SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[garbon]

the only person who has any right to interfere with what the kid wants to buy with the money he/she's earned is his/her's parents.

That strikes me as a terrible stance. Parents don't always know better and society has a dog in the fight as we have to deal with the consequences of shitty parenting.

Jumping to the universal from such a limited example is a tad extreme, isn't it?

A universal?   You can stick just to that example of a kid buying all that candy to eat by himself.

[merithyn]

I wasn't disagreeing with the concept though.

I meant "you" in the universal.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Then I'm not sure why you offered the example that you did.

To point out that if you give money to someone, you are not morally responsible for what they do next. I never posited you'd have perfect knowledge of their future actions, I'm not the one who said "what if you knew they were saving $5000 for a hit man." In that case you have an overwhelming moral responsibility to alert the police, while it'd be silly to do so I still don't think buying something from that person's store would be immoral. Just why would you do that before going straight to the police?

[garbon]

Then I'm not sure why you offered the example that you did.

To point out that if you give money to someone, you are not morally responsible for what they do next. I never posited you'd have perfect knowledge of their future actions, I'm not the one who said "what if you knew they were saving $5000 for a hit man." In that case you have an overwhelming moral responsibility to alert the police, while it'd be silly to do so I still don't think buying something from that person's store would be immoral. Just why would you do that before going straight to the police?

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. 

[frunk]

To point out that if you give money to someone, you are not morally responsible for what they do next. I never posited you'd have perfect knowledge of their future actions, I'm not the one who said "what if you knew they were saving $5000 for a hit man." In that case you have an overwhelming moral responsibility to alert the police, while it'd be silly to do so I still don't think buying something from that person's store would be immoral. Just why would you do that before going straight to the police?

It's not a matter of being morally responsible, it's to avoid giving money to someone/thing who's actions you don't like.

[Agelastus]

the only person who has any right to interfere with what the kid wants to buy with the money he/she's earned is his/her's parents.

That strikes me as a terrible stance. Parents don't always know better and society has a dog in the fight as we have to deal with the consequences of shitty parenting.

Jumping to the universal from such a limited example is a tad extreme, isn't it?

A universal?   You can stick just to that example of a kid buying all that candy to eat by himself.

I fail to see the ; you jumped straight from a specific limited example of juvenile entrepeneurship and its relation to parental authority to an extrapolation of the universal concept of parental authority in any situation.

So to satisfy you I'll amend it to the phrase "parents or designated guardians" since even though I feel the trend is going to far in my country at the moment I am quite aware that there are situations where external interventions are necessary.

Now you tell me who else's business it is in this specific, limited example? It's certainly not the customer's, ie. mine. Just as it would not be the place of their parents or guardians to dictate to my (sadly hypothetical) child what or what not he wished to purchase with his own money.

Now, if he was my (sadly hypothetical) child, then the issue of him wanting to buy so much candy would be my responsibility and would be frowned at. Most severely.

Of course, if he was my (sadly hypothetical) child he'd probably be buying not candy or a bicycle but Lego (a choice I made one Christmas as a child and I suspect a love of construction toys is genetic as it runs in both the female and male lines in my family.)

Although Merithyn would disagree with me - but then on the issues of purchasing my position is much closer to Otto's than hers so that's not at all surprising.

Although, of course, all you have to do is change the example a little and then I would be morally obligated to intervene by contacting both the child's parents and the police. Say the kid wants to buy a knife. Or he wants to buy drugs. Both are dangerous and illegal and would morally oblige me to take a more pro-active stance.

-----------

Merithyn seems to be more of a universal interventionist/moralist whereas I'm more of a by neccessity interventionist/moralist.

[frunk]

If the local chapter of the KKK held a fundraising dinner and they were serving a really nice meal at a reasonable price, would you go?

[Agelastus]

If the local chapter of the KKK held a fundraising dinner and they were serving a really nice meal at a reasonable price, would you go?

One of the few cases where the moral choice is probably to "Dine and Dash" (assuming I remembered the phrase correctly.)

[merithyn]

To point out that if you give money to someone, you are not morally responsible for what they do next. I never posited you'd have perfect knowledge of their future actions, I'm not the one who said "what if you knew they were saving $5000 for a hit man." In that case you have an overwhelming moral responsibility to alert the police, while it'd be silly to do so I still don't think buying something from that person's store would be immoral. Just why would you do that before going straight to the police?

It's not a matter of being morally responsible, it's to avoid giving money to someone/thing who's actions you don't like.

That's lost on Otto, frunk. I've explained that 15 different ways, and each time he brings it back around to somehow being responsible for someone else's morality.

[merithyn]

Merithyn seems to be more of a universal interventionist/moralist whereas I'm more of a by neccessity interventionist/moralist.

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

I don't think a child should buy 10 pounds of candy to eat by himself, and instead, I have the option of supporting a child who wants to buy something I think will benefit him. So, I make a choice that fits my personal ethics and supports something that I agree with while not supporting something that I don't agree with.

If the local chapter of the KKK held a fundraising dinner and they were serving a really nice meal at a reasonable price, would you go?

One of the few cases where the moral choice is probably to "Dine and Dash" (assuming I remembered the phrase correctly.)

But surely you can understand someone NOT choosing to do so.

[merithyn]

And back on topic:

This week, in the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court ruled that a religious employer could not be required to provide employees with certain types of contraception. That decision is beginning to reverberate: A group of faith leaders is urging the Obama administration to include a religious exemption in a forthcoming LGBT anti-discrimination action.

Their call, in a letter sent to the White House Tuesday, attempts to capitalize on the Supreme Court case by arguing that it shows the administration must show more deference to the prerogatives of religion.

"We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need," the letter states.

The Hobby Lobby decision has been welcomed by religious-right groups who accuse Obama of waging a war on religion. But Tuesday's letter is different: It comes from a group of faith leaders who are generally friendly to the administration, many of whom have closely advised the White House on issues like immigration reform. The letter was organized by Michael Wear, who worked in the Obama White House and directed faith outreach for the president's 2012 campaign. Signers include two members of Catholics for Obama and three former members of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

"This is not an antagonistic letter by any means," Wear told me. But in the wake of Hobby Lobby, he said, "the administration does have a decision to make whether they want to recalibrate their approach to some of these issues."

[Agelastus]

If the local chapter of the KKK held a fundraising dinner and they were serving a really nice meal at a reasonable price, would you go?

One of the few cases where the moral choice is probably to "Dine and Dash" (assuming I remembered the phrase correctly.)

But surely you can understand someone NOT choosing to do so.

I never said I didn't; my position is that although I understand the choice exists I think it has no place in general in purchasing decisions. But that's just where my values lie compared to yours.

[frunk]

But surely you can understand someone NOT choosing to do so.

I never said I didn't; my position is that although I understand the choice exists I think it has no place in general in purchasing decisions. But that's just where my values lie compared to yours.

So in my example you consider not going to be the inconceivable action?  Since it is a good meal at a reasonable price it must be eaten, and if I don't like the people selling it I'll skip out on the bill?  Since you are not paying why does the price matter?

[crazy canuck]

If the local chapter of the KKK held a fundraising dinner and they were serving a really nice meal at a reasonable price, would you go?

One of the few cases where the moral choice is probably to "Dine and Dash" (assuming I remembered the phrase correctly.)

But surely you can understand someone NOT choosing to do so.

I never said I didn't; my position is that although I understand the choice exists I think it has no place in general in purchasing decisions. But that's just where my values lie compared to yours.

So if you knew that a portion of the profits of store A went to fund something you thought was odious you would continue to shop there because you believe such a thing plays no role in your purchasing decision?

[derspiess]

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.

Not really a good analogy, as it doesn't relate at all to real day to day consumer activity.  To me buying lemonade from a kid who has a lemonade stand is primarily a donation.  If I'm buying, it's probably not because I'm really thirsty-- it's because I want to help the kid out. 

And if I were in that scenario I'd probably buy from both and not bother asking what they plan to do with the money.