SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[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 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.

Americans take their politics to seriously; if you can't see the humorous potential in attending a function of people who strike you as being nuts even when they're on guard in public then I pity you. And as I said despite despising her politics I'd quite like to meet Labour's Diane Abbott in a social setting given how impressive she is on a late night political show where she doesn't have to tow the party line.

[frunk]

Americans take their politics to seriously; if you can't see the humorous potential in attending a function of people who strike you as being nuts even when they're on guard in public then I pity you. And as I said despite despising her politics I'd quite like to meet Labour's Diane Abbott in a social setting given how impressive she is on a late night political show where she doesn't have to tow the party line.

It's not a question of how seriously you take it, it's a question of being willing to financially support a politically party you ostensibly detest.

[Caliga]

  Their bland-ass chicken and inadequately salted waffle fries make me feel the same way. 

Don't anger me.

Hm, maybe I'll go there for lunch today.

[Agelastus]

Americans take their politics to seriously; if you can't see the humorous potential in attending a function of people who strike you as being nuts even when they're on guard in public then I pity you. And as I said despite despising her politics I'd quite like to meet Labour's Diane Abbott in a social setting given how impressive she is on a late night political show where she doesn't have to tow the party line.

It's not a question of how seriously you take it, it's a question of being willing to financially support a politically party you ostensibly detest.

And here we're going round in circles; if my financial support could not possibly assist them in any significant material fashion why should I not go if I think the food will be good and that I'll find it amusing?

My vote, however, could assist them in a material way - hence why I withhold it from them.

But as I said political parties are a terrible test case when it comes to this thread.

[frunk]

And here we're going round in circles; if my financial support could not possibly assist them in any significant material fashion why should I not go if I think the food will be good and that I'll find it amusing?

My vote, however, could assist them in a material way - hence why I withhold it from them.

But as I said political parties are a terrible test case when it comes to this thread.

Who said your financial support could not possibly assist them in any significant material fashion, any more than your vote could?  Except in some extremely unlikely situations your one vote won't change the results of an election, so why wouldn't you get a hot meal out of it if they offered the deal?  In fact the bit of money is guaranteed to help them, even if it is a small amount, while the vote is much more likely to not make a bit of difference.

Let's extend the situation a little bit.  Let's say the Greens have so much success with their fundraising meals that they decide to open a restaurant.  Great food, good prices, 100% of the profits go towards Green political candidates.  How often do you eat there?

[merithyn]

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.

Here you go, Otto. A few links to help you understand that which you clearly don't.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hobby-lobby-religious-leaders-ask-gay-rights-exemption-2014-7
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/rick-warren-joins-letter-asking-obama-for-strong-religious-e
http://www.alternet.org/pandoras-box-wide-open-faith-leaders-ask-obama-exemptions-discriminate-against-lgbt-persons (Where that article came from)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/religious-leaders-want-exemption-hiring-lgbt-peopl/
http://www.lawblogs.net/2014/07/03/faith-leaders-ask-obama-to-include-religious-exemption-in-planned-lgbt-non-discrimination-executive-order

Have a field day.

[Eddie Teach]

  Their bland-ass chicken and inadequately salted waffle fries make me feel the same way. 

Don't anger me.

Hm, maybe I'll go there for lunch today.

I imagine a chicken sandwich, hold the chicken would be pretty bland.

[Agelastus]

Who said your financial support could not possibly assist them in any significant material fashion, any more than your vote could?

I did. And if I don't know how much I'm financially worth I'm in trouble. 

Except in some extremely unlikely situations your one vote won't change the results of an election, so why wouldn't you get a hot meal out of it if they offered the deal?

Less unlikely than you think in First Past the Post, especially when you get down to Local Elections; and building up strength locally tends to be how the smaller parties make their eventual breakthrough to Westminster these days.

In fact the bit of money is guaranteed to help them, even if it is a small amount, while the vote is much more likely to not make a bit of difference.

I'll just say that I strongly disagree here - see above.

Let's extend the situation a little bit.  Let's say the Greens have so much success with their fundraising meals that they decide to open a restaurant.  Great food, good prices, 100% of the profits go towards Green political candidates.  How often do you eat there?

Once it becomes a business it's even less of an issue - if I want to eat there I eat there; if I fancy something else that night I'll go somewhere else. I don't choose deliberately to eat at restaurants whose owners donate to the Conservative Party or to UKIP so why should I deliberately choose to not eat at a restaurant that supports the Green Party?

Besides, if some of their activists actually had to work in a restaurant for a while they might develop a bit more sense!

[frunk]

Less unlikely than you think in First Past the Post, especially when you get down to Local Elections; and building up strength locally tends to be how the smaller parties make their eventual breakthrough to Westminster these days.

Even with first past the post we are talking about an election that hinged on a single vote, your vote.  That isn't nearly as likely as you think it is, unless you are talking about numbers of voters in the low hundreds.

[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.

Here you go, Otto. A few links to help you understand that which you clearly don't.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hobby-lobby-religious-leaders-ask-gay-rights-exemption-2014-7
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/rick-warren-joins-letter-asking-obama-for-strong-religious-e
http://www.alternet.org/pandoras-box-wide-open-faith-leaders-ask-obama-exemptions-discriminate-against-lgbt-persons (Where that article came from)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/religious-leaders-want-exemption-hiring-lgbt-peopl/
http://www.lawblogs.net/2014/07/03/faith-leaders-ask-obama-to-include-religious-exemption-in-planned-lgbt-non-discrimination-executive-order

Have a field day.

What does that have to do with the Hobby Lobby decision? 

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's not a question of how seriously you take it, it's a question of being willing to financially support a politically party you ostensibly detest.

It's not a matter of you supporting it, it's a matter of someone you give money to supporting something. How many steps removed from it being your money do you believe you have moral concern for how the money is spent? Let's say I buy a $10 batch of unpasteurized cider from a local apple orchard. The orchard owner is no particularly political guy, but he is say, involved heavily in the local Little League. Because of that I know that as a gesture of good will once a season he orders a huge catering order from Chik-fil-A on his own dime to provide food after a game to the players.

Since I know he's going to spend money on CFA, and that CFA spends money to fight teh gays, do I now have a reason to cease business with the orchard owner? Or is the money appropriately filtered by that point that it's not of moral concern to me?

[Brazen]

How many -OTUS acronyms are in common parlance? I know of POTUS, FLOTUS and SCOTUS, it that all? Is there anything we could invent to have a LOTUS?

[frunk]

It's not a matter of you supporting it, it's a matter of someone you give money to supporting something. How many steps removed from it being your money do you believe you have moral concern for how the money is spent? Let's say I buy a $10 batch of unpasteurized cider from a local apple orchard. The orchard owner is no particularly political guy, but he is say, involved heavily in the local Little League. Because of that I know that as a gesture of good will once a season he orders a huge catering order from Chik-fil-A on his own dime to provide food after a game to the players.

Since I know he's going to spend money on CFA, and that CFA spends money to fight teh gays, do I now have a reason to cease business with the orchard owner? Or is the money appropriately filtered by that point that it's not of moral concern to me?

Considering I was talking about an example about giving money directly to a political party, no this isn't the issue.  Would you go to a political fundraising dinner for a political party you disliked?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Considering I was talking about an example about giving money directly to a political party, no this isn't the issue.  Would you go to a political fundraising dinner for a political party you disliked?

Right, I'm trying to enforce some level of focus on the thread itself. But to answer your question: no, not unless there was something in it for me. But I wouldn't go to a fundraising dinner for a party I liked, either. If I could somehow go for free and eat the food, yes, I'd do it. No reason not to do so.

[frunk]

Right, I'm trying to enforce some level of focus on the thread itself. But to answer your question: no, not unless there was something in it for me. But I wouldn't go to a fundraising dinner for a party I liked, either. If I could somehow go for free and eat the food, yes, I'd do it. No reason not to do so.

You wouldn't go even if the cost to go was reasonable in relation to the quality of food you would get to eat?