in any real world context, so I'm still good.


So you're failing to see things that are there. Well, that's not good. You should seek help!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Mar 26 2014 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
So you're failing to see things that are there.
Right, I see your points make no sense. Glad we both agree on that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#80 Mar 26 2014 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's the correct statement.

It's not. The ACA was already ruled constitutional so the answer to your constant whine about it is "Because it was ruled to be constitutional". The only question here is one of religion.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Mar 26 2014 at 9:43 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
I'm still trying to puzzle out how subsidizing gbaji's mortgage is "for the common good of society", but subsidized health care is not.

I guess I'm just really stupid, huh?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#82 Mar 27 2014 at 1:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Gbaji wrote:
That's the correct statement. They should have ruled that the government should not be allowed to regulate in this way. Period. But because they stupidly let the mandate stand, now they're forced to decide which religious beliefs should qualify for exceptions.
No religion will get an exception to this. Problem solved!

ACA held up in court so this whole "but I'm religious!" case is just butthurt.
#83 Mar 27 2014 at 6:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
How about "everyone can choose what health care to provide to their employees for any reason they want". Done. See how by simply *not* infringing our rights in the first place solves the whole problem?

Good idea, but hang on now....rule of law, right....right. Turns out there is a law that requires employees to provide a minimum level of healthcare insurance to their employees. Done. Just follow the law. See how that solves the whole problem? Don't attempt to carve out an exemption for just your company to save a small amount of money. Do you see how just following the law fixes everything?

It's sort of like you think businesses can ignore law entirely and do whatever they want. Remember when you thought it would be totally cool for businesses to just hire white people because they could do whatever they wanted? Ahh...good times, good times. This is sort of like that. Law exists. It can be followed or ignored, if ignored enforcement actions will take place. I realize the philosophical vision you hold is "wahhhhh! wahhhh! that doesn't apply to me!!! I want all of the services without paying anything ever wahhhhhhh!" Sadly, though, society can't actually function that way.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#84 Mar 27 2014 at 7:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
This is so blatantly NOT a religious-devotion thing but a political-butthurt thing it's gag-worthy.

I'm tempted to write someone and give them my two-cents about the blatant waste of time and resources of our highest court forced to debate this malarkey.




____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#85 Mar 27 2014 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'm still trying to puzzle out how subsidizing gbaji's mortgage is "for the common good of society", but subsidized health care is not.
Oh, you know. Rich people taking advantage of codes and loopholes is for the creation of jobs and the betterment of society, but poor people taking advantage of codes and loopholes are scum and deserve to die.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#86 Mar 27 2014 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Quote:
Sigh. No. No employer should be forced by the government to provide any specific health coverage at all.


No, we can't let corporations cherry-pick bits and pieces out of healthcare packages. Women's healthcare is just as important as men's.

Quote:
Sure. Are you saying that the harm to society by person A not paying for person B's birth control is so massive that it justifies violating the 1st amendment rights in order to avoid it?


I'm still trying to figure out what rights are being infringed by this. No one is telling the owners of Hobby Lobby they can't practice their religion. They just can't force everyone else to practice it as well. Corporations don't have the right to control their employees' reproductive systems. They don't tell their employees they can't go out and buy condoms with their salaries, why can they dictate any other part of the benefits package?

Hobby Lobby is going to lose, they will have spent a boatload of money, and they probably will have lost a lot of good employees. There's far more people on the right side of this issue than on your side. It's just a huge waste of time and money for absolutely nothing, but you know what? I'll take another victory for women's' rights.
#87 Mar 27 2014 at 11:34 AM Rating: Excellent
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
That's the correct statement. They should have ruled that the government should not be allowed to regulate in this way. Period. But because they stupidly let the mandate stand, now they're forced to decide which religious beliefs should qualify for exceptions.
No religion will get an exception to this. Problem solved!

ACA held up in court so this whole "but I'm religious!" case is just butthurt.


Specifically, religious institutions that are non-profit are already exempt from certain provisions - Catholic charity hospitals don't want to cover this either, so the government was like "fine - we'll pick up the tab for contraceptives."

For-profit, non-religious corporations don't get that special treatment.
#88 Mar 27 2014 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
If they aren't going to take a little extra time and weasel themselves into some "non-profit" status I don't see why we should cater to them. I mean, come on, let's meet half way on this one. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Mar 27th 2014 10:56am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#89 Mar 27 2014 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
If they aren't going to take a little extra time and weasel themselves into some "non-profit" status I don't see why we should cater to them. I mean, come on, let's meet half way on this one. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Mar 27th 2014 10:56am by someproteinguy

But then... no profit.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#90 Mar 27 2014 at 12:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Profit just means you hired crappy accountants. They should have been able to hide it better. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#91 Mar 27 2014 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Torrence wrote:
and they probably will have lost a lot of good employees.
Well, they do work at Hobby Lobby.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#92 Mar 27 2014 at 1:04 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
The way I figure it is if they train their employees properly they'll have no need for contraceptives or morning after pills.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#93 Mar 27 2014 at 1:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Profit just means you hired crappy accountants. They should have been able to hide it better. Smiley: schooled
They should pay closer attention to Hollywood. They even managed to make "horrendous losses" on the 6 billion dollar box office success of the lord of the rings trilogy.
#94 Mar 27 2014 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
They should pay closer attention to Hollywood.
Blow it up, walk away slowly towards the camera?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#95 Mar 27 2014 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
With a suitcase full of cash.
#96 Mar 27 2014 at 1:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
...and a supermodel girlfriend.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#97 Mar 27 2014 at 2:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's the correct statement.

It's not. The ACA was already ruled constitutional so the answer to your constant whine about it is "Because it was ruled to be constitutional". The only question here is one of religion.


In this specific case? Yes. However, our legal system doesn't use a "one ruling, one time" process. We have a number of rulings, over time, each influencing the next and over time defining the constitutional envelope of the issue at hand. It's just strange to me that someone who is an advocate of an ideology that more or less relies on this exact process in order to change the law gradually over time acts as though he doesn't understand the process when it's applied in opposition to his own ideological objectives.

You think that establishing precedence only works for progressive causes? It only works to change the law when things like gay marriage are on the line, but not things like property rights of employers? That's... naive as hell.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Mar 27 2014 at 2:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
How about "everyone can choose what health care to provide to their employees for any reason they want". Done. See how by simply *not* infringing our rights in the first place solves the whole problem?

Good idea, but hang on now....rule of law, right....right. Turns out there is a law that requires employees to provide a minimum level of healthcare insurance to their employees. Done. Just follow the law. See how that solves the whole problem? Don't attempt to carve out an exemption for just your company to save a small amount of money. Do you see how just following the law fixes everything?


Why thank you Smash! So when do we pass the law requiring all Jews to wear gold stars? Cause that was a hoot last time we did it! Oh wait! Sometimes "just following the law" is the wrong thing to do, isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Mar 27 2014 at 2:46 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
So when do we pass the law requiring all Jews to wear gold stars?
Comparing the other guy to a **** really worked out during the last election.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#100 Mar 27 2014 at 2:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Torrence wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out what rights are being infringed by this.


Um... Property rights for one? We start with the right to do with our property as we will, with the only restriction being uses of that property which infringe other people's rights. So the government can tell you that you can't legally run a person over with your car. It can't, however, tell you that you must give that person a free ride. Surely you can see why this has to be so, otherwise we kinda have to chuck out the notion that we have any rights at all.

Quote:
No one is telling the owners of Hobby Lobby they can't practice their religion.


Of course you are. You're are requiring them to perform an action which is in direct violation of their religious beliefs.

Quote:
They just can't force everyone else to practice it as well.


Hobby Lobby is not demanding that their employees not use contraceptives. They are simply asking that they not be required to pay for them. Please tell me you can see the difference?


Quote:
Corporations don't have the right to control their employees' reproductive systems. They don't tell their employees they can't go out and buy condoms with their salaries, why can they dictate any other part of the benefits package?


Read above. They're not telling their employees what they can do with their own money. They're saying that they shouldn't have to buy it for them. Again, it's shocking to me how many people honestly seem to be unable to see the difference in this. It's the difference between it being illegal to steal a sandwich from someone and it being illegal to not give a sandwich to someone. You can't rationally legislate positive rights because eventually you will run into absurd conditions that can't be resolved.

I also find it bizarre that you see not taking any action regarding someone's purchasing decisions "controlling their reproductive systems", but the government mandating what health care benefits must be provided is somehow less controlling? That makes no sense. You get that by having the mandate, the government is basically in the position of deciding what your health care consists of, right? Before, you could choose to buy whatever you wanted. Now, you no longer have that choice. But it's the opposition that's trying to control you?

That's completely backwards.

Quote:
Hobby Lobby is going to lose, they will have spent a boatload of money, and they probably will have lost a lot of good employees. There's far more people on the right side of this issue than on your side. It's just a huge waste of time and money for absolutely nothing, but you know what? I'll take another victory for women's' rights.


You actually think this is a women's rights issue? Wow.

Edited, Mar 27th 2014 1:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Mar 27 2014 at 2:57 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
well that took a long time to degenerate according to Godwin's law.

ITT: Employers being asked to follow a law which provides basic healthcare for all employees = holocaust.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 271 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (271)