SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[dps]

I still don't understand the mindset.  Almost seems like a hobby.

I call bullshit on you not understanding the mindset. If you have two lemonade stands side by side, one with the kid wanting to sell lemonade to buy a bike and one kid selling lemonade to buy 10 pounds of candy to eat by himself, where would you spend your money?

Just because I asked what the kids are trying to buy and you didn't doesn't make me stupid.

I think the point is why should I give a shit what the want they money for?  If they both charged the same price, I'd buy from the one I figured had the better tasting lemonade;  if the expected product quality was the same (which it probably would be in this scenario), then I'd base it on price.  If both were the same, then probably whichever one I came to first while walking down the street.

And besides, though I hate to admit it, if I was one of the kids, I'd probably be the one intending to buy the 10 lb bag of candy.  Well, actually, I'd hope to make enough money to buy both.

[frunk]

To be honest, no. Materially speaking there is no way that any financial contribution I could make to the Greens would have any noticeable effect on their chances in elections, either locally in my District/County or nationally. In those circumstances my own personal satisfaction would (and rationally should) automatically win.

Isn't this the same argument given by those who choose not to vote because their one vote "won't have any noticeable effect" and they'd rather not spend the time and effort thereby increasing their own personal satisfaction?

[Agelastus]

To be honest, no. Materially speaking there is no way that any financial contribution I could make to the Greens would have any noticeable effect on their chances in elections, either locally in my District/County or nationally. In those circumstances my own personal satisfaction would (and rationally should) automatically win.

Isn't this the same argument given by those who choose not to vote because their one vote "won't have any noticeable effect" and they'd rather not spend the time and effort thereby increasing their own personal satisfaction?

It may be; however since I've always voted I'd consider it irrational of them to do so from my personal viewpoint. If you don't actively vote you're effectively passively supporting whoever comes top of the poll.

I'd consider it foolish of them as well; there's been enough close votes in various constituencies in General Elections, let alone the perennially close votes in Local Council elections, to render such a position untenable.

Unfortunately depending on the election up to two-thirds of my countrymen seem not to share my view.

[Ideologue]

I think the reason might be more like I want to eat and wear clothes.

Surely there are socialist-minded co-ops you can buy from for both.

And I hope you at least remove or cover up any brand tags on your clothes.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to just exit society as a martyr.  I may think 99% of you are immoral shits, but I still need you.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Okay well to make it more on point (and remove any notion of illegality) - I give someone $50 for snow plowing my lawn and I know that person has been raising money to donate  it to some organization that is against gay people. I don't know that I'd say I was a responsible for their action but I would feel bad knowing that I was part of the process in donating money to a cause whose aim is to hurt me.

You wouldn't be in the process. He's the one donating the money. I think you have a poor concept of property ownership.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Or, again, I just don't want my money going toward organizations that I don't agree with.

You and garbon,wow--how long after you've given over tender for goods/services rendered do you believe the money is still "yours?" If you grab it back out of the cash register before the clerk closes the drawer, is it fair game? Do you have a personal relationship with the unit of money, and you are going to follow its exploits through the economy like an errant child? 

It stops being your money when you give it to someone else in exchange for something. I guess the basics of a capitalist economy were not taught to you guys.

[OttoVonBismarck]

And back on topic:

I don't know what that's about, but since homos aren't a protected class under Federal law there is little actions Obama could take legally to give them special protections. But he of course is okay acting extralegally--see his illegal appointment of NLRB members.

But I suspect the unlinked nonsense you were quoting probably refers to the very limited EEOC initiative to get certain protections for transgendered persons in the work place, so it's really more of a "T" than an LGBT. And really it's more of a gender thing, the EEOC can only work under existing protected classes and being transgendered isn't one of them, but they can choose to recognize transgendered persons as their identified gender and insure they receive limited gender appropriate protections.

[sbr]

I've seen some dumb-assery around her but you take the cake on this one Otto. 

[garbon]

I've seen some dumb-assery around her but you take the cake on this one Otto. 

Seriously. I don't understand how hard it is to understand why someone might take issue with giving funds that they know will be used to hurt them or someone else they care about.

Of course, we've been using simple examples and the real world doesn't function like that. That's probably why I haven't boycotted an organization for political reasons as I've never seen evidence of such definite linkage between my money and what happens next. It isn't hard for me to understand why someone like Meri might draw a different line though.

[Ideologue]

Despite your Portlandomania, I do want to point out that I don't think it's a misuse of funds or waste of time to try to economically punish bad actors.  It's a free country and if it makes you feel gross to eat at Chik-Fil-A, so you don't, that's great.  Their bland-ass chicken and inadequately salted waffle fries make me feel the same way.  Also the homophobia, I guess.  But that's nothing more nor less than consumer choice, the one aspect of the free market I wouldn't destroy.

[frunk]

If you don't actively vote you're effectively passively supporting whoever comes top of the poll.

You are concerned about passively supporting a party you hate by not voting, but don't mind actively supporting the same party by giving them money as long as they give you food?  Could they buy your vote with food?

[garbon]

I don't eat at Chik-Fil-A because there is a sum total of one near me and it is in a school cafeteria. I've never had it so I've no idea if your description is accurate or not.

[garbon]

If you don't actively vote you're effectively passively supporting whoever comes top of the poll.

You are concerned about passively supporting a party you hate by not voting, but don't mind actively supporting a party by giving them money as long as they give you food?  Could they buy your vote with food?

Yeah I feel like there's a gap in his reasoning.

[MadImmortalMan]

Bad actors are pretty much a given in a mixture made up of humans. I've never encountered an organization which didn't have at least one member who would render them boycott-worthy.

[Agelastus]

If you don't actively vote you're effectively passively supporting whoever comes top of the poll.

You are concerned about passively supporting a party you hate by not voting, but don't mind actively supporting the same party by giving them money as long as they give you food?  Could they buy your vote with food?

No.