So, Max? How does Canada sound now?
QuoteIn a deeply divisive case pitting advocates of religious liberty against women's right's groups, the Supreme Court said today that two for profit corporations with sincerely held religious beliefs do not have to provide a full range of contraceptives at no cost to their employees pursuant to the Affordable Care Act.
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito the court held that as applied to closely held corporations the Health and Human Services regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a concurring opinion.
The decision is a victory for the Green family that owns the Hobby Lobby arts and crafts chain and the Hahns who own Conestoga, a cabinet making company, who had challenged the so called contraceptive mandate saying it forced them to either violate their faith or pay ruinous fines. The government defended the provision as an essential part of health care coverage for women.
Here's what you need to know about the decision:
What did the court rule?
The court rejected the government's claim that neither the owners nor the corporations could bring a religious liberty claim. "Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga ... protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies," Alito wrote.
Alito says the court has "little trouble" concluding that the HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of region: "The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage."
What else did Alito hold in his majority opinion?
"The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrict means of furthering that interest," according to the majority opinion.
Alito wrote that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that the coverage required of the health care law "is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage ... HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases."
"Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies," Alito wrote in the majority opinion.
Alito said the opinion was limited to closely held corporations: "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them. "
What did Ginsburg's dissent say?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, joined on the merits by Justice Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Steven Breyer.
In her dissent Ginsburg –disagreed with Alito --and worried about what other challenges might come next. :"Reading the Act expansively, as the court does, raises a host of "Me, too" questions. Can an employer in business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations, antidepressants, or medications derived from pigs, based on the employer's sincerely held religious beliefs opposing those medical practices."
Ginsburg wrote , "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations' employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure"
She took the unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench.
What did Alito say about freedom of religion?
Alito: "The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage ... HHs has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases."
Does the law apply to corporations?
Alito: "Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies."
What are liberals and allied groups saying?
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Harris v. Quinn. Many of the basic workplace standards and protections that we take for granted as Americans are thanks to the efforts of organized labor. These benefits have been sought and achieved on behalf of all workers, regardless of whether or not they've paid union dues. I fear that this decision will seriously diminish the capacity of labor unions to represent the best interests of American workers who have fought for and won significant progress on wages, benefits and working conditions, and jeopardize the progress that has been made over the last century."
What are conservatives and allied groups saying?
"This is a great victory for religious liberty – the bedrock of our founding," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "In living out our religious convictions, there are certain things we must not do. This is why we are at a watershed moment. Religious people will no longer be ordered to take action that our religion says we must not take.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network, on Hobby Lobby: "The Supreme Court today upheld the liberty at the heart of the Constitution: the right to religious freedom. The Court rightly concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects religious business owners just as much as it protects their employees. RFRA guarantees not just a right of religious worship or speech, but religious exercise. Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed religious freedoms that literally centuries of Americans have enjoyed from even before the founding of this country.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins learned of the ruling this morning as he met with the Hahn family, founders and owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties: "The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation. We are thankful the Supreme Court agreed that the government went too far by mandating that family businesses owners must violate their consciences under threat of crippling fines.
What are prominent GOP members of Congress saying?
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex.: "Today's victory in the Hobby Lobby case is terrific news -- but now is no time to rest. We cannot rely on the courts alone to defend our religious liberty"
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: "I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to protect the religious freedom of all Americans, both individually and collectively. The notion that religious freedom belongs only to some, and even then only in private, defies our nation's traditions, our laws, and our Constitution. And as the Supreme Court rightfully said today, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not have been clearer in saying religious liberty of all Americans must be equally protected and not unnecessarily burdened
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn: "I am extremely encouraged by today's Supreme Court decision to uphold the religious liberty rights of the Green family of Hobby Lobby.
Does this decision really say what the religious liberty crowd is saying it says? That is really broad. I mean you could just invent a religion to do whatever you wanted Scientology like right?
But I suspect it is much narrower than they are saying.
Isn't the point of a corporation to establish a legal entity separate from the natural persons that own it?
Quote from: Zanza on June 30, 2014, 12:18:49 PM
Isn't the point of a corporation to establish a legal entity separate from the natural persons that own it?
Yes and no. It depends what is the most convenient :P
By the way: I think it is a great business move for the crafts industry to get women mad at them. Crafty men will soon be buying their doilies and shit in no time.
Alito (and the rest of majority) also were on the majority on Citizens United, which held that corporations should be treated as separate persons from the individual humans that run and direct them for the purpose of constitutional analysis. But here Alito contends that corporations are mere instrumentalities of the persons that run and control them.
I was happy with the ruling but after that initial reaction wore off, I realized it wouldn't have been that huge a deal either way. Some days I just don't feel like participating in TEH CULTURE WAR.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2014, 12:24:10 PM
Alito (and the rest of majority)
They just want to be closely held :hug:
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2014, 12:21:12 PM
By the way: I think it is a great business move for the crafts industry to get women mad at them. Crafty men will soon be buying their doilies and shit in no time.
But that's not really how it works. The number of people who allow their politics to affect their consumption isn't really that large. And even then, it's not like women stand like a monolith behind women's groups anyways.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2014, 12:24:10 PM
Alito (and the rest of majority) also were on the majority on Citizens United, which held that corporations should be treated as separate persons from the individual humans that run and direct them for the purpose of constitutional analysis. But here Alito contends that corporations are mere instrumentalities of the persons that run and control them.
Whether corporations are considered people or not depends on the extent it would benefit the corporation :P
Quote from: Neil on June 30, 2014, 12:26:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2014, 12:21:12 PM
By the way: I think it is a great business move for the crafts industry to get women mad at them. Crafty men will soon be buying their doilies and shit in no time.
But that's not really how it works. The number of people who allow their politics to affect their consumption isn't really that large. And even then, it's not like women stand like a monolith behind women's groups anyways.
Yep.
If women were unanimous on these things, Hobby Lobby would have closed two years ago when this all first came up.
I'm trying to figure out what the effects of the other ruling will be. It's being touted as a huge defeat for unions, but everything I'm reading seems to indicate that the scope of the ruling was just for home caregivers.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2014, 12:24:10 PM
Alito (and the rest of majority) also were on the majority on Citizens United, which held that corporations should be treated as separate persons from the individual humans that run and direct them for the purpose of constitutional analysis. But here Alito contends that corporations are mere instrumentalities of the persons that run and control them.
I thought the point of Citizens was exactly the opposite: that individual rights to self expression are not limited when they act collectively through a corporation.
Quote from: merithyn on June 30, 2014, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 30, 2014, 12:26:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2014, 12:21:12 PM
By the way: I think it is a great business move for the crafts industry to get women mad at them. Crafty men will soon be buying their doilies and shit in no time.
But that's not really how it works. The number of people who allow their politics to affect their consumption isn't really that large. And even then, it's not like women stand like a monolith behind women's groups anyways.
Yep.
If women were unanimous on these things, Hobby Lobby would have closed two years ago when this all first came up.
Sorry I thought there was a joke to be made there but it didn't work quite right.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2014, 12:17:13 PM
Does this decision really say what the religious liberty crowd is saying it says? That is really broad. I mean you could just invent a religion to do whatever you wanted Scientology like right?
But I suspect it is much narrower than they are saying.
Ruth Ginsburg's dissent seems to think it will have very wide-ranging affects:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
Quote
- "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would...deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
- "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
- "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
- "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
- "Would the exemption...extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]...Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
- "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
- "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
In Citizens United, none of the rights of the individual human beings that made up the corporation were implicated because all of them were free to contribute money in political campaigns. The question was whether the entity itself had some kind of meta-right to contribute funds qua entity.
Here Alito is proceeding from the backwards premise. He actually concedes that in cases involving large publicly traded companies, RFRA claims could not arise because one could not attribute a religious belief or point of view to the corporation. He points out that the companies at issue in Hobby Lobby are closely held and thus attributes the beliefs of the unitary owners to the entities.
Using the same logic, a large or diversely owned company cannot hold political views, and thus cannot have its speech rights burdened by the finance laws at issue in Citizens United.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2014, 12:53:01 PM
In Citizens United, none of the rights of the individual human beings that made up the corporation were implicated because all of them were free to contribute money in political campaigns. The question was whether the entity itself had some kind of meta-right to contribute funds qua entity.
Did the ruling specifically say the corporation has rights in addition to those of its owners? I thought this was just a bumper sticker line from The Nation or The Progressive.
What's the slippery slope implications? I know the ruling was limited to contraception, but is there any logical reason to confine it to that?
If, for example, a closely-held corp was owned by Christian Scientists, could it refuse to fund health insurance generally?
The problem with the Christian Scientist example is, AFAIK, they don't have a problem with non-believers using medicine.
Same with Jews/Muslims pork etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2014, 01:14:46 PM
The problem with the Christian Scientist example is, AFAIK, they don't have a problem with non-believers using medicine.
Same with Jews/Muslims pork etc.
So if there was a religion established, which there probably is, that did have a problem with non-believers using medicine then they could?
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2014, 01:17:28 PM
So if there was a religion established, which there probably is, that did have a problem with non-believers using medicine then they could?
I would think so.
A ruling either way would have been problematic IMO.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2014, 01:14:46 PM
The problem with the Christian Scientist example is, AFAIK, they don't have a problem with non-believers using medicine.
Same with Jews/Muslims pork etc.
Is that the test? Something that believers have a problem with non-believers doing?
How about Scientologists and psychiatry? They definitely believe it is evil in general, not just 'not for them'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scientology_psychiatry_kills.jpg
I don't know if that's THE test. It's A problem I found with your (and Ginsberg's) examples.
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2014, 01:12:51 PM
What's the slippery slope implications? I know the ruling was limited to contraception, but is there any logical reason to confine it to that?
If, for example, a closely-held corp was owned by Christian Scientists, could it refuse to fund health insurance generally?
My understanding is that it has always been the case that closely held companies can opt out of various bits and pieces of health insurance, but in doing so, they were required to pay additional taxes and fines. Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay this, and so went to the Supreme Court in order to avoid doing so.
Minsky, is this correct?
I'm sort of confused why this is a big deal. The number of closely held businesses that are morally opposed to birth control must be very small, and it isn't as though there is a long held right to free contraceptives that is being violated.
At the same time, I doubt Hobby Lobby really cares. Probably if it is more into this to save money or oppose obama.
I always wondered why birth control suddenly became a big concern for protestants like the Hobby Lobby owner. Worrying about birth control used to be something we made fun of the catholics about. :p
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2014, 01:36:45 PM
I always wondered why birth control suddenly became a big concern for protestants like the Hobby Lobby owner. Worrying about birth control used to be something we made fun of the catholics about. :p
I don't think he's quite the same type of mainstream protestant you & I are. Also, his main objection seems to be over morning after pills and IUDs. IUDs can apparently prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, so to him that's basically abortion.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 01:34:08 PM
I'm sort of confused why this is a big deal. The number of closely held businesses that are morally opposed to birth control must be very small, and it isn't as though there is a long held right to free contraceptives that is being violated.
At the same time, I doubt Hobby Lobby really cares. Probably if it is more into this to save money or oppose obama.
It may not be a big deal. If you read the discussion we are having it concerns the implications of the decision beyond this one case.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2014, 01:43:02 PM
It may not be a big deal. If you read the discussion we are having it concerns the implications of the decision beyond this one case.
Culture War :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2014, 12:24:47 PM
I was happy with the ruling but after that initial reaction wore off, I realized it wouldn't have been that huge a deal either way. Some days I just don't feel like participating in TEH CULTURE WAR.
You just need to have your buttons pushed. Read a bunch of articles from Breitbart.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2014, 01:26:44 PM
I don't know if that's THE test. It's A problem I found with your (and Ginsberg's) examples.
Do you have the same problem with the Scientology example?
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2014, 01:57:40 PM
Do you have the same problem with the Scientology example?
It's warmer.
This wouldn't be a problem if health care was something the government provided, rather than employers.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2014, 01:53:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2014, 12:24:47 PM
I was happy with the ruling but after that initial reaction wore off, I realized it wouldn't have been that huge a deal either way. Some days I just don't feel like participating in TEH CULTURE WAR.
You just need to have your buttons pushed. Read a bunch of articles from Breitbart.
Okay.
It didn't work.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2014, 01:43:02 PM
It may not be a big deal. If you read the discussion we are having it concerns the implications of the decision beyond this one case.
Whether closely held corporations run by scientologists can avoid getting any health insurance for employees? I don't see that as a big deal either...in either direction.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:14:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2014, 01:43:02 PM
It may not be a big deal. If you read the discussion we are having it concerns the implications of the decision beyond this one case.
Whether closely held corporations run by scientologists can avoid getting any health insurance for employees? I don't see that as a big deal either...in either direction.
That one's own eligibility to healthcare insurance should depend on the religious beliefs of one's employer strikes me at least as totally bizzare and a bad idea in every possible way. Whether it has a huge impact in terms of dollars or not.
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2014, 02:22:48 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:14:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2014, 01:43:02 PM
It may not be a big deal. If you read the discussion we are having it concerns the implications of the decision beyond this one case.
Whether closely held corporations run by scientologists can avoid getting any health insurance for employees? I don't see that as a big deal either...in either direction.
That one's own eligibility to healthcare insurance should depend on the religious beliefs of one's employer strikes me at least as totally bizzare and a bad idea in every possible way. Whether it has a huge impact in terms of dollars or not.
Really, the problem is more general.
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2014, 02:22:48 PM
That one's own eligibility to healthcare insurance should depend on the religious beliefs of one's employer strikes me at least as totally bizzare and a bad idea in every possible way. Whether it has a huge impact in terms of dollars or not.
Until Obamacare it was entirely elective for a company to have health insurance, and now still is elective, provided they are willing to pay the fines.
Whether it makes sense to use employers as a vehicle to insure people is a good question, although it is possible to get insurance privately and through exchanges.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:14:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2014, 01:43:02 PM
It may not be a big deal. If you read the discussion we are having it concerns the implications of the decision beyond this one case.
Whether closely held corporations run by scientologists can avoid getting any health insurance for employees? I don't see that as a big deal either...in either direction.
Oh for Godsake. Claiming certain religious beliefs can be a competitive advantage for corporations. They can both avoid the benefit and the fines. That is a big deal, if that is indeed the implication.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:26:44 PM
Whether it makes sense to use employers as a vehicle to insure people is a good question, although it is possible to get insurance privately and through exchanges.
And this decision calls that into question, and using employers was the whole solution to the problem as determined in the 90s. Clearly it has had big problems. Don't you think calling into the question the viability of a system that impacts hundreds of millions of people a big deal? How big of a deal does it have to be to satisfy whatever metric we have to meet?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 01:34:08 PM
I'm sort of confused why this is a big deal. The number of closely held businesses that are morally opposed to birth control must be very small, and it isn't as though there is a long held right to free contraceptives that is being violated.
At the same time, I doubt Hobby Lobby really cares. Probably if it is more into this to save money or oppose obama.
So what if it is a small number of businesses? Surely you aren't suggesting that the law shouldn't apply equally to everybody?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:26:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2014, 02:22:48 PM
That one's own eligibility to healthcare insurance should depend on the religious beliefs of one's employer strikes me at least as totally bizzare and a bad idea in every possible way. Whether it has a huge impact in terms of dollars or not.
Until Obamacare it was entirely elective for a company to have health insurance, and now still is elective, provided they are willing to pay the fines.
Whether it makes sense to use employers as a vehicle to insure people is a good question, although it is possible to get insurance privately and through exchanges.
What happens to the employees if the corp elects to pay fines instead? Does the government pay for their insurance, or are they just shit out of luck?
Seems a bizzare system, but that is no excuse for making it even more bizzare by having eligibility depend on the religious opinions of the employers - which provides an actual perverse incentive to *have* bizzare religious beliefs that forbid paying for certain forms of insurance! :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2014, 02:26:51 PM
Oh for Godsake. Claiming certain religious beliefs can be a competitive advantage for corporations. They can both avoid the benefit and the fines. That is a big deal, if that is indeed the implication.
I think only large employers (50 or more full time employees or their equivalents) are subject to Obamacare anyway. How many of these are closely held and can credibly claim an exemption? Probably a decent number in terms of contraception, because there are a lot of Catholics. I doubt many of them will take advantage of it though, because it isn't that much of an advantage. Probably very few in terms of scientology or the other more extreme stuff being discussed here.
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2014, 02:35:56 PM
What happens to the employees if the corp elects to pay fines instead? Does the government pay for their insurance, or are they just shit out of luck?
Seems a bizzare system,
Shit out of luck.
Not sure why it is a bizarre system. People have long been responsible to get their own insurance. People with decent jobs typically get it through their employer. Those that don't either get it privately, through government programs (if poor or old), or they go without.
Obamacare reformed the system by encouraging employers to offer high quality insurance to employees, improving options in the private market, and augmenting government programs for the poor and old.
the SCOTUS seems to set the responsability for finding out the religious views of the employer on the employee before getting hired. What if the employer has a conversion experience after hiring the employee?
What happens when an employee demands that part of his or her employment contract includes a clause preventing the employer from converting religion?
The more I think about it the more FUBAR it gets. Not for the religious reasons you guys would normally apply to me, but I think about pacifists, vegans, or niggardly fuckers who have a religious zeal for not wanting to pay for health care,
Worst of all it also discriminates against non-closely held corporations.
Edit: I propose a new religion with three commandments, Beer, Bacon and No funding of employees healthcare.
Quote from: Viking on June 30, 2014, 02:34:09 PM
So what if it is a small number of businesses? Surely you aren't suggesting that the law shouldn't apply equally to everybody?
The law doesn't apply equally to everyone. Maybe it should, but I'm not going to freak out when an instance comes up where it doesn't.
Quote from: Viking on June 30, 2014, 02:42:05 PM
the SCOTUS seems to set the responsability for finding out the religious views of the employer on the employee before getting hired. What if the employer has a conversion experience after hiring the employee?
What happens when an employee demands that part of his or her employment contract includes a clause preventing the employer from converting religion?
The more I think about it the more FUBAR it gets. Not for the religious reasons you guys would normally apply to me, but I think about pacifists, vegans, or niggardly fuckers who have a religious zeal for not wanting to pay for health care,
Worst of all it also discriminates against non-closely held corporations.
Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.
If Hobby Lobby was run by someone with religious objections to medical care, and thus they didn't offer health insurance at all, it wouldn't bother me to work there. When they made the offer I would evaluate it with the knowledge that I would need to get my own insurance privately.
That isn't an advantage for Hobby Lobby--tax and other incentives make it cheaper for them to offer insurance rather than an employee pay for it privately. Hence basically all employers offered their higher value employees health insurance long before Obamacare.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:41:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2014, 02:35:56 PM
What happens to the employees if the corp elects to pay fines instead? Does the government pay for their insurance, or are they just shit out of luck?
Seems a bizzare system,
Shit out of luck.
Not sure why it is a bizarre system. People have long been responsible to get their own insurance. People with decent jobs typically get it through their employer. Those that don't either get it privately, through government programs (if poor or old), or they go without.
Obamacare reformed the system by encouraging employers to offer high quality insurance to employees, improving options in the private market, and augmenting government programs for the poor and old.
It is a bizzare system because presumably the intent is to have people insured. It would make more sense if the fines went towards actually providing the insurance that the employer should have provided in the first place (plus a little extra, just for a kick in the nuts for non-compliance).
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:41:10 PM
People have long been responsible to get their own insurance. People with decent jobs typically get it through their employer. Those that don't either get it privately, through government programs (if poor or old), or they go without.
And this is a bizarre system. In what way does it make sense to tie health care coverage to employment?
Quote from: Maximus on June 30, 2014, 02:52:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:41:10 PM
People have long been responsible to get their own insurance. People with decent jobs typically get it through their employer. Those that don't either get it privately, through government programs (if poor or old), or they go without.
And this is a bizarre system. In what way does it make sense to tie health care coverage to employment?
It makes sense because it builds off the pre existing system. I don't think anyone would build the system this way from scratch, but a lot of countries have similar employer / health insurance links.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:56:36 PM
a lot of countries have similar employer / health insurance links.
Basic coverage or supplementary?
Quote from: Maximus on June 30, 2014, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:56:36 PM
a lot of countries have similar employer / health insurance links.
Basic coverage or supplementary?
Supplementary, though in many if not most cases "basic" is quite substandard.
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2014, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2014, 01:53:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2014, 12:24:47 PM
I was happy with the ruling but after that initial reaction wore off, I realized it wouldn't have been that huge a deal either way. Some days I just don't feel like participating in TEH CULTURE WAR.
You just need to have your buttons pushed. Read a bunch of articles from Breitbart.
Okay.
It didn't work.
I don't know what else to do. There's not a lot of work done in psychology for curing
sanity.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:49:04 PM
Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.
Most Americans are going to accept the best job they can get. Fucking dumbass.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:49:04 PM
Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.
If Hobby Lobby was run by someone with religious objections to medical care, and thus they didn't offer health insurance at all, it wouldn't bother me to work there. When they made the offer I would evaluate it with the knowledge that I would need to get my own insurance privately.
That isn't an advantage for Hobby Lobby--tax and other incentives make it cheaper for them to offer insurance rather than an employee pay for it privately. Hence basically all employers offered their higher value employees health insurance long before Obamacare.
My understanding is that Hobby Lobby offered healthcare that covered birth control prior to Obamacare. Their "religious convictions" clicked in only after it was required.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Maximus on June 30, 2014, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:56:36 PM
a lot of countries have similar employer / health insurance links.
Basic coverage or supplementary?
Supplementary, though in many if not most cases "basic" is quite substandard.
Most first world nations offer pretty good basic health care with companies upping the ante through supplementary plans. At the very least, the basic healthcare covers things like well-checks, emergency care, and birth control.
Anyone know if guys can buy rubbers using their insurance?
Quote from: merithyn on June 30, 2014, 04:23:53 PM
My understanding is that Hobby Lobby offered healthcare that covered birth control prior to Obamacare. Their "religious convictions" clicked in only after it was required.
That seems stupid.
Quote from: merithyn on June 30, 2014, 12:09:06 PM
So, Max? How does Canada sound now?
QuoteIn a deeply divisive case pitting advocates of religious liberty against women's right's groups, the Supreme Court said today that two for profit corporations with sincerely held religious beliefs do not have to provide a full range of contraceptives at no cost to their employees pursuant to the Affordable Care Act.
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito the court held that as applied to closely held corporations the Health and Human Services regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a concurring opinion.
The decision is a victory for the Green family that owns the Hobby Lobby arts and crafts chain and the Hahns who own Conestoga, a cabinet making company, who had challenged the so called contraceptive mandate saying it forced them to either violate their faith or pay ruinous fines. The government defended the provision as an essential part of health care coverage for women.
Here's what you need to know about the decision:
What did the court rule?
The court rejected the government's claim that neither the owners nor the corporations could bring a religious liberty claim. "Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga ... protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies," Alito wrote.
Alito says the court has "little trouble" concluding that the HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of region: "The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage."
What else did Alito hold in his majority opinion?
"The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrict means of furthering that interest," according to the majority opinion.
Alito wrote that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that the coverage required of the health care law "is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage ... HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases."
"Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies," Alito wrote in the majority opinion.
Alito said the opinion was limited to closely held corporations: "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them. "
What did Ginsburg's dissent say?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, joined on the merits by Justice Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Steven Breyer.
In her dissent Ginsburg –disagreed with Alito --and worried about what other challenges might come next. :"Reading the Act expansively, as the court does, raises a host of "Me, too" questions. Can an employer in business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations, antidepressants, or medications derived from pigs, based on the employer's sincerely held religious beliefs opposing those medical practices."
Ginsburg wrote , "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations' employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure"
She took the unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench.
What did Alito say about freedom of religion?
Alito: "The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage ... HHs has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases."
Does the law apply to corporations?
Alito: "Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies."
What are liberals and allied groups saying?
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Harris v. Quinn. Many of the basic workplace standards and protections that we take for granted as Americans are thanks to the efforts of organized labor. These benefits have been sought and achieved on behalf of all workers, regardless of whether or not they've paid union dues. I fear that this decision will seriously diminish the capacity of labor unions to represent the best interests of American workers who have fought for and won significant progress on wages, benefits and working conditions, and jeopardize the progress that has been made over the last century."
What are conservatives and allied groups saying?
"This is a great victory for religious liberty – the bedrock of our founding," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "In living out our religious convictions, there are certain things we must not do. This is why we are at a watershed moment. Religious people will no longer be ordered to take action that our religion says we must not take.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network, on Hobby Lobby: "The Supreme Court today upheld the liberty at the heart of the Constitution: the right to religious freedom. The Court rightly concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects religious business owners just as much as it protects their employees. RFRA guarantees not just a right of religious worship or speech, but religious exercise. Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed religious freedoms that literally centuries of Americans have enjoyed from even before the founding of this country.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins learned of the ruling this morning as he met with the Hahn family, founders and owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties: "The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation. We are thankful the Supreme Court agreed that the government went too far by mandating that family businesses owners must violate their consciences under threat of crippling fines.
What are prominent GOP members of Congress saying?
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex.: "Today's victory in the Hobby Lobby case is terrific news -- but now is no time to rest. We cannot rely on the courts alone to defend our religious liberty"
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: "I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to protect the religious freedom of all Americans, both individually and collectively. The notion that religious freedom belongs only to some, and even then only in private, defies our nation's traditions, our laws, and our Constitution. And as the Supreme Court rightfully said today, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not have been clearer in saying religious liberty of all Americans must be equally protected and not unnecessarily burdened
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn: "I am extremely encouraged by today's Supreme Court decision to uphold the religious liberty rights of the Green family of Hobby Lobby.
What do contraceptives have to do with destroying embryos? Also, who needs insurance to buy contraceptives?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2014, 04:34:37 PM
Anyone know if guys can buy rubbers using their insurance?
No. Guys should buy those with their own money if they wanna get their jollies by having sex. Besides, Viagra is covered. BE HAPPY WITH THAT.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2014, 01:11:03 PM
Did the ruling specifically say the corporation has rights in addition to those of its owners?
Sure.
The law at issue in Citizens United permitted the individual members of Citizens United to use their own funds to finance the challenged communications. Nor was there a finding that the use of the corporate form was essential in order for the individuals to deliver that message. The case was decided on the Court's conclusion that Citizens United, the corporation was entitled to protection for its own speech as an entity.
Quote from: Viking on June 30, 2014, 02:34:09 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 01:34:08 PM
I'm sort of confused why this is a big deal. The number of closely held businesses that are morally opposed to birth control must be very small, and it isn't as though there is a long held right to free contraceptives that is being violated.
At the same time, I doubt Hobby Lobby really cares. Probably if it is more into this to save money or oppose obama.
So what if it is a small number of businesses? Surely you aren't suggesting that the law shouldn't apply equally to everybody?
As Dorsey points out in reply #42, the law as written doesn't apply equally to all employers anyhow--I'm not sure if the cutoff is 50 employees or some other number, but smaller businesses generally aren't covered anyway.
Here's another way to look at it.
Let's say Hobby Lobby were to be responsible for a huge workplace accident and all the employees sued.
The owners would shield themselves from personal liability by taking the position that the corporation is a formally separate entity and that liability is limited to whatever assets the corporation has available to it.
But when it comes to the impact of a government regulation, the owners are insisting that the entity is transparent and the effect falls on them personally.
The decision is just incoherent doctrinally. The Court is holding either one of two things, both absurd:
1) The Court is piercing the corporate veil for its constitutional analysis by treating the owners and the entity as synonymous, despite the lack of any factual findings that would support doing so,
OR
2) The Court is saying that a formally separate corporate entity can have religious beliefs, which is an even nuttier extension of the CU concept.
I don't see any other logical basis for the decision other than one of these two crazy options.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 04:36:06 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 30, 2014, 04:23:53 PM
My understanding is that Hobby Lobby offered healthcare that covered birth control prior to Obamacare. Their "religious convictions" clicked in only after it was required.
That seems stupid.
That's not quite right. The Obama administration ruling that required them to offer contraception
free, rather than as a normal health care item with a deductible, is what triggered the lawsuit.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2014, 06:26:55 PM
Here's another way to look at it.
Let's say Hobby Lobby were to be responsible for a huge workplace accident and all the employees sued.
The owners would shield themselves from personal liability by taking the position that the corporation is a formally separate entity and that liability is limited to whatever assets the corporation has available to it.
But when it comes to the impact of a government regulation, the owners are insisting that the entity is transparent and the effect falls on them personally.
The decision is just incoherent doctrinally. The Court is holding either one of two things, both absurd:
1) The Court is piercing the corporate veil for its constitutional analysis by treating the owners and the entity as synonymous, despite the lack of any factual findings that would support doing so,
OR
2) The Court is saying that a formally separate corporate entity can have religious beliefs, which is an even nuttier extension of the CU concept.
I don't see any other logical basis for the decision other than one of these two crazy options.
You are using logic on a ruling from the Roberts court, the most activist court of the last 40 years. That's why you are failing to grasp the issue. This ruling is about the personal beliefs of the Supremes, not about the law. Just as Citizens United was. There is no requirement that personal beliefs be consistent or logical.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2014, 06:26:55 PM
Here's another way to look at it.
Let's say Hobby Lobby were to be responsible for a huge workplace accident and all the employees sued.
The owners would shield themselves from personal liability by taking the position that the corporation is a formally separate entity and that liability is limited to whatever assets the corporation has available to it.
But when it comes to the impact of a government regulation, the owners are insisting that the entity is transparent and the effect falls on them personally.
The decision is just incoherent doctrinally. The Court is holding either one of two things, both absurd:
1) The Court is piercing the corporate veil for its constitutional analysis by treating the owners and the entity as synonymous, despite the lack of any factual findings that would support doing so,
OR
2) The Court is saying that a formally separate corporate entity can have religious beliefs, which is an even nuttier extension of the CU concept.
I don't see any other logical basis for the decision other than one of these two crazy options.
I don't see the inconsistency. The owners, by incorporating, are saying "if you want to do business with us, you should be aware that our liability is limited to $X." They are also saying "we, as owners of this corporation, object on religious grounds to the government requirement that we provide contraception to our employees."
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2014, 12:24:47 PM
I was happy with the ruling but after that initial reaction wore off, I realized it wouldn't have been that huge a deal either way. Some days I just don't feel like participating in TEH CULTURE WAR.
Which is why we are losing.
The far left never take a day off.
Dude, we are lazy as shit and we don't even own guns. We just have the moral authority.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2014, 09:03:30 PM
Dude, we are lazy as shit and we don't even own guns. We just have the moral authority.
No you don't have any moral authority.
You have the two most important fields of cultural warfare, the mainstream media and the education industry, which allows you to redefine the morality as you see fit.
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2014, 04:38:03 PM
What do contraceptives have to do with destroying embryos? Also, who needs insurance to buy contraceptives?
They want the contraceptives for free as a part of their insurance coverage.
Quote from: Siege on June 30, 2014, 09:08:26 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2014, 09:03:30 PM
Dude, we are lazy as shit and we don't even own guns. We just have the moral authority.
No you don't have any moral authority.
You have the two most important fields of cultural warfare, the mainstream media and the education industry, which allows you to redefine the morality as you see fit.
The education industry doesn't have a single liberal in it. If they say so, they're lying.
Quote from: grumbler on June 30, 2014, 07:26:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 04:36:06 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 30, 2014, 04:23:53 PM
My understanding is that Hobby Lobby offered healthcare that covered birth control prior to Obamacare. Their "religious convictions" clicked in only after it was required.
That seems stupid.
That's not quite right. The Obama administration ruling that required them to offer contraception free, rather than as a normal health care item with a deductible, is what triggered the lawsuit.
But the ACA doesn't require anyone to offer contraception free. It just requires that contraception be included in the "package" of preventative care. Basically, there's a pool of cash for all covered employees that's earmarked for preventative care. The ACA details how much that has to be based on the number of employees. The pool pays out for annual check-ups, vaccinations, mammograms, contraceptives, prostate exams, etc.
That's what Hobby Lobby objected to. Before, there was a copay, but with the ACA, they're not allowed to charge a copay or deductible for any preventative care.
Quote from: merithyn on June 30, 2014, 04:23:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:49:04 PM
Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.
If Hobby Lobby was run by someone with religious objections to medical care, and thus they didn't offer health insurance at all, it wouldn't bother me to work there. When they made the offer I would evaluate it with the knowledge that I would need to get my own insurance privately. 9
That isn't an advantage for Hobby Lobby--tax and other incentives make it cheaper for them to offer insurance rather than an employee pay for it privately. Hence basically all employers offered their higher value employees health insurance long before Obamacare.
My understanding is that Hobby Lobby offered healthcare that covered birth control prior to Obamacare. Their "religious convictions" clicked in only after it was required.
Of the 20 varieties required to be covered by Obamacare they're willing to offer 16 of them, so it's only 4 they object to.
Of course the problem here is the slippery slope. A different company may be offended by all birth control and object to all 20.
Quote from: merithyn on June 30, 2014, 10:46:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 30, 2014, 07:26:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 04:36:06 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 30, 2014, 04:23:53 PM
My understanding is that Hobby Lobby offered healthcare that covered birth control prior to Obamacare. Their "religious convictions" clicked in only after it was required.
That seems stupid.
That's not quite right. The Obama administration ruling that required them to offer contraception free, rather than as a normal health care item with a deductible, is what triggered the lawsuit.
But the ACA doesn't require anyone to offer contraception free. It just requires that contraception be included in the "package" of preventative care. Basically, there's a pool of cash for all covered employees that's earmarked for preventative care. The ACA details how much that has to be based on the number of employees. The pool pays out for annual check-ups, vaccinations, mammograms, contraceptives, prostate exams, etc.
That's what Hobby Lobby objected to. Before, there was a copay, but with the ACA, they're not allowed to charge a copay or deductible for any preventative care.
The ACA didn't originally include birth control in preventive care. That was added on Aug 1, 2011. Hence my comment, and hence the lawsuit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2014, 07:36:50 PM
I don't see the inconsistency. The owners, by incorporating, are saying "if you want to do business with us, you should be aware that our liability is limited to $X." They are also saying "we, as owners of this corporation, object on religious grounds to the government requirement that we provide contraception to our employees."
I'm sure the owners feel that way, it is always preferable to have your cake (strict separation for liability) and eat it to (no separation for speech rights)
The question is what recognized, neutral principles of law would permit that. There aren't any. Corporations are creatures of state law and every state's law provides that the corporation is separate from its owners. So the owners can jump up and down about their personal views, but their personal views don't get attributed to the corporation anymore than the views of the employees that run it, the customers that sustain it, the creditors that fund it, or the Secretary of State who validates the corporate charter. The rights of equity owners are clearly set forth in statute and common law and basically amount to the right to elect directors and collect whatever residual profits are left after payment to creditors. Not included in those rights is the right to treat the abstract corporate entity as some sort of personal political doppelganger.
How much does contraception cost? It's free here - not even the fixed £7.50 NHS prescription fee - pills coils, caps, you name it. If you go to a family planning centre, you can even walk out with armfuls of condoms.
Quote from: Brazen on July 01, 2014, 09:27:11 AM
How much does contraception cost? It's free here - not even the fixed £7.50 NHS prescription fee - pills coils, caps, you name it. If you go to a family planning centre, you can even walk out with armfuls of condoms.
Thats because the NHS is universal single payer health insurance.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2014, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:49:04 PM
Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.
Most Americans are going to accept the best job they can get. Fucking dumbass.
Which isn't healthcare coverage part of that of that decision on what is "the best job they can get"?
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 09:32:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2014, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:49:04 PM
Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.
Most Americans are going to accept the best job they can get. Fucking dumbass.
Which isn't healthcare coverage part of that of that decision on what is "the best job they can get"?
No. Particularly if it doesn't come with any. The paycheck is.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 09:33:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 09:32:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2014, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:49:04 PM
Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.
Most Americans are going to accept the best job they can get. Fucking dumbass.
Which isn't healthcare coverage part of that of that decision on what is "the best job they can get"?
No. Particularly if it doesn't come with any. The paycheck is.
I would think healthcare coverage should be considered in some sort of dollar equivalent.
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2014, 12:30:06 PM
I'm trying to figure out what the effects of the other ruling will be. It's being touted as a huge defeat for unions, but everything I'm reading seems to indicate that the scope of the ruling was just for home caregivers.
Yes it is narrow ruling, and in fact it is probably a "victory" for unions. The petitioners had asked the Court to overturn a prior precedent (called
Abood) which authorized public unions to charge agency fees to non-members. And the Court didn't do that. Instead it focused on the peculiar status of the Illinois law for the compensation of the home caregivers. So for most public sector unions, there is no effect and it is business as usual.
However, this is another train wreck of opinion, again by Alito(!), actually even less coherent then Hobby Lobby. He spends the first 20 pages attacking Abood and it looks like he is going to over-rule it on the grounds that public sector unions - as opposed to private employee unions - shouldn't be able to charge agency fees. But then he stops short, says Abood still stands but that the Illinois caregivers can't invoke it because they are both public and private employees. Which makes no sense at all.
It is really kind of embarrassing, Kagan writes a dissent which reads like a law professor trying to nicely dress down an eager but somewhat dim law student for a weak exam answer.
The most charitable explanation is that the majority couldn't get Roberts (and/or maybe Kennedy) to overrule the Abood precedent and so Alito had to muddle through best he could. But it will not win any prizes for SCt. Opinion writing.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 09:36:28 AM
I would think healthcare coverage should be considered in some sort of dollar equivalent.
You would think tha if you actually believe that's a common business practice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 10:00:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 09:36:28 AM
I would think healthcare coverage should be considered in some sort of dollar equivalent.
You would think tha if you actually believe that's a common business practice.
Well, of course. When evaluating my current job, I took into consideration the fact that they pay for most of my coverage.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 09:36:28 AM
I would think healthcare coverage should be considered in some sort of dollar equivalent.
It likely depends on the level of the job. I imagine food and rent come before health insurance in the hierarchy of needs. Above a subsistence level income it probably does factor in.
Quote from: Maximus on July 01, 2014, 10:13:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 09:36:28 AM
I would think healthcare coverage should be considered in some sort of dollar equivalent.
It likely depends on the level of the job. I imagine food and rent come before health insurance in the hierarchy of needs. Above a subsistence level income it probably does factor in.
Oh certainly.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2014, 09:22:32 AM
I'm sure the owners feel that way, it is always preferable to have your cake (strict separation for liability) and eat it to (no separation for speech rights)
The question is what recognized, neutral principle of law would permit that. There aren't any. Corporations are creatures of state law and every state's law provides that the corporation is separate from its owners. So the owners can jump up and down about their personal views, but their personal views don't get attributed to the corporation anymore than the views of the employees that run it, the customers that sustain it, the creditors that fund it, or the Secretary of State who validates the corporate charter. The rights of equity owners are clearly set forth in statute and common law and basically amount to the right to elect directors and collect whatever residual profits are left after payment to creditors. Not included in those rights is the right to treat the abstract corporate entity as some sort of personal political doppelganger.
Really??? Shareholders have no rights to hire or fire staff, to set compensation, to dispose of assets, to contract, to assume debt, to liquidate the company, nothing other than those two you mentioned??
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2014, 10:22:53 AM
Really??? Shareholders have no rights to hire or fire staff, to set compensation, to dispose of assets, to contract, to assume debt, to liquidate the company, nothing other than those two you mentioned??
Aren't all of these things what the directors do? Not the shareholders? Except perhaps liquidating the company.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2014, 10:22:53 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2014, 09:22:32 AM
I'm sure the owners feel that way, it is always preferable to have your cake (strict separation for liability) and eat it to (no separation for speech rights)
The question is what recognized, neutral principle of law would permit that. There aren't any. Corporations are creatures of state law and every state's law provides that the corporation is separate from its owners. So the owners can jump up and down about their personal views, but their personal views don't get attributed to the corporation anymore than the views of the employees that run it, the customers that sustain it, the creditors that fund it, or the Secretary of State who validates the corporate charter. The rights of equity owners are clearly set forth in statute and common law and basically amount to the right to elect directors and collect whatever residual profits are left after payment to creditors. Not included in those rights is the right to treat the abstract corporate entity as some sort of personal political doppelganger.
Really??? Shareholders have no rights to hire or fire staff, to set compensation, to dispose of assets, to contract, to assume debt, to liquidate the company, nothing other than those two you mentioned??
The problem with big public corporations is that inevitably share ownership and therefore control is inevitably diluted and therefore any one individual shareholder (whether an actual individual or institution) can do very little to affect the company other than ask questions to the board. A possible solution is to consolidate share ownership, but that brings it's own problems. The whole thing isn't quite as bad as the common land problem, but it's not far off.
The fact that companies can create new shares and share rights out of thin air also weakens share ownership control of the company.
Quote from: Zanza on July 01, 2014, 10:27:51 AM
Aren't all of these things what the directors do? Not the shareholders? Except perhaps liquidating the company.
Is that a meaningful distinction? Directors in theory are supposed to reflect the interests of shareholders.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 10:09:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 10:00:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 09:36:28 AM
I would think healthcare coverage should be considered in some sort of dollar equivalent.
You would think tha if you actually believe that's a common business practice.
Well, of course. When evaluating my current job, I took into consideration the fact that they pay for most of my coverage.
You have that luxury. "Most Americans", as Dorsey4LyingStankAssSociopath contended, don't always have that ability.
But, as we've seen before, this collection of overeducated, cynical snot-nosed assfucks called Languish doesn't qualify as "most Americans."
Edit--what Max said, only meaner.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 10:38:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 10:09:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 10:00:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 09:36:28 AM
I would think healthcare coverage should be considered in some sort of dollar equivalent.
You would think tha if you actually believe that's a common business practice.
Well, of course. When evaluating my current job, I took into consideration the fact that they pay for most of my coverage.
You have that luxury. "Most Americans", as Dorsey4LyingStankAssSociopath contended, don't always have that ability.
But, as we've seen before, this collection of overeducated, cynical snot-nosed assfucks called Languish doesn't qualify as "most Americans."
Edit--what Max said, only meaner.
Yeah but on the flipside, you always want to paint all Americans as one step away from living in the streets - so you are hardly an impartial observer. Maybe it is just something in the blood but even my very poor relatives seemed picky about what positions they would and would not apply for (not, of course, using healthcare coverage to make determination :D).
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 09:36:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 09:33:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 09:32:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2014, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2014, 02:49:04 PM
Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.
Most Americans are going to accept the best job they can get. Fucking dumbass.
Which isn't healthcare coverage part of that of that decision on what is "the best job they can get"?
No. Particularly if it doesn't come with any. The paycheck is.
I would think healthcare coverage should be considered in some sort of dollar equivalent.
It is, of course.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 10:38:10 AM
You have that luxury. "Most Americans", as Dorsey4LyingStankAssSociopath contended, don't always have that ability.
But, as we've seen before, this collection of overeducated, cynical snot-nosed assfucks called Languish doesn't qualify as "most Americans."
Edit--what Max said, only meaner.
I think that even before obamacare most working americans got health insurance through their employer.
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2014, 10:47:43 AM
I would think healthcare coverage should be considered in some sort of dollar equivalent.
It is, of course.
[/quote]
For those employers with a sense of human morality, and are willing to pay .50 cents an hour more above the minimum wage to compensate the lack of benefits. Those that don't, well, it's a free country: keep looking for someone who does. Of course.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2014, 10:47:43 AM
It is, of course.
For those employers with a sense of human morality, and are willing to pay .50 cents an hour more above the minimum wage to compensate the lack of benefits. Those that don't, well, it's a free country: keep looking for someone who does. Of course.
But most Americans don't make minimum wage. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 11:38:04 AM
But most Americans don't make minimum wage. :huh:
Most employers don't offer higher hourly wages on the subsistence level to offset a lack of benefits, either.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 11:45:06 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 11:38:04 AM
But most Americans don't make minimum wage. :huh:
Most employers don't offer higher hourly wages on the subsistence level to offset a lack of benefits, either.
I feel like you just keep changing the terms. What group of people are we talking about again? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2014, 10:22:53 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2014, 09:22:32 AM
I'm sure the owners feel that way, it is always preferable to have your cake (strict separation for liability) and eat it to (no separation for speech rights)
The question is what recognized, neutral principle of law would permit that. There aren't any. Corporations are creatures of state law and every state's law provides that the corporation is separate from its owners. So the owners can jump up and down about their personal views, but their personal views don't get attributed to the corporation anymore than the views of the employees that run it, the customers that sustain it, the creditors that fund it, or the Secretary of State who validates the corporate charter. The rights of equity owners are clearly set forth in statute and common law and basically amount to the right to elect directors and collect whatever residual profits are left after payment to creditors. Not included in those rights is the right to treat the abstract corporate entity as some sort of personal political doppelganger.
Really??? Shareholders have no rights to hire or fire staff, to set compensation, to dispose of assets, to contract, to assume debt, to liquidate the company, nothing other than those two you mentioned??
Other than liquidation for which the answer is only "maybe/partial yes", shareholders don't have any of those rights under any state law I am aware of.
Also none of those powers are pertinent in any way to the question addressed in Hobby Lobby.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 11:47:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 11:45:06 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 11:38:04 AM
But most Americans don't make minimum wage. :huh:
Most employers don't offer higher hourly wages on the subsistence level to offset a lack of benefits, either.
I feel like you just keep changing the terms. What group of people are we talking about again? :unsure:
Dorsey4PedestrianAutoStrike stated most Americans choose their employment based on the benefits offered; I disagreed; most Americans choose their employment based on the best one they can get at the time, and worry more about whether or not the wages will pay the fucking rent that month, and worry if there's a dental plan later.
Now professionals like you, as well as the bevy of IT professionals that litter this board, are the outliers in that regard. Picking a job based on the benefits package is a luxury. For "most American", the only benefit that matters is a paycheck.
And the bullshit that employers compensate for a lack of benefits is exactly that: bullshit.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2014, 12:04:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2014, 10:22:53 AM
Really??? Shareholders have no rights to hire or fire staff, to set compensation, to dispose of assets, to contract, to assume debt, to liquidate the company, nothing other than those two you mentioned??
Other than liquidation for which the answer is only "maybe/partial yes", shareholders don't have any of those rights under any state law I am aware of.
Also none of those powers are pertinent in any way to the question addressed in Hobby Lobby.
Yeah, that's a weird argument, Yi. Shareholders create corporations instead of partnerships explicitly so they
don't do most of those things (and thus hold liability for doing them). The owners of Hobby Lobby have no employees. Only the Hobby Lobby Incorporated (or whatever the corporation is called) has employees. If the corporation has religious rights, then clearly it has a religion. I suppose it is some ways symmetrical to allow fictional entities to believe in fictional entities, but that creates all kinds of other problems.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2014, 10:35:35 AM
Quote from: Zanza on July 01, 2014, 10:27:51 AM
Aren't all of these things what the directors do? Not the shareholders? Except perhaps liquidating the company.
Is that a meaningful distinction? Directors in theory are supposed to reflect the interests of shareholders.
It is a critical distinction; in fact the failure to understand that distinction can end up being a source of frustration for shareholders when disagreements arise . . .
State law and corporate charters typically vest the general powers to direct the company in a board of directors and day-to-day managing authority in officers. Not shareholders. That includes things like dissolution which do require a shareholder vote but which (under Delaware law) is initially proposed by the Board.
Now most statutes and/or charters permit shareholders to take certain actions by written consent in lieu of a meeting. That means as a practical matter that a unified shareholder group with enough voting power can, with enough time and effort, impose their will on the company, but there is a lot of devil in the details. For example, under Delaware law shareholders can only remove a director "for cause" if it is a classified board. Also, shareholder power is mostly limited to controlling who gets on and stays on the board - i.e. it is indirect. Charters don't typically give shareholders direct power over officer appointments and certainly not things like hiring/firing line employees.
So, let me see:
If my employer does not buy lunch for me, if he gives me cash to buy food, it means I'm going to starve?
No, no, wrong analogy.
MM, what are your thoughts on LLCs and LLPs and similar organizations that aren't corporations but still have limited liability. Should they get to have their cake and eat it too?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2014, 12:24:31 PM
It is a critical distinction; in fact the failure to understand that distinction can end up being a source of frustration for shareholders when disagreements arise . . .
State law and corporate charters typically vest the general powers to direct the company in a board of directors and day-to-day managing authority in officers. Not shareholders. That includes things like dissolution which do require a shareholder vote but which (under Delaware law) is initially proposed by the Board.
Now most statutes and/or charters permit shareholders to take certain actions by written consent in lieu of a meeting. That means as a practical matter that a unified shareholder group with enough voting power can, with enough time and effort, impose their will on the company, but there is a lot of devil in the details. For example, under Delaware law shareholders can only remove a director "for cause" if it is a classified board. Also, shareholder power is mostly limited to controlling who gets on and stays on the board - i.e. it is indirect. Charters don't typically give shareholders direct power over officer appointments and certainly not things like hiring/firing line employees.
So presumably your objections would have been satisfied if the owners of Hobby Lobby had won the case as directors and/or officers of the corporation rather than owners?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2014, 12:28:05 PM
MM, what are your thoughts on LLCs and LLPs and similar organizations that aren't corporations but still have limited liability. Should they get to have their cake and eat it too?
Depends what you mean.
LLC members get to have the cake and eat it to in the sense that they get the benefits of an S Corps (limited liability + pass through tax treatment) without some of the restrictions on S Corps. OTOH you can't really go public with an LLC.
The Hobby Lobby decision didn't give much consideration to the implication for alternative kinds of entities so it is hard to evaluate that question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2014, 12:42:31 PM
So presumably your objections would have been satisfied if the owners of Hobby Lobby had won the case as directors and/or officers of the corporation rather than owners?
No, directors and officers are not themselves the corporation. They are just individuals who have certain statutory powers and responsibilities.
No one disputes that the individual shareholders couldn't be forced to act against their religious beliefs. No one disputes that the individual directors couldn't be forced to act against their religious beliefs. No one disputes that the individual officers couldn't be forced to act against their religious beliefs. But the Obamacare mandate doesn't compel those individuals. It compels the corporation. And there is nothing about the religious beliefs of any of those individuals that impels them to create a for profit corporation in order to exercise those beliefs.
The question is whether the corporation itself can be forced to act against its religious beliefs. And just posing the question answers it; corporations themselves don't and can't have religious beliefs so there no conceivable government regulation that would violate them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2014, 12:45:57 PM
Depends what you mean.
LLC members get to have the cake and eat it to in the sense that they get the benefits of an S Corps (limited liability + pass through tax treatment) without some of the restrictions on S Corps. OTOH you can't really go public with an LLC.
The Hobby Lobby decision didn't give much consideration to the implication for alternative kinds of entities so it is hard to evaluate that question.
If Hobby Lobby was an LLC would you agree with the decision? It seems you are turning on the point that Hobby Lobby, as a corporation, is a separate legal entity distinct from its owners. If not, are there alternative structures Hobby Lobby could form, such as an LLP or even as basic as a sole proprietorship, that would result in you agreeing with the judgment (that they don't have to cover contraceptives)?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2014, 01:04:05 PM
If Hobby Lobby was an LLC would you agree with the decision? It seems you are turning on the point that Hobby Lobby, as a corporation, is a separate legal entity distinct from its owners. If not, are there alternative structures Hobby Lobby could form, such as an LLP or even as basic as a sole proprietorship, that would result in you agreeing with the judgment (that they don't have to cover contraceptives)?
A sole proprietorship would not raise a similar objection because then there is absolute identity between the person and the business. There would still need to be a balancing of interest against accommodation, of course.
LLCs and LLPs I think should be treated same as the corporate entities; there are still separate and distinct legal entities even if treated as transparent for federal tax purposes.
A straight partnership is a tougher case; have to think about that.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 11:38:04 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2014, 10:47:43 AM
It is, of course.
For those employers with a sense of human morality, and are willing to pay .50 cents an hour more above the minimum wage to compensate the lack of benefits. Those that don't, well, it's a free country: keep looking for someone who does. Of course.
But most Americans don't make minimum wage. :huh:
No, but a significant portion of them (over 46 million Americans) are living in poverty, ie living paycheck to paycheck, day-to-day. And most of them are women and children. I doubt that they bother too much with looking at the benefits package when they get a job. Like Max said, it's more about rent and food than healthcare.
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10434141_10152219463398652_1884765781067282158_n.jpg?oh=2d3e57d8b6fd20b7e5f92205d88b7440&oe=54315305)
Heh.
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2014, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 11:38:04 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2014, 10:47:43 AM
It is, of course.
For those employers with a sense of human morality, and are willing to pay .50 cents an hour more above the minimum wage to compensate the lack of benefits. Those that don't, well, it's a free country: keep looking for someone who does. Of course.
But most Americans don't make minimum wage. :huh:
No, but a significant portion of them (over 46 million Americans) are living in poverty, ie living paycheck to paycheck, day-to-day. And most of them are women and children. I doubt that they bother too much with looking at the benefits package when they get a job. Like Max said, it's more about rent and food than healthcare.
To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2014, 04:38:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2014, 04:34:37 PM
Anyone know if guys can buy rubbers using their insurance?
No. Guys should buy those with their own money if they wanna get their jollies by having sex. Besides, Viagra is covered. BE HAPPY WITH THAT.
I meant to comment on this before. I'd like to point out that most single women I know also buy condoms, so this isn't really a man vs woman thing. It affects both genders equally.
However, the IUD and other forms of hormonal birth control only affect women.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 01:29:45 PM
To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.
AR certainly sounded as though he was saying that if people don't like it, they don't have to work there. Seedy and I are saying that it's not that simple, since people on the poverty line will take whatever job they can get and worry about the benefits later.
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2014, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 01:29:45 PM
To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.
AR certainly sounded as though he was saying that if people don't like it, they don't have to work there. Seedy and I are saying that it's not that simple, since people on the poverty line will take whatever job they can get and worry about the benefits later.
It seems the argument goes like this: "freedom to find another job" works well for resource-strong middle class types and above; ergo, there is no need to provide any support to more vulnerable people.
I wonder if a business that claims a religious exemption will have to pay a tithe. I wonder what would happen if a corporation got excommunicated.
Quote from: Jacob on July 01, 2014, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2014, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 01:29:45 PM
To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.
AR certainly sounded as though he was saying that if people don't like it, they don't have to work there. Seedy and I are saying that it's not that simple, since people on the poverty line will take whatever job they can get and worry about the benefits later.
It seems the argument goes like this: "freedom to find another job" works well for resource-strong middle class types and above; ergo, there is no need to provide any support to more vulnerable people.
Exactly. And when you're talking about more than 15% of our population (those living in poverty, not those close to or just above), that's not really acceptable.
Quote from: Jacob on July 01, 2014, 02:02:57 PM
It seems the argument goes like this: "freedom to find another job" works well for resource-strong middle class types and above; ergo, there is no need to provide any support to more vulnerable people.
I think you missed what I've been arguing for years regarding health care and in this thread.
I don't think that health care is best provided through employers in the first place. Ideally there would either be a basic public provision for universal health care or less ideally mandatory insurance with free / heavily subsidized insurance for the poor.
We don't live in that world, even if Obamacare moved us toward it. The model that Obamacare uses forces certain employers (but not all) to provide health insurance, subject to sanctions, in order to keep people out of the private sector which will be heavily subsidized by the government.
To the extent that is our model, I'm not outraged by the scope of the employers forced to provide health insurance being reduced by those that are closely held corporations that also can demonstrate a moral aversion to providing medical care. Those numbers will be so much smaller than the number of people employed by small business, why get bent out of shape over that?
Also, I really don't know how things are working so far, but theoretically such luminary employees as Wal Mart, Target, and many grocery stores are offering health insurance now. So if you really want health insurance, and somehow can't get a private plan, there should be places you can get insurance with your employment.
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2014, 02:41:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 01, 2014, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2014, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 01:29:45 PM
To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.
AR certainly sounded as though he was saying that if people don't like it, they don't have to work there. Seedy and I are saying that it's not that simple, since people on the poverty line will take whatever job they can get and worry about the benefits later.
It seems the argument goes like this: "freedom to find another job" works well for resource-strong middle class types and above; ergo, there is no need to provide any support to more vulnerable people.
Exactly. And when you're talking about more than 15% of our population (those living in poverty, not those close to or just above), that's not really acceptable.
Presumably they should have invested their trust fund money better.
Quote from: Jacob on July 01, 2014, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2014, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 01:29:45 PM
To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.
AR certainly sounded as though he was saying that if people don't like it, they don't have to work there. Seedy and I are saying that it's not that simple, since people on the poverty line will take whatever job they can get and worry about the benefits later.
It seems the argument goes like this: "freedom to find another job" works well for resource-strong middle class types and above; ergo, there is no need to provide any support to more vulnerable people.
Sure if you want to be a jerk and make up positions for people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2014, 04:46:57 PMSure.
Corporations have always had some level of rights.
QuoteThe law at issue in Citizens United permitted the individual members of Citizens United to use their own funds to finance the challenged communications. Nor was there a finding that the use of the corporate form was essential in order for the individuals to deliver that message. The case was decided on the Court's conclusion that Citizens United, the corporation was entitled to protection for its own speech as an entity.
And I guess it's impossible to view speech as a different right than religious belief? I'd argue it's nonsensical for a very large corporation with thousands or hundreds of thousands of shareholders to have a genuine religious belief. But I think that since public issue affect these corporations it only makes sense they should be able, collectively, to take a stand on those issues. In fact they have always been able to do so, through advertisement, political action committees and etc. It's only in the narrow case of Federal Elections Law that they were restricted in the way they could exercise their corporate speech in terms of what types of advertisements they could run during certain windows around Federal Elections.
On the other hand, a very closely held corporation (using the IRS term) is essentially just a small cabal of owners probably belonging to one family, and I think you can make a pretty logical argument that such a group have a genuine shared religious belief that could be infringed upon by government action.
Of course this case wasn't about the constitution and innate rights at all. But about the RFRA, which if it did not exist, this suit would not either. The RFRA could have been bypassed in the wording of the PPACA (by explicitly saying the RFRA does not apply), and the SCOTUS certainly would have had no grounds to rule like this on an RFRA claim when the Congress itself had made explicit how to resolve the issue. But with the existence of the RFRA and no clear Congressional intent on how to square the RFRA with PPACA that puts it firmly in the court's bailiwick for deciding how it sorts out.
Quote from: grumbler on June 30, 2014, 07:29:49 PMYou are using logic on a ruling from the Roberts court, the most activist court of the last 40 years. That's why you are failing to grasp the issue. This ruling is about the personal beliefs of the Supremes, not about the law. Just as Citizens United was. There is no requirement that personal beliefs be consistent or logical.
I certainly agree that most SCOTUS decisions and most justices simply rule on personal preference now. I don't know how I'd measure "most" activist so I can't agree with that. But to me this just shows the fallacy of judicial review, it's something that should not exist and in many countries does not. Judicial review is a pox on mankind.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2014, 02:42:09 PMI don't think that health care is best provided through employers in the first place. Ideally there would either be a basic public provision for universal health care or less ideally mandatory insurance with free / heavily subsidized insurance for the poor.
Actually this is wrong. I think universal public health care is not the ideal. I'd rather have the German system than the NHS. In the German system non-profit organizations offer basic health insurance to anyone who needs it essentially, you have to pay into this and have said insurance in most situations. If you have a "normal" job, you and your employer will both pay into it. But unlike our current healthcare system, the employers don't actually administer the plan or anything, they're just paying money to the non-profit organization that runs it. I believe each State has its own non-profit org that provides this base level of health insurance. The unemployed and low income receive forms of assistance and I believe may receive refunds of the employee share of the insurance cost.
The best thing about the German system to me, is these non-profits each essentially have the market cornered in each State, and have rigorous controls of health care costs that they can perform. And since the government is almost always the worst choice to run anything, they (in my opinion) do a much better job than the NHS because they aren't trying to run health care, they just run the payment system and work to control costs. There is private insurance too, which I think would be a bone to some of the far righties here if we had such a system. Some 15% of Germans have opted out of the system I just described and use private insurance (which typically is much cheaper if you're a young healthy person, but can get more expensive than the comparable option in the public system as you get older or get sicker)--I think one hitch in the German system that I recall is that if you opt out, it's not just like flipping a switch to get back in. So if you make the jump to the private insurance system you better be really sure that's what you want long term.
We don't live in that world, even if Obamacare moved us toward it. The model that Obamacare uses forces certain employers (but not all) to provide health insurance, subject to sanctions, in order to keep people out of the private sector which will be heavily subsidized by the government.
QuoteTo the extent that is our model, I'm not outraged by the scope of the employers forced to provide health insurance being reduced by those that are closely held corporations that also can demonstrate a moral aversion to providing medical care. Those numbers will be so much smaller than the number of people employed by small business, why get bent out of shape over that?
Also, I really don't know how things are working so far, but theoretically such luminary employees as Wal Mart, Target, and many grocery stores are offering health insurance now. So if you really want health insurance, and somehow can't get a private plan, there should be places you can get insurance with your employment.
In general the exchanges were supposed to cover anyone who falls through the various cracks, but there are still certain classes of people that get screwed. I think for example if your employer's health insurance is compliant with Obamacare, but in such a way that it still really sucks for some things or sucks over all (this is possible because of how PPACA was written there are ways to game the system) you are ineligible for exchange subsidies. I believe anyone can join an exchange, but if your employer offers a shitty but compliant plan, then you can't get subsidized exchange plans and some of the exchange plans are really expensive without the low income subsidies. If you're higher income you may be able to just get regular private insurance anyway if you have a shitty employer in terms of the benefit package.
I think the Hobby Lobby employees who want contraceptive coverage may fall into this category, or at least they're now in the same category as employees of religious organizations. I can't remember if those types of employees are eligible for exchange plan subsidies or not. I think their plans are considered non-compliant but the employers are simply exempted from the fines, so the employees may be eligible for the same subsidies as employees of any other non-compliant company.
To me one of the weird things about PPACA is, if HL had just dropped health insurance entirely the fine was something like $27m/year. Which wouldn't have been enough to seriously impact Hobby Lobby's business--in fact since they'd no longer be offering health insurance it's most likely it would have increased their margin. But offering non-compliant healthcare the fine was like an order of magnitude higher, and since they'd still be offering health insurance they'd be keeping all of those costs. It would have been enough that the Green family would probably have sold HL off since it'd have been bankrupted. So the PPACA actually incentivizes just not offering health insurance to some degree since the penalties for such are benign compared to the cost of actually offering the insurance.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2014, 03:19:57 PM
Actually this is wrong. I think universal public health care is not the ideal. I'd rather have the German system than the NHS. In the German system non-profit organizations offer basic health insurance to anyone who needs it essentially, you have to pay into this and have said insurance in most situations. If you have a "normal" job, you and your employer will both pay into it. But unlike our current healthcare system, the employers don't actually administer the plan or anything, they're just paying money to the non-profit organization that runs it. I believe each State has its own non-profit org that provides this base level of health insurance. The unemployed and low income receive forms of assistance and I believe may receive refunds of the employee share of the insurance cost.
The best thing about the German system to me, is these non-profits each essentially have the market cornered in each State, and have rigorous controls of health care costs that they can perform. And since the government is almost always the worst choice to run anything, they (in my opinion) do a much better job than the NHS because they aren't trying to run health care, they just run the payment system and work to control costs. There is private insurance too, which I think would be a bone to some of the far righties here if we had such a system. Some 15% of Germans have opted out of the system I just described and use private insurance (which typically is much cheaper if you're a young healthy person, but can get more expensive than the comparable option in the public system as you get older or get sicker)--I think one hitch in the German system that I recall is that if you opt out, it's not just like flipping a switch to get back in. So if you make the jump to the private insurance system you better be really sure that's what you want long term.
In general this description is correct, but the health insurers don't generally have a regional focus. As far as I know most operate in the entire country. Most are loosely based on former sectors of industry, but membership is no longer limited to those working in certain industries.
The rates and even the scope of services is negotiated between a representative body of the health insurers, and those of doctors and hospitals. Germany organizes a lot of things like that with big federal entities that are controlled by the actual stakeholders, not the state, but get a certain legal status through statuary law to guarantee their ability to negotiate efficiently. That removes the direct political influence, but still makes sure that several parties have similar negotiating powers. These entities will typically not be allowed to be active outside their limited scope, i.e. they may not comment on general political questions.
QuoteAlito says the court has "little trouble" concluding that the HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of region: "The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage."
:huh:
Did The US Supreme Court pierce the corporate veil to find that a corporation has the religious beliefs of its shareholders? If so, what happend to the Rule of Law? And what now happens to the concept of limited liabilty?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2014, 04:08:49 PM
:huh:
Did The US Supreme Court pierce the corporate veil to find that a corporation has the religious beliefs of its shareholders?
The majority opinion proceeds as if blissfully unaware of the entirety of state law corporate alter ego doctrine. This is why it is having their cake and eating it too.
Much as you're going on blissfully unaware of the RFRA apparently.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2014, 05:54:44 PM
Much as you're going on blissfully unaware of the RFRA apparently.
How do you get that?
The claimant here is a corporation. RFRA address burdens on "a person's exercise of religion." So unless the corporation and its owners are alter egos or unless acting in a corporate form is critical to owner's exercise of faith, the religious beliefs of the owners should not be relevant.
All RFRA really does is specify the standards applicable to constitutional free exercise claims. It doesn't address standing to make those claims, actually it specifically says general rules of standing are applicable.
A little more background here:
These were actually two consolidated cases. In each case, the individuals owners sued personally as well as the corporations. In each case, the individual claims were denied. And in each case, the individual claims were NOT appealed to the Supreme Court. The only questions addressed to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether the corporations had prosecutable free exercise rights under RFRA and (2) whether the free exercise rights of the corporations were violated by the contraceptive mandate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2014, 06:44:49 PM
A little more background here:
These were actually two consolidated cases. In each case, the individuals owners sued personally as well as the corporations. In each case, the individual claims were denied. And in each case, the individual claims were NOT appealed to the Supreme Court. The only questions addressed to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether the corporations had prosecutable free exercise rights under RFRA and (2) whether the free exercise rights of the corporations were violated by the contraceptive mandate.
And, as usual, the court drops the ball on the question it should have asked all along, which isn't necessarily whether corporations have free exercise rights, but which takes precedence when their free exercise collides with both an employee's free exercise and their medical right to privacy.
I'm getting tired of reading liberal bullshit in this place.
Little aside here--who had heard of Hobby Lobby prior to this case? Apparently there is one less than 5 miles from my house, in a major shopping center I frequent all the time. When I first read about this case maybe 6 months ago, I remember thinking Hobby Lobby must be some plains state store we don't have here as I had never heard of it in my life (and I read the owners are from Oklahoma or something), imagine my surprise when I was going to Target and noticed an HL in the same shopping center.
Now, I'm not totally ignorant of the existence of crafts stores, I've noticed Michaels stores for years, but HL kind of snuck up on me. I'd never so much as heard of it until six months ago and apparently they've had a store here for years.
I got a stone frog there for the yard. He guards one of the sheds.
Yeah, they're a bit new to the area here as well; I checked them out when they first showed up to see if they covered, you know, other hobbies like model rocketry and whatnot. Imagine my surprise there were no Warhammer minis to be found. :glare:
Just another Michael's, which is already seriously entrenched in the mid-Atlantic.
I bet Ed burns through a Jo Ann Fabrics like a motherfucker.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 09:52:09 PM
Yeah, they're a bit new to the area here as well; I checked them out when they first showed up to see if they covered, you know, other hobbies like model rocketry and whatnot. Imagine my surprise there were no Warhammer minis to be found. :glare:
Just another Michael's, which is already seriously entrenched in the mid-Atlantic.
But you can get scrap booking supplies. You can make a WARHAMMER scrapbook.
Warhammer doilies. Yahoo.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 01, 2014, 09:59:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2014, 09:52:09 PM
Yeah, they're a bit new to the area here as well; I checked them out when they first showed up to see if they covered, you know, other hobbies like model rocketry and whatnot. Imagine my surprise there were no Warhammer minis to be found. :glare:
Just another Michael's, which is already seriously entrenched in the mid-Atlantic.
But you can get scrap booking supplies. You can make a WARHAMMER scrapbook.
:lol: Well played!
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2014, 09:45:54 PM
Little aside here--who had heard of Hobby Lobby prior to this case? Apparently there is one less than 5 miles from my house, in a major shopping center I frequent all the time. When I first read about this case maybe 6 months ago, I remember thinking Hobby Lobby must be some plains state store we don't have here as I had never heard of it in my life (and I read the owners are from Oklahoma or something), imagine my surprise when I was going to Target and noticed an HL in the same shopping center.
Now, I'm not totally ignorant of the existence of crafts stores, I've noticed Michaels stores for years, but HL kind of snuck up on me. I'd never so much as heard of it until six months ago and apparently they've had a store here for years.
They look an awful lot like Home Depot from the outside, so I'd guess most people just assume that's what it is.
Quote from: Zanza on July 01, 2014, 03:36:12 PMIn general this description is correct, but the health insurers don't generally have a regional focus. As far as I know most operate in the entire country. Most are loosely based on former sectors of industry, but membership is no longer limited to those working in certain industries.
The rates and even the scope of services is negotiated between a representative body of the health insurers, and those of doctors and hospitals. Germany organizes a lot of things like that with big federal entities that are controlled by the actual stakeholders, not the state, but get a certain legal status through statuary law to guarantee their ability to negotiate efficiently. That removes the direct political influence, but still makes sure that several parties have similar negotiating powers. These entities will typically not be allowed to be active outside their limited scope, i.e. they may not comment on general political questions.
Ah, that sectors of industry thing makes sense given how German business works. I'm still pretty impressed I mostly got it right from memory :D.
Even Christians are pissed at Hobby Lobby.
And the last line kills me. I read it as: the vendors they work with don't have as much clout as Hobby Lobby does because they can't control their government the way HL can theirs.
QuoteThe arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby proudly touts itself as a Christian company that puts people over profits. However, some staunch Christians say there's a gaping hole in that claim -- namely, China.
Products bearing "Made in China" labels are found all over the shelves at Hobby Lobby, evidence that some of its wares come from Chinese factories that have a reputation for labor rights violations and rock-bottom wages. Employees at these facilities often end up working grueling hours in prison-like conditions and never earn enough to escape poverty.
"You cannot call your business 'Christian' when arguing before the Supreme Court, and then set aside Christian values when you're placing a bulk order for cheap wind chimes," wrote Christian author and columnist Jonathan Merritt in a recent article for The Week.
Hobby Lobby remains quiet about its dealings in China. The company did not respond to requests for a list of Chinese factories it does business with, and did not provide information about what percentage of its merchandise comes from China.
Then there's China's controversial record on abortion. The country's one-child policy was slightly relaxed in 2013, but the family planning bureaucracy still exists. Since the government instituted the policy 40 years ago, there have been more than 330 million abortions in China, according to health ministry data cited by the Financial Times. Though fewer instances of forced abortion, infanticide and involuntary sterilization now occur because they're banned by the government, they still happen, The Washington Post reported last year.
This week, Hobby Lobby's crusade against contraceptives scored it a victory in the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, the court ruled 5-4 that so-called "closely held corporations" don't have to provide certain kinds of contraception for employees.
"Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill," Hobby Lobby founder and CEO David Green wrote in an open letter in 2013. "We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs."
Yet the company is happy to profit from the business it does with China, critics argue, even though political conditions in that country have led to hundreds of millions of abortions.
Leslie Marshall, a radio host and self-described born-again Christian, questioned Hobby Lobby's policies in a column for U.S. News & World Report in March, invoking the teachings of the "guy who started all of this."
"As they say: What would Jesus do?" wrote Marshall. "He would remind Hobby Lobby that 'he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.' Hobby Lobby should put its stones down."
In a 2013 blog post, Matt Chambers, the director of a non-governmental organization called SafeWorld, similarly wrote that he disapproved of Hobby Lobby's relationship with China for religious reasons.
"You see, when it comes carrying high the banner of 'Biblical principles', I believe a company who wanted that to be their public persona would be extra careful to NEVER do business with the very people who go against everything they claim to fight for as Christians," Chambers wrote, according to The Christian Post.
Other Christian columnists, including The Christian Post's Josh Stonestreet, have come out in defense of Hobby Lobby, saying that working with Chinese manufacturers is different from working with the Chinese government.
"Doing business in a place where evil exists is not the same as directly supporting that evil," wrote Stonestreet. "In fact, it may even be a force for good!"
Hobby Lobby has remained largely silent on the issue, but in a column in the Rutland (Vermont) Herald in March, Peter Dobelbower, the company's vice president and chief legal officer, provided some insight into Hobby Lobby's rationale for buying products made abroad: Those factories can't control what their governments do, so it's OK.
"Our company sources from suppliers around the world," Dobelbower wrote in response to an earlier op-ed, calling for a boycott, that had appeared in the same paper. "Virtually all Hobby Lobby's vendors are small entrepreneurial businesses without control over their government's abortion policies."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2014, 09:45:54 PM
Little aside here--who had heard of Hobby Lobby prior to this case?
Here in Cincy I think they have more locations than Michaels. They're a pretty good source for stuff for kid's parties.
And now like Chick-fil-A, I get to make a political statement by shopping there! :w00t:
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 08:46:40 AM
Even Christians are pissed at Hobby Lobby.
This article is kind of silly. Oh my, there are some Christians that don't like a company that calls itself Christian?
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 08:55:05 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2014, 09:45:54 PM
Little aside here--who had heard of Hobby Lobby prior to this case?
Here in Cincy I think they have more locations than Michaels. They're a pretty good source for stuff for kid's parties.
And now like Chick-fil-A, I get to make a political statement by shopping there! :w00t:
I think I need some more stone frogs. No whore pills frogs.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 08:56:02 AM
This article is kind of silly. Oh my, there are some Christians that don't like a company that calls itself Christian?
Yeah-- "Christians" are a large, fairly diverse, group of people. Good chance you're going to find some that don't like something.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 02, 2014, 08:57:42 AM
I think I need some more stone frogs. No whore pills frogs.
LOL IUD FROGS
That is, frogs crafted from IUDs cruelly denied to Hobby Lobby employees :menace:
I am always a bit amazed at how for so many people their core beliefs are pretty much motivated by a bizarre combination of spite and misogyny.
Then I am amazed at myself for continuing to be amazed.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 02, 2014, 08:57:42 AM
I think I need some more stone frogs. No whore pills frogs.
LOL IUD FROGS
That is, frogs crafted from IUDs cruelly denied to Hobby Lobby employees :menace:
Toxic Shock frogs.
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2014, 09:03:01 AM
I am always a bit amazed at how for so many people their core beliefs are pretty much motivated by a bizarre combination of spite and misogyny.
Then I am amazed at myself for continuing to be amazed.
I don't know, I mean I would think that many of the people who support things don't run around actively disliking women, they are just indifferent to the effects such policies have on them. Is indifference a sign of misogyny?
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2014, 09:03:01 AM
I am always a bit amazed at how for so many people their core beliefs are pretty much motivated by a bizarre combination of spite and misogyny.
Then I am amazed at myself for continuing to be amazed.
None of that surprises me at all. But what has always surprised me is some number of people actually care about the political activities or beliefs of the ownership of places they shop. If I'm going through a fast food place or a convenience store or a hardware store I care about what I'm getting for my dollar and don't really give a fuck what goes on in that company otherwise. Not my business or concern if they have slaves working in the back or the owner eats babies for breakfast.
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2014, 09:03:01 AM
I am always a bit amazed at how for so many people their core beliefs are pretty much motivated by a bizarre combination of spite and misogyny.
Then I am amazed at myself for continuing to be amazed.
Was that directed at me?
Because I may or may not have been 100% serious in a couple of my most recent posts.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 09:09:38 AM
Not my business or concern if they have slaves working in the back or the owner eats babies for breakfast.
I don't think I would want to fund slavery in my own backyard*. That's a bit distasteful.
*qualified as unfortunately I think we all likely sponsor some sort of slavery somewhere in the world.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 09:11:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2014, 09:03:01 AM
I am always a bit amazed at how for so many people their core beliefs are pretty much motivated by a bizarre combination of spite and misogyny.
Then I am amazed at myself for continuing to be amazed.
Was that directed at me?
Because I may or may not have been 100% serious in a couple of my most recent posts.
You are a monster.
Also FWIW I think Hobby Lobby does actually cover berf control pills and several other contraception methods in its employee health coverage.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2014, 09:45:54 PM
Little aside here--who had heard of Hobby Lobby prior to this case?
I have. We went there a couple years ago to buy Christmas decorations and then in 2011 to get my family tree thing framed. Fuckers were terrible at everything. Not sure why they are so big but maybe Crafts stores just suck in general.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 09:26:11 AM
Also FWIW I think Hobby Lobby does actually cover berf control pills and several other contraception methods in its employee health coverage.
Sandra Flake used them all.
I buy all my knitting and sewing supplies there.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 09:26:11 AM
Also FWIW I think Hobby Lobby does actually cover berf control pills and several other contraception methods in its employee health coverage.
The specifics in the case are hilariously narrow. The decision though seems quite broad, hence why I was curious if it had any big long term impacts.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 09:12:45 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 09:09:38 AM
Not my business or concern if they have slaves working in the back or the owner eats babies for breakfast.
I don't think I would want to fund slavery in my own backyard*. That's a bit distasteful.
*qualified as unfortunately I think we all likely sponsor some sort of slavery somewhere in the world.
Yeah as a First Worlder I figure I am partially responsible for some atrocity someplace just by breathing oxygen. Ah well what can you do?
Quote from: Siege on July 01, 2014, 09:21:16 PM
I'm getting tired of reading liberal bullshit in this place.
Only read Hans' posts.
I find it odd that people find funding slavery distasteful but are fine with funding baby eating.
I would fund Tim being torn apart by wild dogs.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 09:40:03 AM
I find it odd that people find funding slavery distasteful but are fine with funding baby eating.
Lots of people hate babies.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 09:42:28 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 09:40:03 AM
I find it odd that people find funding slavery distasteful but are fine with funding baby eating.
Lots of people hate babies.
Besides what has a baby done for me lately?
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 02, 2014, 09:41:12 AM
I would fund Tim being torn apart by wild dogs.
Kickstarter for that, perhaps? :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 10:00:09 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 02, 2014, 09:41:12 AM
I would fund Tim being torn apart by wild dogs.
Kickstarter for that, perhaps? :hmm:
Indiegogo. I get the money even if I don't reach the funding target.
Okay, I'll put money toward it if you can show me a cost breakdown for the dogs and some sort of analysis on how many dogs it will take.
I want pit bulls, some German shepards and a Shiba Inu to look cute.
I figure 250K.
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2014, 09:03:01 AM
I am always a bit amazed at how for so many people their core beliefs are pretty much motivated by a bizarre combination of spite and misogyny.
Then I am amazed at myself for continuing to be amazed.
One could, if one wanted, say more or less the same thing about *any* political position.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2014, 09:03:01 AM
I am always a bit amazed at how for so many people their core beliefs are pretty much motivated by a bizarre combination of spite and misogyny.
Then I am amazed at myself for continuing to be amazed.
None of that surprises me at all. But what has always surprised me is some number of people actually care about the political activities or beliefs of the ownership of places they shop. If I'm going through a fast food place or a convenience store or a hardware store I care about what I'm getting for my dollar and don't really give a fuck what goes on in that company otherwise. Not my business or concern if they have slaves working in the back or the owner eats babies for breakfast.
It matters to me that I don't support certain entities, like the whole Alliance for Marriage thing. Some companies directly contribute to those organizations through corporate donations, and others do it from their personal income. I don't necessarily mind the personal income thing since that's their paycheck to do with as they please, but the corporate donations thing means that my money is going pretty much straight from me to that organization. I'd rather not do that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2014, 10:28:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2014, 09:03:01 AM
I am always a bit amazed at how for so many people their core beliefs are pretty much motivated by a bizarre combination of spite and misogyny.
Then I am amazed at myself for continuing to be amazed.
One could, if one wanted, say more or less the same thing about *any* political position.
You think all political positions are motivated by a combination of spite and misogyny?
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 02:52:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 01, 2014, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2014, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 01:29:45 PM
To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.
AR certainly sounded as though he was saying that if people don't like it, they don't have to work there. Seedy and I are saying that it's not that simple, since people on the poverty line will take whatever job they can get and worry about the benefits later.
It seems the argument goes like this: "freedom to find another job" works well for resource-strong middle class types and above; ergo, there is no need to provide any support to more vulnerable people.
Sure if you want to be a jerk and make up positions for people.
You're free to find another board to post on if you don't like this one :)
Quote from: Jacob on July 02, 2014, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 02:52:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 01, 2014, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2014, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2014, 01:29:45 PM
To be honest, I didn't realize I was defending a position that healthcare is the make or break decision factor. I'm not even sure what's his name was making that argument, despite Seeding framing it as such.
AR certainly sounded as though he was saying that if people don't like it, they don't have to work there. Seedy and I are saying that it's not that simple, since people on the poverty line will take whatever job they can get and worry about the benefits later.
It seems the argument goes like this: "freedom to find another job" works well for resource-strong middle class types and above; ergo, there is no need to provide any support to more vulnerable people.
Sure if you want to be a jerk and make up positions for people.
You're free to find another board to post on if you don't like this one :)
I think if I was going to dislike Languish because people sometimes post jerky things, I likely would have left in 2003. ;)
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 11:01:43 AM
I think if I was going to dislike Languish because people sometimes post jerky things, I likely would have left in 2003. ;)
:lol:
Posting jerky things is pretty much the reason for languish's existence.
Is there a message board out there where everybody posts nice things? Languish does not seem that exceptional.
Quote from: Jacob on July 02, 2014, 10:58:22 AM
You think all political positions are motivated by a combination of spite and misogyny?
I think very few are.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 11:12:08 AM
Is there a message board out there where everybody posts nice things? Languish does not seem that exceptional.
You don't believe in Languish exceptionalism? :o :mad: You're probably some pinko commie foreigner who likes soccer.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 10:48:53 AM
It matters to me that I don't support certain entities, like the whole Alliance for Marriage thing. Some companies directly contribute to those organizations through corporate donations, and others do it from their personal income. I don't necessarily mind the personal income thing since that's their paycheck to do with as they please, but the corporate donations thing means that my money is going pretty much straight from me to that organization. I'd rather not do that.
How much of your money is going to the cause you dislike, though? Is it enough to really lose sleep over? I have a hard time understanding that mentality-- I have enough things in life to juggle without worrying about a company using three cents from my purchase to support Planned Parenthood.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 11:40:39 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 10:48:53 AM
It matters to me that I don't support certain entities, like the whole Alliance for Marriage thing. Some companies directly contribute to those organizations through corporate donations, and others do it from their personal income. I don't necessarily mind the personal income thing since that's their paycheck to do with as they please, but the corporate donations thing means that my money is going pretty much straight from me to that organization. I'd rather not do that.
How much of your money is going to the cause you dislike, though? Is it enough to really lose sleep over? I have a hard time understanding that mentality-- I have enough things in life to juggle without worrying about a company using three cents from my purchase to support Planned Parenthood.
I think it is something of a sliding scale.
For example, I find Chik-fil-A's donating to anti-human rights organizations completely reprehensible. Not quite as bad as the Holocaust, but close.
On the other hand, Chik-fil-A nuggets and sandwhiches are fucking awesome. So yeah...have to find something else to boycott.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 10:48:53 AMIt matters to me that I don't support certain entities, like the whole Alliance for Marriage thing. Some companies directly contribute to those organizations through corporate donations, and others do it from their personal income. I don't necessarily mind the personal income thing since that's their paycheck to do with as they please, but the corporate donations thing means that my money is going pretty much straight from me to that organization. I'd rather not do that.
Why? Money exchanged in a transaction is money to buy what you're buying, no more, no less. There's no moral impingement as to what happens after that. Money donated to a cause is money donated to a cause. I don't see how there is any moral or rational relationship between what I buy and what happens with that "money" right after I hand it over. It's no longer my property at that point.
Self-righteous consumerism has its limits, I suppose.
Fuckers dont get my business again until they either
1) support teh gays getting married, or
2) get that banana creme pie shake back on the menu. Goddamn. I mean, real bananas and chunks of pie crust.
Bah, who am I kidding. I was there last Friday. Gays are on their own on this one.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 11:53:00 AM
Self-righteous consumerism has its limits, I suppose.
When it comes to chicken nuggets and badass milkshakes, you bet your fucking fetuses it does.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 11:52:56 AM
Why? Money exchanged in a transaction is money to buy what you're buying, no more, no less. There's no moral impingement as to what happens after that. Money donated to a cause is money donated to a cause. I don't see how there is any moral or rational relationship between what I buy and what happens with that "money" right after I hand it over. It's no longer my property at that point.
This POV is a choice, much as Meri's POV is a choice.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2014, 11:55:44 AMThis POV is a choice, much as Meri's POV is a choice.
Oh I agree there. Much as developing a profession, having kids when you're financially able to raise them and having a good life vs being poor with no education and too many kids is a choice.
I think my point was her choice was wrong and mine was right, in case you missed that part of it.
So if I discover a business I do business with is a front for organized crime it would be irrational for me to then do business with one of their competitors?
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 12:00:24 PM
So if I discover a business I do business with is a front for organized crime it would be irrational for me to then do business with one of their competitors?
I think the lesson here is that it depends on whether or not they have fucking awesome nuggets and shakes.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 12:00:24 PM
So if I discover a business I do business with is a front for organized crime it would be irrational for me to then do business with one of their competitors?
Are you committing a crime by doing business with the front? Is it immoral to do lawful and morally appropriate business with someone who otherwise commits crimes?
In the example of a front, I'd argue you are contributing to their ability to maintain a front for their crimes by giving it legitimate business. So in that scenario there is a moral impingement to doing business with them. But if you have a neighbor that you know sells drugs, is it immoral to pay him to shovel snow out of your drive way? I'd argue it is not, since it is in no way connected to his drug dealing. Whether you choose to try and get him arrested or busted for his drug dealing is a separate moral decision unconnected to paying him to shovel snow.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 11:57:20 AM
Oh I agree there. Much as developing a profession, having kids when you're financially able to raise them and having a good life vs being poor with no education and too many kids is a choice.
I think my point was her choice was wrong and mine was right, in case you missed that part of it.
I did, mainly because you didn't supply any reasons why you thought your choice was better.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2014, 12:05:55 PMI did, mainly because you didn't supply any reasons why you thought your choice was better.
I guess I thought impeccable internal logical consistency and the unassailable ethical arguments did that.
I got terrible shakes.
So, Otto, what you're saying is that you wouldn't mind buying from a company that donates heavily to an organization that wants to create a fundamentalist Muslim state with Sharia law in the US, as long as the company and the organization work within the law?
Good to know! :thumbsup:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 11:52:56 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 10:48:53 AMIt matters to me that I don't support certain entities, like the whole Alliance for Marriage thing. Some companies directly contribute to those organizations through corporate donations, and others do it from their personal income. I don't necessarily mind the personal income thing since that's their paycheck to do with as they please, but the corporate donations thing means that my money is going pretty much straight from me to that organization. I'd rather not do that.
Why? Money exchanged in a transaction is money to buy what you're buying, no more, no less. There's no moral impingement as to what happens after that. Money donated to a cause is money donated to a cause. I don't see how there is any moral or rational relationship between what I buy and what happens with that "money" right after I hand it over. It's no longer my property at that point.
If you have the choice between two merchants to obtain the same product and merchant A finincially supports [fill in an activity you find odious] and merchant B financially supports [fill in activity you strongly support] you would be a bit silly to support merchant A through the purchase of their product. Through that financial transaction you deem to be neutral you are in fact providing the means by with the merchant is able to support the cause you find odious.
There has been a lot written about the impact of choices made by consumers. I am not sure how one can deny a relationship between the choices a consumer makes and the world they get.
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2014, 11:44:55 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 11:40:39 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 10:48:53 AM
It matters to me that I don't support certain entities, like the whole Alliance for Marriage thing. Some companies directly contribute to those organizations through corporate donations, and others do it from their personal income. I don't necessarily mind the personal income thing since that's their paycheck to do with as they please, but the corporate donations thing means that my money is going pretty much straight from me to that organization. I'd rather not do that.
How much of your money is going to the cause you dislike, though? Is it enough to really lose sleep over? I have a hard time understanding that mentality-- I have enough things in life to juggle without worrying about a company using three cents from my purchase to support Planned Parenthood.
I think it is something of a sliding scale.
For example, I find Chik-fil-A's donating to anti-human rights organizations completely reprehensible. Not quite as bad as the Holocaust, but close.
On the other hand, Chik-fil-A nuggets and sandwhiches are fucking awesome. So yeah...have to find something else to boycott.
It's impossible to meaningfully participate in the economy without doing something evil, so I don't bother boycotting shit.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2014, 12:40:09 PM
It's impossible to meaningfully participate in the economy without doing something evil, so I don't bother boycotting shit.
I accept you dont bother. But your reason for doing so is you want a revolution and so why would you reduce the the evil that you hope will provoke others to action.
I think the reason might be more like I want to eat and wear clothes.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2014, 12:52:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2014, 12:26:39 PM
So, Otto, what you're saying is that you wouldn't mind buying from a company that donates heavily to an organization that wants to create a fundamentalist Muslim state with Sharia law in the US, as long as the company and the organization work within the law?
Good to know! :thumbsup:
I probably wouldn't care about that to be honest, no. Such an organization has so little chance of being successful that I'd not care about it to any meaningful degree. If it was a terrorist organization, it'd be illegal for the business to make those donations in the first place.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 12:29:43 PMIf you have the choice between two merchants to obtain the same product and merchant A finincially supports [fill in an activity you find odious] and merchant B financially supports [fill in activity you strongly support] you would be a bit silly to support merchant A through the purchase of their product. Through that financial transaction you deem to be neutral you are in fact providing the means by with the merchant is able to support the cause you find odious.
There has been a lot written about the impact of choices made by consumers. I am not sure how one can deny a relationship between the choices a consumer makes and the world they get.
How often are we really faced with such a manufactured choice, though? Okay, so I find out Chik-fil-A is the devil, that happened because of gay media outrage. Ostensibly CFA had been doing that shit forever, but only more recently was it really publicized heavily. How do I know Wendy's or Arby's isn't doing things I dislike, just no crusader has made me aware of it yet? I don't. So my option is to rigorously research everything before I buy it (if I'm going to live this life morally crusading against businesses that sell fast food), or to just trust that whichever business the media makes a fuss about is the one I need to be worried about.
So one problem is for me to be anything but a lazy hypocrite while living this way, I'd need to be doing research on every merchant I do business with. The argument that "well you can just be outraged about the ones you happen to hear about" is nonsense to me. If it's immoral to buy from those businesses, then the onus is on you to research every business you have dealings with.
Another problem is one of comparable product. In your choice, you assume I can just go to Merchant B. CFA makes peach milk shakes, how many fast food places in the shopping center where I'm stopping to get fast food serve those? Answer: Zero. So I'm not actually choosing between like products, but deciding to buy a different product because of corporate behavior unrelated to the food business. Same with say, a supermarket. By far one of the most important things to me with a supermarket is proximity to my house, and if the one 0.5 mi away is owned by a "bad guy" who has politically objectionable opinions, even if the one 10 mi. away is essentially the same business, they aren't comparable choices because one involves a 20mi round trip versus 1 mi at the other.
I think you avoid all this with the common sense view that you're morally responsible for your behavior, not the behavior of others. If your purchase is somehow intrinsically immoral then that's a concern, but if you're buying say, food, clothes, electronic toys or etc, I don't see any moral impingement--and what the merchant does once your money becomes their money is
their moral decision for which we are not responsible.
To put it in Christian terms, it's like saying a Christian should only associate with other Christians who are also working to not sin, and not only that, but only Christians actively trying to avoid sinning who
themselves only do business with the same. That's a logically ludicrous position and defies the strictures of really any form of ethics worth following.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 12:29:43 PMIf you have the choice between two merchants to obtain the same product and merchant A finincially supports [fill in an activity you find odious] and merchant B financially supports [fill in activity you strongly support] you would be a bit silly to support merchant A through the purchase of their product. Through that financial transaction you deem to be neutral you are in fact providing the means by with the merchant is able to support the cause you find odious.
There has been a lot written about the impact of choices made by consumers. I am not sure how one can deny a relationship between the choices a consumer makes and the world they get.
How often are we really faced with such a manufactured choice, though? Okay, so I find out Chik-fil-A is the devil, that happened because of gay media outrage. Ostensibly CFA had been doing that shit forever, but only more recently was it really publicized heavily. How do I know Wendy's or Arby's isn't doing things I dislike, just no crusader has made me aware of it yet? I don't. So my option is to rigorously research everything before I buy it (if I'm going to live this life morally crusading against businesses that sell fast food), or to just trust that whichever business the media makes a fuss about is the one I need to be worried about.
So one problem is for me to be anything but a lazy hypocrite while living this way, I'd need to be doing research on every merchant I do business with. The argument that "well you can just be outraged about the ones you happen to hear about" is nonsense to me. If it's immoral to buy from those businesses, then the onus is on you to research every business you have dealings with.
Another problem is one of comparable product. In your choice, you assume I can just go to Merchant B. CFA makes peach milk shakes, how many fast food places in the shopping center where I'm stopping to get fast food serve those? Answer: Zero. So I'm not actually choosing between like products, but deciding to buy a different product because of corporate behavior unrelated to the food business. Same with say, a supermarket. By far one of the most important things to me with a supermarket is proximity to my house, and if the one 0.5 mi away is owned by a "bad guy" who has politically objectionable opinions, even if the one 10 mi. away is essentially the same business, they aren't comparable choices because one involves a 20mi round trip versus 1 mi at the other.
I think you avoid all this with the common sense view that you're morally responsible for your behavior, not the behavior of others. If your purchase is somehow intrinsically immoral then that's a concern, but if you're buying say, food, clothes, electronic toys or etc, I don't see any moral impingement--and what the merchant does once your money becomes their money is their moral decision for which we are not responsible.
To put it in Christian terms, it's like saying a Christian should only associate with other Christians who are also working to not sin, and not only that, but only Christians actively trying to avoid sinning who themselves only do business with the same. That's a logically ludicrous position and defies the strictures of really any form of ethics worth following.
You are correct. Being a smart consumer takes effort. But nobody would bother making any effort if they subscribed to your orginal point that all transactions are nuetral and one should never care how the money is used after the point of purchase. If consumers dont care then they will never influence how producers and merchants operate. But there is lots of evidence to the contrary and so a rest easy in knowing you and Ide are in the minority - although for different reasons.
I wouldn't say they're in the minority. I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 01:26:20 PM
I wouldn't say they're in the minority. I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.
Yeah for the most part I just buy whatevs. But if I was confronted with slaves* when going to purchase something? Probably wouldn't go to that store anymore.
*or knew about the slaves toiling in backroom.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 01:26:20 PM
I wouldn't say they're in the minority. I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.
Most people also more or less assume corporations are morally indifferent entities designed to pursue business, and lack such attributes as opinions on religious matters.
Yeah. YOU HEAR THAT SCALIA?!!?
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 01:31:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 01:26:20 PM
I wouldn't say they're in the minority. I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.
Yeah for the most part I just buy whatevs. But if I was confronted with slaves* when going to purchase something? Probably wouldn't go to that store anymore.
*or knew about the slaves toiling in backroom.
I'd probably tell on them if they have slaves. That's just not right.
Quote from: Malthus on July 02, 2014, 01:31:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 01:26:20 PM
I wouldn't say they're in the minority. I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.
Most people also more or less assume corporations are morally indifferent entities designed to pursue business, and lack such attributes as opinions on religious matters.
Is that why so many corporations now try to market themselves as "green"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 01:35:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 02, 2014, 01:31:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 01:26:20 PM
I wouldn't say they're in the minority. I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.
Most people also more or less assume corporations are morally indifferent entities designed to pursue business, and lack such attributes as opinions on religious matters.
Is that why so many corporations now try to market themselves as "green"?
"Green" is a statement about a corporation's practices, not its religious beliefs. Corporations often claim that their practices meet certain standards - may even be certified as doing so, or following some industry association's standards of quality.
It is very different from proclaiming that the corporation itself has some sort of religious beliefs or goals quite aside from providing products and services.
Quote from: Malthus on July 02, 2014, 01:31:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 01:26:20 PM
I wouldn't say they're in the minority. I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.
Most people also more or less assume corporations are morally indifferent entities designed to pursue business, and lack such attributes as opinions on religious matters.
It's been clear for a while that that's not the case. There are a number of stores that I will not buy from for a similar reason to the Hobby Lobby mess. (By the way, I stopped shopping at HL a while ago because of their contributions to groups fighting gay marriage.)
As for Otto's statement that it requires an all-or-none approach, I don't agree. I have an advantage of living in a relatively small city, so finding out the general corporate contributions, if there are any, aren't difficult. I shop primarily at the local food co-op or a locally owned grocery store. I've looked into the other stores that I frequent. I know which fast food restaurants I'm comfortable supporting, and I avoid new ones until I've had time to see where they stand.
Are these absolutes? No. But I believe that making my stance known with my credit card is the best option that I have, even if I'm imperfect in it.
Quote from: Malthus on July 02, 2014, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 01:35:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 02, 2014, 01:31:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 01:26:20 PM
I wouldn't say they're in the minority. I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.
Most people also more or less assume corporations are morally indifferent entities designed to pursue business, and lack such attributes as opinions on religious matters.
Is that why so many corporations now try to market themselves as "green"?
"Green" is a statement about a corporation's practices, not its religious beliefs. Corporations often claim that their practices meet certain standards - may even be certified as doing so, or following some industry association's standards of quality.
It is very different from proclaiming that the corporation itself has some sort of religious beliefs or goals quite aside from providing products and services.
Corporations dont have religious beliefs.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 02:00:43 PM
Corporations dont have religious beliefs.
I agree, and think the very notion is absurd ... but evidently, the US Supreme Court thinks otherwise.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 01:16:50 PMYou are correct. Being a smart consumer takes effort. But nobody would bother making any effort if they subscribed to your orginal point that all transactions are nuetral and one should never care how the money is used after the point of purchase. If consumers dont care then they will never influence how producers and merchants operate. But there is lots of evidence to the contrary and so a rest easy in knowing you and Ide are in the minority - although for different reasons.
"Being a smart consumer" isn't the same thing as researching the political activities of the businesses with which you transact. Being a smart consumer involves things like comparing the actual offerings of said business to the offerings of their competitors, and pulling in expert research/advice when the purchase is of high enough value to warrant it (ex. new car, house etc.) The whole point of the discussion at this point is whether it's morally necessary to vet the political activities with business you have transactions with, if you "equate" being a smart consumer to doing just that you're just making the assumption that such a stance is correct without any real basis to it.
Further, I think the evidence is Ide and I are the overwhelming majority. Very few consumers seem to make political decisions when shopping. Activists do, but activists by their nature are a niche group, otherwise they wouldn't stand out as activists. Now, I think many consumers do research on what they buy--but that's far different from vetting the political activity of the companies they do business with.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 01:34:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 01:31:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 01:26:20 PM
I wouldn't say they're in the minority. I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.
Yeah for the most part I just buy whatevs. But if I was confronted with slaves* when going to purchase something? Probably wouldn't go to that store anymore.
*or knew about the slaves toiling in backroom.
I'd probably tell on them if they have slaves. That's just not right.
The slave comment was hyperbole. Yes, if a business had slaves working in the back you'd have a moral responsibility to tell the authorities, the question of whether to do business with them not even being the pressing concern at that point.
Quote from: Malthus on July 02, 2014, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 02:00:43 PM
Corporations dont have religious beliefs.
I agree, and think the very notion is absurd ... but evidently, the US Supreme Court thinks otherwise.
Yes, but lets not carry their error into this discussion. :P
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 01:56:49 PMIt's been clear for a while that that's not the case. There are a number of stores that I will not buy from for a similar reason to the Hobby Lobby mess. (By the way, I stopped shopping at HL a while ago because of their contributions to groups fighting gay marriage.)
That what isn't the case? I think you're wrong if you think your approach is typical. Do you have any empirical evidence to suggest there is significant economic activity driven by the sort of calculus you half-heartedly engage in? Everything I've ever seen on it suggests there is little to no real meat behind this stuff. Companies do like to avoid political controversies in general, which is why they try to fix it anytime it happens, but even the companies that don't really try very hard (Whole Foods and its anti-union CEO, CFA and its stuff, HL and its behavior, Domino's when it the Pro-Life Crusader as CEO) don't really show any measurable impact from this behavior.
QuoteAs for Otto's statement that it requires an all-or-none approach, I don't agree. I have an advantage of living in a relatively small city, so finding out the general corporate contributions, if there are any, aren't difficult. I shop primarily at the local food co-op or a locally owned grocery store. I've looked into the other stores that I frequent. I know which fast food restaurants I'm comfortable supporting, and I avoid new ones until I've had time to see where they stand.
Are these absolutes? No. But I believe that making my stance known with my credit card is the best option that I have, even if I'm imperfect in it.
This just basically sounds like "well, it's fine if I do it half-assed because it makes me feel good." But then that has nothing to do with intrinsically moral or amoral or immoral behavior, that's just "doing what you feel like", which is exactly what Ide does.
Quote from: Malthus on July 02, 2014, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 02:00:43 PM
Corporations dont have religious beliefs.
I agree, and think the very notion is absurd ... but evidently, the US Supreme Court thinks otherwise.
Not only that, but all five justices in the majority were MEN-- who know nothing about women's health issues.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 02:21:14 PM
That what isn't the case?
The comment was directed toward Malthus' saying that corporations don't have religious beliefs.
QuoteI think you're wrong if you think your approach is typical. Do you have any empirical evidence to suggest there is significant economic activity driven by the sort of calculus you half-heartedly engage in? Everything I've ever seen on it suggests there is little to no real meat behind this stuff. Companies do like to avoid political controversies in general, which is why they try to fix it anytime it happens, but even the companies that don't really try very hard (Whole Foods and its anti-union CEO, CFA and its stuff, HL and its behavior, Domino's when it the Pro-Life Crusader as CEO) don't really show any measurable impact from this behavior.
I don't know if my approach is typical or otherwise, and I've never claimed one way or the other. I've also never looked into whether this kind of behavior has any demonstrable affect on a company. I don't want my money helping to support organizations that I find objectionable, ergo, I don't shop where I know that can/will happen.
At no time have I claimed that by exercising my right of where I spend my money am I exacting some social change. Rather, I'm making sure that I am not - directly or indirectly - supporting groups I disagree with. Still not sure why this in any way offends or concerns you at all.
QuoteThis just basically sounds like "well, it's fine if I do it half-assed because it makes me feel good." But then that has nothing to do with intrinsically moral or amoral or immoral behavior, that's just "doing what you feel like", which is exactly what Ide does.
Erm. Not really. If 95% of my money goes into stores that I'm comfortable shopping in because I've made sure that they do not contribute to organizations I have a fundamental difference with, then I'd say that I'm doing okay. Even if that amount is 50%, that's still 50% less money that they can use for those endeavors.
You're coming at this as if I expect to make some huge, overarching social change. I'm not. I'm simply making sure that my money isn't going into things I disagree with. If I do shop at a store that does such a thing, I at least understand what I'm doing, and I'm making that conscious choice to do so.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:29:30 PM
Erm. Not really. If 95% of my money goes into stores that I'm comfortable shopping in because I've made sure that they do not contribute to organizations I have a fundamental difference with, then I'd say that I'm doing okay. Even if that amount is 50%, that's still 50% less money that they can use for those endeavors.
You really think you're making an impact?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 01:16:50 PMYou are correct. Being a smart consumer takes effort. But nobody would bother making any effort if they subscribed to your orginal point that all transactions are nuetral and one should never care how the money is used after the point of purchase. If consumers dont care then they will never influence how producers and merchants operate. But there is lots of evidence to the contrary and so a rest easy in knowing you and Ide are in the minority - although for different reasons.
"Being a smart consumer" isn't the same thing as researching the political activities of the businesses with which you transact. Being a smart consumer involves things like comparing the actual offerings of said business to the offerings of their competitors, and pulling in expert research/advice when the purchase is of high enough value to warrant it (ex. new car, house etc.) The whole point of the discussion at this point is whether it's morally necessary to vet the political activities with business you have transactions with, if you "equate" being a smart consumer to doing just that you're just making the assumption that such a stance is correct without any real basis to it.
Further, I think the evidence is Ide and I are the overwhelming majority. Very few consumers seem to make political decisions when shopping. Activists do, but activists by their nature are a niche group, otherwise they wouldn't stand out as activists. Now, I think many consumers do research on what they buy--but that's far different from vetting the political activity of the companies they do business with.
Being the overwhelming majority on languish, by definition, makes you an extreme outlier in general society. At least one would hope. :P
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 02:31:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:29:30 PM
Erm. Not really. If 95% of my money goes into stores that I'm comfortable shopping in because I've made sure that they do not contribute to organizations I have a fundamental difference with, then I'd say that I'm doing okay. Even if that amount is 50%, that's still 50% less money that they can use for those endeavors.
You really think you're making an impact?
This is really lost on you guys, isn't it?
I shop where I'm comfortable spending my money. I shop where I know that my money isn't going toward endeavors that I disagree with. Does it make a huge impact on that company? I'd guess not. But at least I know that I'm not part of the problem.
It's like litter. My street can be filled with litter, but that doesn't mean that I have to throw my trash out the window of my car, too. And maybe I can help a bit by telling others not to throw their trash out the window, either. I can't make them not throw their trash, but maybe if they know what happens when they do it, they'll be less likely to throw it out the window, too. Instead, they'll take the extra 10 steps and go to a trash can.
Does it make the street spotless? Nope, but I know that it's not my trash out there, and I tried to help others make a different choice, too.
I still don't understand the mindset. Almost seems like a hobby.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:34:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 02:31:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:29:30 PM
Erm. Not really. If 95% of my money goes into stores that I'm comfortable shopping in because I've made sure that they do not contribute to organizations I have a fundamental difference with, then I'd say that I'm doing okay. Even if that amount is 50%, that's still 50% less money that they can use for those endeavors.
You really think you're making an impact?
This is really lost on you guys, isn't it?
I shop where I'm comfortable spending my money. I shop where I know that my money isn't going toward endeavors that I disagree with. Does it make a huge impact on that company? I'd guess not. But at least I know that I'm not part of the problem.
It's like litter. My street can be filled with litter, but that doesn't mean that I have to throw my trash out the window of my car, too. And maybe I can help a bit by telling others not to throw their trash out the window, either. I can't make them not throw their trash, but maybe if they know what happens when they do it, they'll be less likely to throw it out the window, too. Instead, they'll take the extra 10 steps and go to a trash can.
Does it make the street spotless? Nope, but I know that it's not my trash out there, and I tried to help others make a different choice, too.
Their reasoning is a classic example of the "all or nothing fallacy" in action.
Consumer action that even Languishites can appreciate :P
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11981
QuoteThe French Opposition to the war in Iraq in early 2003, prompted calls for a boycott of French wine in the US. We measure the magnitude of consumers' participation in the boycott, and look at basic evidence of who participates. Conservative estimates indicate that the boycott resulted in 26% lower weekly sales at its peak, and 13% lower sales over the six month period that we estimate the boycott lasted for
.
To me the all or nothing thing is just part of what makes it ridiculous.
The core of it is, if I give you money and you beat your wife that night, I'm not responsible for that. Your actions and my giving you money (in exchange for goods or services, services in your case I suppose) are 100% separate and in no way morally linked.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 02:38:09 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 02:44:13 PM
To me the all or nothing thing is just part of what makes it ridiculous.
The core of it is, if I give you money and you beat your wife that night, I'm not responsible for that. Your actions and my giving you money (in exchange for goods or services, services in your case I suppose) are 100% separate and in no way morally linked.
But if you gave me money knowing that I would use it to buy a bat to beat my wife, then you're a jackass.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 02:44:13 PM
To me the all or nothing thing is just part of what makes it ridiculous.
The core of it is, if I give you money and you beat your wife that night, I'm not responsible for that. Your actions and my giving you money (in exchange for goods or services, services in your case I suppose) are 100% separate and in no way morally linked.
Wouldn't a more fitting example be if I gave you some money (let's say $50) and then you later (with my foreknowledge that you would) spend $5000 to have someone beat up your wife?
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:45:55 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 02:44:13 PM
To me the all or nothing thing is just part of what makes it ridiculous.
The core of it is, if I give you money and you beat your wife that night, I'm not responsible for that. Your actions and my giving you money (in exchange for goods or services, services in your case I suppose) are 100% separate and in no way morally linked.
But if you gave me money knowing that I would use it to buy a bat to beat my wife, then you're a jackass.
:yes:
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 02:38:09 PM
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.
The latter. I hate bicyclists. :angry:
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 02:47:19 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 02:38:09 PM
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.
The latter. I hate bicyclists. :angry:
And hey, that's just as okay as my buying it from the kid who wants a bike! You're helping support (or fight against) a cause that you believe in buy spending $0.25 on a glass of lemonade, even if it's a tiny bit.
It's really not that hard to understand. You may not want to do it. You may not agree with the choices that I make. But it's not hard to grasp the concept unless you're being deliberately obtuse.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 02:38:09 PM
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.
In order of what would affect my choice -
(a) If I'd bought before the tastier.
(b) If it was the neighbourhood, the one my family knew better.
(c) The cheaper.
(d) If all else fails the one that looks nicer.
Your concern wouldn't even cross my mind - 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.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:45:55 PMBut if you gave me money knowing that I would use it to buy a bat to beat my wife, then you're a jackass.
And it's a good thing I already said this:
QuoteAre you committing a crime by doing business with the front? Is it immoral to do lawful and morally appropriate business with someone who otherwise commits crimes?
In the example of a front, I'd argue you are contributing to their ability to maintain a front for their crimes by giving it legitimate business. So in that scenario there is a moral impingement to doing business with them. But if you have a neighbor that you know sells drugs, is it immoral to pay him to shovel snow out of your drive way? I'd argue it is not, since it is in no way connected to his drug dealing. Whether you choose to try and get him arrested or busted for his drug dealing is a separate moral decision unconnected to paying him to shovel snow.
And this:
QuoteThe slave comment was hyperbole. Yes, if a business had slaves working in the back you'd have a moral responsibility to tell the authorities, the question of whether to do business with them not even being the pressing concern at that point.
If we know someone is imminently preparing to commit a crime we have a societal obligation to act to stop it. I'd be pretty ashamed of myself if my only response to knowing someone was saving money up to hire a hitman or buy a bat to beat his wife with was to boycott their business.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:50:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 02:47:19 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 02:38:09 PM
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.
The latter. I hate bicyclists. :angry:
And hey, that's just as okay as my buying it from the kid who wants a bike! You're helping support (or fight against) a cause that you believe in buy spending $0.25 on a glass of lemonade, even if it's a tiny bit.
It's really not that hard to understand. You may not want to do it. You may not agree with the choices that I make. But it's not hard to grasp the concept unless you're being deliberately obtuse.
I wasn't disagreeing with the concept though. :P
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 02:52:13 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 02:57:12 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 02:52:13 PM
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?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 02:44:13 PM
To me the all or nothing thing is just part of what makes it ridiculous.
The core of it is, if I give you money and you beat your wife that night, I'm not responsible for that. Your actions and my giving you money (in exchange for goods or services, services in your case I suppose) are 100% separate and in no way morally linked.
Of course you are not respsonible for the odious act. But if you continue to support an organization knowing they have committed odious acts then you can no longer argue the act of supporting that oranization with money through the purchase of their goods or services is not morally linked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/opinion/for-the-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-is-only-the-beginning.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=OP_HLI_20140702&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=1
QuoteHobby Lobby Is Only the Beginning
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — THE United States Constitution speaks of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "cases" and "controversies." But when social controversies do come before the court, its powers are limited. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which concerned the dispute over the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, the court may have decided the case. The larger controversy, however, won't be settled so easily.
By a 5-to-4 vote, the court on Monday held that the mandate, which requires employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraception, could not be applied to closely held for-profit corporations with religious objections to some forms of contraception. Religious groups described the mandate as part of a war on religious freedom. Supporters of the mandate countered that a victory for the plaintiffs would allow large corporations, under the cover of religious freedom, not just to impede women's exercise of their reproductive rights but also to defy civil rights statutes with impunity.
Amid this heated talk, it was easy to lose sight of the fact that this was a statutory case, not a case decided under the First Amendment's protection of freedom of religion. The statute in question, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, states that the government "shall not substantially burden" the exercise of religion without satisfying a demanding legal test.
It is worth noting that the act was championed by President Bill Clinton and passed in 1993, with near unanimity, by a Democrat-controlled Congress. The act was drafted in response to a controversial 1990 Supreme Court decision that made it easier — far too easy, according to critics of all political stripes — for the government to burden the exercise of religion.
The decision in Hobby Lobby was no shock to anyone familiar with the heavy weight that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act places on religious accommodation. The fate of the case was sealed 21 years ago — not by a slim majority of the court, but by virtually every member of Congress. In a dissenting opinion on Monday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the court's ruling in Hobby Lobby was one of "startling breadth," but the statute itself is deliberately broad.
So why all the shouting? If the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is clearly written, and the product of a democratic process, what explains the apocalyptic rhetoric surrounding this case? In truth, the sources of the controversy lie outside the issue of the contraceptive mandate itself. And that should be great cause for concern — to both sides of the debate.
The first source of controversy is the collapse of a national consensus on a key element of religious liberty: accommodation. Throughout American history, there has been widespread agreement that in our religiously diverse and widely devout country, it is good for the government to accommodate religious exercise. We have disagreed about particular accommodations (may a Muslim police officer wear a beard, despite police department policy?), and especially about whether religious accommodations should be ordered by judges or crafted by legislators. But we have generally agreed that our nation benefits when we help rather than burden those with religious obligations. That consensus seems, quite suddenly, to have evaporated.
A second source of controversy is that many people view the Hobby Lobby case as concerning not just reproductive rights but also, indirectly, rights for gays and lesbians. Advocates for same-sex marriage have long insisted that their own marriages need not threaten anyone else's, but citizens with religious objections to same-sex marriage wonder whether that is entirely true: Will a small-business owner be sued, for instance, for declining to provide services to a same-sex couple? Conversely, and understandably, gay and lesbian couples wonder why they do not deserve the same protections from discrimination granted to racial and other minorities. For both sides, Hobby Lobby was merely a prelude to this dawning conflict.
The third source of controversy is a change in our views of the marketplace itself. The marketplace was once seen as place to put aside our culture wars and engage in the great American tradition of buying and selling. The shopping mall has even been called the "American agora." But today the market itself has become a site of cultural conflict. Hobby Lobby is one of many companies that seek to express faith commitments at work as well as at home and that don't see the workplace as a thing apart from religion. Many companies preach and practice values, religious and otherwise, that are unrelated to market considerations. CVS, for example, recently announced that it would stop selling tobacco products, regardless of how that decision might affect its bottom line.
A country that cannot even agree on the idea of religious accommodation, let alone on what terms, is unlikely to agree on what to do next. A country in which many states cannot manage to pass basic anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation is one whose culture wars may be beyond the point of compromise. And a nation whose marketplace itself is viewed, for better or worse, as a place to fight both those battles rather than to escape from them is still less likely to find surcease from struggle.
Expect many more Hobby Lobbies.
Shrill.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 03:05:04 PM
Shrill.
Yes but the members of the US Supreme Court are hard to replace.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 02:52:13 PM
Your concern wouldn't even cross my mind - 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.
I disagree. So you feel free to spend your money where you'd like, and I'll do the same.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 02:52:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:45:55 PMBut if you gave me money knowing that I would use it to buy a bat to beat my wife, then you're a jackass.
And it's a good thing I already said this:
QuoteAre you committing a crime by doing business with the front? Is it immoral to do lawful and morally appropriate business with someone who otherwise commits crimes?
In the example of a front, I'd argue you are contributing to their ability to maintain a front for their crimes by giving it legitimate business. So in that scenario there is a moral impingement to doing business with them. But if you have a neighbor that you know sells drugs, is it immoral to pay him to shovel snow out of your drive way? I'd argue it is not, since it is in no way connected to his drug dealing. Whether you choose to try and get him arrested or busted for his drug dealing is a separate moral decision unconnected to paying him to shovel snow.
And this:
QuoteThe slave comment was hyperbole. Yes, if a business had slaves working in the back you'd have a moral responsibility to tell the authorities, the question of whether to do business with them not even being the pressing concern at that point.
If we know someone is imminently preparing to commit a crime we have a societal obligation to act to stop it. I'd be pretty ashamed of myself if my only response to knowing someone was saving money up to hire a hitman or buy a bat to beat his wife with was to boycott their business.
Then I'm not sure why you offered the example that you did.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 03:00:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 02:57:12 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 02:52:13 PM
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? :huh: You can stick just to that example of a kid buying all that candy to eat by himself.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 02:55:56 PM
I wasn't disagreeing with the concept though. :P
I meant "you" in the universal. :hug:
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 03:29:12 PMThen 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?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 03:34:39 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 03:29:12 PMThen 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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 03:34:39 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 03:29:51 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 03:00:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 02:57:12 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 02:52:13 PM
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? :huh: You can stick just to that example of a kid buying all that candy to eat by himself.
I fail to see the :huh:; 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.) :P
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.
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?
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 03:54:13 PM
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?
:hmm:
One of the few cases where the moral choice is probably to "Dine and Dash" (assuming I remembered the phrase correctly.)
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 03:34:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 03:52:28 PM
Merithyn seems to be more of a universal interventionist/moralist whereas I'm more of a by neccessity interventionist/moralist.
:huh:
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 03:57:10 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 03:54:13 PM
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?
:hmm:
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.
And back on topic:
QuoteThis 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."
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 04:03:10 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 03:57:10 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 03:54:13 PM
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?
:hmm:
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:13:44 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 04:03:10 PM
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?
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:13:44 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 04:03:10 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 03:57:10 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 03:54:13 PM
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?
:hmm:
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?
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:44:42 PM
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.
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:13:44 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 04:03:10 PM
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?
Please note the two words "in general" in my response.
But if you insist on continuing with your absurd example the key words for me should the situation ever arise would be "good meal", nor "reasonable price". :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 04:19:17 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:13:44 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 04:03:10 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 03:57:10 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 03:54:13 PM
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?
:hmm:
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?
I personally find the concept of "FairTrade" to be foolish, odious and nothing but a placebo yet I still shop at the Co-Op that was the principle pusher of the concept in my country.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:23:22 PM
Please note the two words "in general" in my response.
But if you insist on continuing with your absurd example the key words for me should the situation ever arise would be "good meal", nor "reasonable price". :P
I can tone it down if you want. Pick a political party you dislike. Would you go to one of their fundraising dinners?
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 04:22:04 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:44:42 PM
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.
I accounted for that. :P
I have zero objection to you not caring where your money goes. I'm still not sure why there is antipathy on why I do care where mine goes.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 04:22:04 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:44:42 PM
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.
Its funny that your side always dodges the issue by setting a counter example where you have no information. The point is when you do have the information would it affect your purchasing decisions.
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 04:25:30 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:23:22 PM
Please note the two words "in general" in my response.
But if you insist on continuing with your absurd example the key words for me should the situation ever arise would be "good meal", nor "reasonable price". :P
I can tone it down if you want. Pick a political party you dislike. Would you go to one of their fundraising dinners?
If the food was good yes. If the food was good I would go to a Labour fundraiser. Or even a Green Party fundraiser. Despite their political views I might even get a good dinner conversation (Diane Abbott, for example - her political views tend to depress me, make me despise her, or infuriate me but her performance on a particular late night political show suggests she'd be a
very entertaining conversationalist at a fundraising dinner) - and if I didn't I'd still have something to laugh at albeit sotto voce.
Wouldn't donate more than the minimum neccessary though.
And if it was the BNP I'd dash...
I told you that "good food" would be the key determinant. :P
Seriously I'm not sure political parties are a good test case here.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:34:09 PM
If the food was good yes. If the food was good I would go to a Labour fundraiser. Or even a Green Party fundraiser. Despite their political views I might even get a good dinner conversation (Diane Abbott, for example - her political views tend to depress me, make me despise her, or infuriate me but her performance on a particular late night political show suggests she'd be a very entertaining conversationalist at a fundraising dinner) - and if I didn't I'd still have something to laugh at albeit sotto voce.
Wouldn't donate more than the minimum neccessary though.
And if it was the BNP I'd dash...
I told you that "good food" would be the key determinant. :P
Seriously I'm not sure political parties are a good test case here.
So its not that you think comsumers engage in morally nuetral conduct. Its that you have no morals. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 04:26:35 PM
Its funny that your side always dodges the issue by setting a counter example where you have no information.
You're ignoring the part where I said I considered it a donation. In that scenario I'd buy from both to be nice and really wouldn't care what they did with the money.
QuoteThe point is when you do have the information would it affect your purchasing decisions.
In my usual shopping/spending, no it wouldn't. Believe me, I get plenty of "information". I come across Facebook and blog posts all the time saying don't shop at this place or order from that place. A recent one that springs to mind is Starbucks-- I was told I shouldn't go there because they support gay marriage and are anti-gun. Sorry, it's not worth my time to alter my consumer behavior like that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 04:36:40 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:34:09 PM
If the food was good yes. If the food was good I would go to a Labour fundraiser. Or even a Green Party fundraiser. Despite their political views I might even get a good dinner conversation (Diane Abbott, for example - her political views tend to depress me, make me despise her, or infuriate me but her performance on a particular late night political show suggests she'd be a very entertaining conversationalist at a fundraising dinner) - and if I didn't I'd still have something to laugh at albeit sotto voce.
Wouldn't donate more than the minimum neccessary though.
And if it was the BNP I'd dash...
I told you that "good food" would be the key determinant. :P
Seriously I'm not sure political parties are a good test case here.
So its not that you think comsumers engage in morally nuetral conduct. Its that you have no morals. :P
I think there's only one appropriate response here...
"You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment." :P
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:42:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 04:36:40 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:34:09 PM
If the food was good yes. If the food was good I would go to a Labour fundraiser. Or even a Green Party fundraiser. Despite their political views I might even get a good dinner conversation (Diane Abbott, for example - her political views tend to depress me, make me despise her, or infuriate me but her performance on a particular late night political show suggests she'd be a very entertaining conversationalist at a fundraising dinner) - and if I didn't I'd still have something to laugh at albeit sotto voce.
Wouldn't donate more than the minimum neccessary though.
And if it was the BNP I'd dash...
I told you that "good food" would be the key determinant. :P
Seriously I'm not sure political parties are a good test case here.
So its not that you think comsumers engage in morally nuetral conduct. Its that you have no morals. :P
I think there's only one appropriate response here...
"You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment." :P
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 04:25:51 PM
I have zero objection to you not caring where your money goes. I'm still not sure why there is antipathy on why I do care where mine goes.
No antipathy on my part. I'm struggling to understand the mindset. Like I said, the best way I can relate to it is that it's like a hobby.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:34:09 PM
If the food was good yes. If the food was good I would go to a Labour fundraiser. Or even a Green Party fundraiser. Despite their political views I might even get a good dinner conversation (Diane Abbott, for example - her political views tend to depress me, make me despise her, or infuriate me but her performance on a particular late night political show suggests she'd be a very entertaining conversationalist at a fundraising dinner) - and if I didn't I'd still have something to laugh at albeit sotto voce.
Wouldn't donate more than the minimum neccessary though.
And if it was the BNP I'd dash...
I told you that "good food" would be the key determinant. :P
Seriously I'm not sure political parties are a good test case here.
Is there a tipping point where political distaste would override gastric pleasure? What if the choice is between a reasonably good meal at a neutral restaurant versus a slightly better meal (same price) at a Green Party fundraiser? Presumably at some point you would care that the money is going to the Greens.
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 04:47:04 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:34:09 PM
If the food was good yes. If the food was good I would go to a Labour fundraiser. Or even a Green Party fundraiser. Despite their political views I might even get a good dinner conversation (Diane Abbott, for example - her political views tend to depress me, make me despise her, or infuriate me but her performance on a particular late night political show suggests she'd be a very entertaining conversationalist at a fundraising dinner) - and if I didn't I'd still have something to laugh at albeit sotto voce.
Wouldn't donate more than the minimum neccessary though.
And if it was the BNP I'd dash...
I told you that "good food" would be the key determinant. :P
Seriously I'm not sure political parties are a good test case here.
Is there a tipping point where political distaste would override gastric pleasure? What if the choice is between a reasonably good meal at a neutral restaurant versus a slightly better meal (same price) at a Green Party fundraiser? Presumably at some point you would care that the money is going to the Greens.
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.
The dinner would provide me with -
(a) food
(b) flattery
(c) amusement
for no appreciable political cost and certainly no moral cost.
As I said in the context of this discussion political parties are probably a bad test case.
Besides, I don't really understand why you are continuing this - I've already used the qualificatory words "in general" in a previous post.
Are you trying to ascertain whether or not I have any morals since CC has suggested I lack any? ;)
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:59:16 PM
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.
The dinner would provide me with -
(a) food
(b) flattery
(c) amusement
for no appreciable political cost and certainly no moral cost.
As I said in the context of this discussion political parties are probably a bad test case.
Besides, I don't really understand why you are continuing this - I've already used the qualificatory words "in general" in a previous post.
Are you trying to ascertain whether or not I have any morals since CC has suggested I lack any? ;)
I'm just surprised that on an intellectual level you aren't bothered by the fact that the Greens could claim you as a supporter with just a hot meal. It makes me think that "dislike" might be too strong a word for your feelings toward them.
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 05:02:03 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:59:16 PM
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.
The dinner would provide me with -
(a) food
(b) flattery
(c) amusement
for no appreciable political cost and certainly no moral cost.
As I said in the context of this discussion political parties are probably a bad test case.
Besides, I don't really understand why you are continuing this - I've already used the qualificatory words "in general" in a previous post.
Are you trying to ascertain whether or not I have any morals since CC has suggested I lack any? ;)
I'm just surprised that on an intellectual level you aren't bothered by the fact that the Greens could claim you as a supporter with just a hot meal. It makes me think that "dislike" might be too strong a word for your feelings toward them.
I absolutely despise them; they're short-sighted, single issue focussed, obsessive morons (with a few honourable exceptions, I do concede.) However, I can see the potential for humour in the situation you have posited. And what would the world be without humour?
And as for the Greens claiming I was a "supporter" why should I care? My vote is still my own and not theirs. What people I despise think is not my concern; those whose opinion I do value, such as my family or the majority of Languish posters, know damn well where my political opinions lie. That's all that matters.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 02:38:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:59:16 PM
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?
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 05:59:17 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 04:59:16 PM
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. :(
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 01:02:29 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2014, 12:52:39 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 03:38:57 PMOkay 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.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 04:03:10 PMOr, 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? :lmfao:
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.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 04:03:40 PM
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.
I've seen some dumb-assery around her but you take the cake on this one Otto. :lol:
Quote from: sbr on July 02, 2014, 11:14:17 PM
I've seen some dumb-assery around her but you take the cake on this one Otto. :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 06:17:43 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 11:47:38 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 06:17:43 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 11:47:38 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 06:17:43 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 11:48:47 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 02, 2014, 11:47:38 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 06:17:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 03, 2014, 05:25:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2014, 11:43:19 PM
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. :)
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2014, 06:27:22 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 03, 2014, 05:25:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 03, 2014, 08:37:18 AM
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?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 11:10:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 04:03:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on July 03, 2014, 06:29:35 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2014, 11:43:19 PM
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.
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2014, 09:12:44 AM
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.
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2014, 09:12:44 AMExcept 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.
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2014, 09:12:44 AMIn 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.
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2014, 09:12:44 AMLet'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! :P
Quote from: Agelastus on July 03, 2014, 10:24:39 AM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on July 03, 2014, 09:16:06 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 11:10:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2014, 04:03:40 PM
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? :huh:
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2014, 06:27:22 AMIt'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?
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?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 03, 2014, 10:35:22 AM
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?
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2014, 10:38:16 AMConsidering 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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 03, 2014, 10:41:13 AM
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?
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2014, 10:28:51 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 03, 2014, 10:24:39 AM
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.
Which is often the number of people who vote in local elections.
Last town council results, the second, third and fourth successful candidates (a slate gets elected) were separated by no more than 20 or so votes. Now Town Councils have virtually no power and are by far the lowest rung on the ladder. But it's a way to become visible and to start building a power base.
The lowest majority, incidentally, in the last General Election was 4.
So no, my vote is not less valuable to them than my money.
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2014, 10:43:24 AMYou wouldn't go even if the cost to go was reasonable in relation to the quality of food you would get to eat?
Probably not, it just doesn't sound very fun.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 03, 2014, 10:43:53 AM
Which is often the number of people who vote in local elections.
Last town council results, the second, third and fourth successful candidates (a slate gets elected) were separated by no more than 20 or so votes. Now Town Councils have virtually no power and are by far the lowest rung on the ladder. But it's a way to become visible and to start building a power base.
The lowest majority, incidentally, in the last General Election was 4.
So no, my vote is not less valuable to them than my money.
If you lived in the US though where even the local elections have 10s of thousands of voters, would you feel the same way?
Quote from: Brazen on July 03, 2014, 10:36:29 AM
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?
The question actually nudged my curiousity enough to check Wikipedia - they seem to only have the three you listed.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 03, 2014, 10:45:26 AM
Probably not, it just doesn't sound very fun.
Presumably people do, though, otherwise these dinners would be pretty desolate affairs. Do you not understand why they choose to go?
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2014, 10:45:49 AM
If you lived in the US though where even the local elections have 10s of thousands of voters, would you feel the same way?
:hmm:
Interesting...
I think I'd still rate my vote as more valuable than the minatory amount of money I could afford to donate. I'm guessing that the larger Electorate increases the requirement for money so even if my vote is devalued so is the amount of money I can afford to pay for this hypothetical meal.
Interesting question though. I'm not going to say that my opinion might not change here. :hmm:
---------------
However, I also certainly wouldn't ever consider not voting. It's a duty and a privilege more than a right in my mind.
I have very little patience with people who voluntarily choose not to vote. I'd actually strip it for a period from people who consistently chose not to vote which is a pretty extreme position; at the least I'd like to see non-voters fined.
By local elections having tens of thousands of voters he means basically--super big cities like NYC, SF or whatever--and then usually only for the highest offices like Mayor or other city wide positions. Or State wide elections (which have millions of residents.)
For the equivalent type elections to what you're talking about, say for local school board, county commissioners, small town officials, the voter numbers are minuscule.
Here are some true local election results from my area link (http://fredericksburg.com/News/Web/elections/2013/index_html#spotsy).
That's still county wide, in a county with a good number of residents. In the actual city of Fredericksburg the elections are even smaller, for example we had one ward where a guy won 318-300 for councilman.
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2014, 10:49:16 AMPresumably people do, though, otherwise these dinners would be pretty desolate affairs. Do you not understand why they choose to go?
I think there's only two classes of people who go:
1. People who want to donate money and also hob nob with people in their party. I don't like the second part of that, but I will donate money on occasion.
2. People who themselves want to build their political connections, because they want to get active in local politics.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 03, 2014, 05:25:02 AM
Americans take their politics to seriously
Have you seen voter turnout figures in North America recently?
You need a pretty cavalier attitude to politics to vote for the walking abortions on the ballot.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 03, 2014, 11:05:36 AM
I think there's only two classes of people who go:
1. People who want to donate money and also hob nob with people in their party. I don't like the second part of that, but I will donate money on occasion.
2. People who themselves want to build their political connections, because they want to get active in local politics.
Well, I'm glad you can understand some people's motivations that you don't share.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 03, 2014, 11:03:26 AM
By local elections having tens of thousands of voters he means basically--super big cities like NYC, SF or whatever--and then usually only for the highest offices like Mayor or other city wide positions. Or State wide elections (which have millions of residents.)
For the equivalent type elections to what you're talking about, say for local school board, county commissioners, small town officials, the voter numbers are minuscule.
Here are some true local election results from my area link (http://fredericksburg.com/News/Web/elections/2013/index_html#spotsy).
That's still county wide, in a county with a good number of residents. In the actual city of Fredericksburg the elections are even smaller, for example we had one ward where a guy won 318-300 for councilman.
With 1000+ number of voters the odds of a single vote swinging it are seriously low as to be not worth considering, so I don't think that refutes my point.
Looking at Connecticut relatively few people voted in elections involving active voting populations under 1000. The vast majority are larger, meaning a single vote would be extremely unlikely to swing an election.
In the US if some oddball party wins the mayor for a small town that generally doesn't signify much on the national stage. At a minimum it would have to be a position at the state level to be worthy of notice, and that's going to involve at least in the hundreds of thousands.
Quote from: Caliga on July 03, 2014, 06:29:35 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2014, 11:43:19 PM
Their bland-ass chicken and inadequately salted waffle fries make me feel the same way.
Don't anger me.
Why, it might make or break your hiring decisions?
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2014, 01:40:29 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 03, 2014, 06:29:35 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2014, 11:43:19 PM
Their bland-ass chicken and inadequately salted waffle fries make me feel the same way.
Don't anger me.
Why, it might make or break your hiring decisions?
No fear. Cal's pistol will fall apart.
MAH TRIGGER
Quote from: Brazen on July 03, 2014, 10:36:29 AM
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?
POTUS is the only one in really common parlance. FLOTUS seems to be a fairly recent invention and hasn't caught on. I see SCOTUS on occasion, but see USSC much more often (even though SCOTUS is actually the acronym for the official name and is as old as POTUS).
FLOTUS is more and more common on tv shows (thinking Scandal and Veep)
What's FLOTUS? #brainfart
First Lady.
All this supreme leader/court business has been a very nice advertisment for Hubby Lovey.
Quote from: Siege on July 03, 2014, 11:55:14 PM
All this supreme leader/court business has been a very nice advertisment for Hubby Lovey.
Siege, that's probably the most accurate thing you've said all year.
Seige is a smart dude. He doesn't get enough credit for it around here because this place is infested with liberals who think conservative = stupid. Also, all the damn anti-Semites.
I'd hire Siege before I'd hire most of the Aspies here.
Quote from: Caliga on July 04, 2014, 09:36:15 AM
Seige is a smart dude. He doesn't get enough credit for it around here because this place is infested with liberals who think conservative = stupid. Also, all the damn anti-Semites.
He certainly has the best schtick, and his schtick discipline is excellent. I've only seen movement behind the curtain maybe four times in all the years he's been posting here.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 04, 2014, 09:38:27 AM
I'd hire Siege before I'd hire most of the Aspies here.
Disabled veteran credit. Insurance premium increase. Accounting says it's a go, but HR says no.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 04, 2014, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 04, 2014, 09:38:27 AM
I'd hire Siege before I'd hire most of the Aspies here.
Disabled veteran credit. Insurance premium increase. Accounting says it's a go, but HR says no.
HR is overruled by the SAVP of Hero Worship. Siegy gets job for life, squeezing pencils until they scream.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 04, 2014, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 04, 2014, 09:38:27 AM
I'd hire Siege before I'd hire most of the Aspies here.
Disabled veteran credit. Insurance premium increase. Accounting says it's a go, but HR says no.
In Ed Inc, HR doesn't rule the roost. I saw what happened when they tried to rule the roost with my last employer. :cry:
Here's NOW's "Dirty 100". Start the boycotting, y'all.
http://now.org/resource/birth-control-mandate-lawsuits/
Especially those Little Sisters of the Poor, who have had it coming for a while now.
Quote from: Caliga on July 04, 2014, 09:36:15 AM
Seige is a smart dude. He doesn't get enough credit for it around here because this place is infested with liberals who think conservative = stupid. Also, all the damn anti-Semites.
What a load of garbage. Everybody thinks Hans is smart. Siege has said plenty of stupid things. But sometimes he says something smart.
Siege is not a conservative.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2014, 11:01:13 AM
Here's NOW's "Dirty 100". Start the boycotting, y'all.
http://now.org/resource/birth-control-mandate-lawsuits/
Especially those Little Sisters of the Poor, who have had it coming for a while now.
I don't knowingly do business with any of those groups.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2014, 11:49:13 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2014, 11:01:13 AM
Here's NOW's "Dirty 100". Start the boycotting, y'all.
http://now.org/resource/birth-control-mandate-lawsuits/
Especially those Little Sisters of the Poor, who have had it coming for a while now.
I don't knowingly do business with any of those groups.
:rolleyes: Don't pretend like we don't know about your longstanding relationship with Reaching Souls International.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2014, 12:30:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2014, 11:49:13 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2014, 11:01:13 AM
Here's NOW's "Dirty 100". Start the boycotting, y'all.
http://now.org/resource/birth-control-mandate-lawsuits/
Especially those Little Sisters of the Poor, who have had it coming for a while now.
I don't knowingly do business with any of those groups.
:rolleyes: Don't pretend like we don't know about your longstanding relationship with Reaching Souls International.
That's Marty.
:lol:
:D
:)
:weep:
:shutup:
Quote from: Maximus on July 08, 2014, 03:39:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2014, 11:03:05 AM
Everybody thinks Hans is smart.
We do?
When Valmy and Cal get into a tardfight, ignore them. They say silly things.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2014, 04:35:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2014, 04:33:24 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 08, 2014, 03:39:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2014, 11:03:05 AM
Everybody thinks Hans is smart.
We do?
When Valmy and Cal get into a tardfight, ignore them. They say silly things.
Huh? We hardly ever fight...
Huh? Who is saying you frequently fight? When you do fight, though, you say silly things, IMO, like "everybody thinks Hans is smart." He's not stupid, but he is far wordier than smart people are. Minsky is smart.
Wordy people can't be smart?
Man, I sure hope wordy people can be smart... :(
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2014, 11:49:13 AM
I don't knowingly do business with any of those groups.
So no Liberty University sweatshirts this Christmas?
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2014, 07:57:46 PM
Wordy people can't be smart?
Smart people aren't wordy. Using more words than necessary isn't the choice smart people make.
Quote from: grumbler on July 09, 2014, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2014, 07:57:46 PM
Wordy people can't be smart?
Smart people aren't wordy. Using more words than necessary isn't the choice smart people make.
What if it isn't a choice?
Quote from: grumbler on July 09, 2014, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2014, 07:57:46 PM
Wordy people can't be smart?
Smart people aren't wordy. Using more words than necessary isn't the choice smart people make.
So smart people can't take joy in the use of language, using alternate phrasing to express their ideas?
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 09:10:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 09, 2014, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2014, 07:57:46 PM
Wordy people can't be smart?
Smart people aren't wordy. Using more words than necessary isn't the choice smart people make.
So smart people can't take joy in the use of language, using alternate phrasing to express their ideas?
You think Grumbler knows what smart people do? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 09:10:08 AM
So smart people can't take joy in the use of language, using alternate phrasing to express their ideas?
Why not?
Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2014, 08:57:37 AM
What if it isn't a choice?
Being smart is almost never a choice. I'd bet someone like cRazy cAnuck would choose to be smart, if only that were possible.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 09:22:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 09:10:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 09, 2014, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2014, 07:57:46 PM
Wordy people can't be smart?
Smart people aren't wordy. Using more words than necessary isn't the choice smart people make.
So smart people can't take joy in the use of language, using alternate phrasing to express their ideas?
You think Grumbler knows what smart people do? :huh:
I'm just surprised at this idea that 1984-speak is the high watermark of intellect.
And yes, g, I know you didn't see that but that sort of seems like a great example of brevity in speech (using as few words as possible).
Can we get back to how Cal slandered our fine community? :P
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 09:38:35 AM
I'm just surprised at this idea that 1984-speak is the high watermark of intellect.
I'm astonished by it as well. Certainly creating strawman arguments is not the high-water mark of intellect.
QuoteAnd yes, g, I know you didn't see that but that sort of seems like a great example of brevity in speech (using as few words as possible).
There are all kinds of degrees between
1984 and wordiness. Your argument is a classic false dichotomy.
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2014, 09:39:46 AM
Can we get back to how Cal slandered our fine community? :P
His "slander" about Siege is probably correct. Siege has a great shtick, but he has been careless a few times and shown it to be just a shtick.
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 09:38:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 09:22:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 09:10:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 09, 2014, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2014, 07:57:46 PM
Wordy people can't be smart?
Smart people aren't wordy. Using more words than necessary isn't the choice smart people make.
So smart people can't take joy in the use of language, using alternate phrasing to express their ideas?
You think Grumbler knows what smart people do? :huh:
I'm just surprised at this idea that 1984-speak is the high watermark of intellect.
And yes, g, I know you didn't see that but that sort of seems like a great example of brevity in speech (using as few words as possible).
Grumbler is confusing something he once heard said by someone who was smart.
I agree with you that smart people normally use descriptive language to communicate their meaning rather than using the shorthand of "double plus good".
Smart people avoid Internet debates.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 09, 2014, 11:57:01 AM
Smart people avoid Internet debates.
There's something we can all agree on. No smart people here (JR excepted).
It is so weird how grumbler constantly whines about how much this board and all its members suck (except JR) and are total wastes of time. Yet he keeps coming back. Deep down in his black black heart he must actually love us :wub:
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2014, 12:08:05 PM
It is so weird how grumbler constantly whines about how much this board and all its members suck (except JR) and are total wastes of time. Yet he keeps coming back. Deep down in his black black heart he must actually love us :wub:
Or he just isnt very smart. :cry:
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2014, 12:08:05 PM
It is so weird how grumbler constantly whines about how much this board and all its members suck (except JR) and are total wastes of time. Yet he keeps coming back. Deep down in his black black heart he must actually love us :wub:
:)
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2014, 12:08:05 PM
It is so weird how grumbler constantly whines about how much this board and all its members suck (except JR) and are total wastes of time. Yet he keeps coming back. Deep down in his black black heart he must actually love us :wub:
:lol: Yes, I
constantly "whine" about that. Why, you can probably find one post in which I jokingly said that there are "no smart people here." That's practically the definition of constantly. Because, of course, if one isn't smart, one must "suck" and be a "total [waste] of time." :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on July 09, 2014, 09:36:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2014, 08:57:37 AM
What if it isn't a choice?
Being smart is almost never a choice. I'd bet someone like cRazy cAnuck would choose to be smart, if only that were possible.
We can all agree no smart person teaches children for a living.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2014, 02:18:36 PM
We can all agree no smart person teaches children for a living.
:yes: You can all agree that the sun rises in the West, too.
Quote from: grumbler on July 09, 2014, 04:56:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2014, 02:18:36 PM
We can all agree no smart person teaches children for a living.
:yes: You can all agree that the sun rises in the West, too.
I hope you don't teach your students that! :o
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 04:59:25 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 09, 2014, 04:56:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2014, 02:18:36 PM
We can all agree no smart person teaches children for a living.
:yes: You can all agree that the sun rises in the West, too.
I hope you don't teach your students that! :o
Of course I teach that Otto and his ilk can agree that the sun rises in the west! :lol:
Silly people can agree on all kinds of stuff, like the sun rising in the west, Jesus riding dinosaurs, no smart person teaches children for a living... and my students need to know that.
Smart people tend to have careers that require being smart in order to be successful at them.
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2014, 09:39:46 AM
Can we get back to how Cal slandered our fine community? :P
What part upsets you? My assertion about anti-Semites running rampant? On that point... look at all the Euros around here. QED. :)
But I like Jews. :(
Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2014, 07:14:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2014, 09:39:46 AM
Can we get back to how Cal slandered our fine community? :P
What part upsets you? My assertion about anti-Semites running rampant? On that point... look at all the Euros around here. QED. :)
That we have anything but the highest respect for Spicey and his people!
Quote from: Valmy on July 10, 2014, 08:23:52 AM
That we have anything but the highest respect for Spicey and his people!
:hug:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ctvnews.ca%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.1895688%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Flandscape_620%2Fimage.jpg&hash=647774567429fb76e9e450553543f25f43c15df4)
DerNazis?
For good or ill, the court remains consistent on this issue
http://news.yahoo.com/u-top-court-throws-obamacare-contraception-ruling-141350982.html
Quote
U.S. top court throws out Obamacare contraception ruling
Reuters
By Lawrence Hurley
10 hours ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday revived religious objections by Catholic groups in Michigan and Tennessee to the Obamacare requirement for contraception coverage, throwing out a lower court decision favoring President Barack Obama's administration.
The justices asked the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision that backed the Obama administration in light of the Supreme Court's June 2014 ruling that allowed certain privately owned corporations to seek exemptions from the provision.
Obama's healthcare law, known as Obamacare, requires employers to provide health insurance policies that cover preventive services for women including access to contraception and sterilization.
Various challengers, including family-owned companies and religious affiliated nonprofits that oppose abortion and sometimes the use of contraceptives, say the requirement infringes on their religious beliefs.
The high court threw out a June 2014 appeals court ruling that went in favor of the government. In March, the court took a similar approach in a case concerning the University of Notre Dame.
The appeals court rulings in both cases pre-dated the Supreme Court's June 2014 ruling that family-owned Hobby Lobby Stores Ltd could seek exemptions on religious grounds from the contraception provision of the 2010 healthcare law.
Courts that have ruled on the issue since the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision have all decided in favor of the government, finding the government's compromise does not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. Religious rights are protected under a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The case is Michigan Catholic Conference v. Burwell, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-701.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)