George Takei Vs Hobby Lobby

Eorzea Time
 
 
 
言語: JP EN FR DE
日本語版のFFXIVPRO利用したい場合は、上記の"JP"を設定して、又はjp.ffxivpro.comを直接に利用してもいいです
users online
フォーラム » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » George Takei vs Hobby Lobby
George Takei vs Hobby Lobby
First Page 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 13 14 15
 Lakshmi.Sparthosx
Offline
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: sparthosx
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-07-07 14:18:51  
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
The comparison to Sharia involves the use of religious law to dictate the secular realm.

Yes, but actually thinking that sharia law would happen in an American business as a result of the Supreme Court ruling is delusional.

Edited for clarification.

So the Supreme Court ruling was only for Christian businesses? Seems fair.

Lol. Yeah, because Muslim's wouldn't seek small accommodations like Hobby Lobby did. They'd go full-on Sharia Law. That totally makes sense.

Don't be daft. If you allow businesses to object on religious grounds then a Muslim business could easily make "small accomodations" that might not rub well with Christians which is why the Supreme Court tried to leave that pathetic caveat in before the ruling.

Said business could cite Sharia law as a basis for their objections and predictably the Supreme Court would shoot it down.
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 14:21:05  
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved.
[+]
 Bismarck.Ramyrez
Offline
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
user: Ramyrez
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-07 14:21:16  
What Nausi is saying is essentially correct as far as the SCOTUS is concerned.

The current question is, is SCOTUS full of ***and in the corporate pocket?

 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 14:22:51  
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: »
What Nausi is saying is essentially correct as far as the SCOTUS is concerned.

The current question is, is SCOTUS full of ***and in the corporate pocket?


Sure. But suddenly we only care when they make a ruling we don't like? Sounds... lazy.
Offline
Posts: 42703
By Jetackuu 2014-07-07 14:24:17  
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: »
What Nausi is saying is essentially correct as far as the SCOTUS is concerned.

The current question is, is SCOTUS full of ***and in the corporate pocket?

Considering they think that Corporations are people, are they then in the people's pocket?


It's about time that somebody reminds the Supreme Court of their place.
Offline
Posts: 1534
By ScaevolaBahamut 2014-07-07 14:24:37  
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Who cares if your employer doesn't want to cover your anti depressants (or in hobby lobby's case only wishes to cover 80% of anti depressants FDA approved)? Why is it their obligation to cover that for you?
Who cares if your employer doesn't want to cover a flu shot or cancer treatments or pregnancy?

Where does the line stop?

It is not the company's decision to decide what is covered and what is not, their ONLY responsibility is paying their part of the insurance premiums. They have no responsibility as to what is provided and don't have to feel bad about it. They shouldn't even know.
Wrong wrong wrong!

It's entirely their decision what they want to cover. It's your decision to decide if you want to work for them or not.

It's absolutely not their decision. That's what the Affordable Care Act is all about.

This isn't about a company deciding the terms of its own benefits package. It is about a company seeking to circumvent a legal duty prescribed by statute.
[+]
 Lakshmi.Sparthosx
Offline
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: sparthosx
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-07-07 14:26:40  
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved.

Or corporations could stop being people and conform to the laws equally. Enough with the exceptions, it will get ridiculous.
[+]
 Bismarck.Magnuss
Offline
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2014-07-07 14:27:22  
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved.

Or corporations could stop being people and conform to the laws equally. Enough with the exceptions, it will get ridiculous.
That's just crazy.
[+]
 Bismarck.Bloodrose
Offline
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
user: Bloodrose
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-07-07 14:28:35  
I expect to be a special exception, even amongst the special exceptions, to prove that I am as equal, or more so, than the general populace.
 Lakshmi.Sparthosx
Offline
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: sparthosx
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-07-07 14:28:49  
Can't wait for the inevitable skirting around anti-discrimination laws to ban gay people from working at 'Christian' businesses. Oh wai-

Just don't work there!
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 14:28:50  
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved.

Or corporations could stop being people and conform to the laws equally. Enough with the exceptions, it will get ridiculous.

So you want corporate law to change completely? That's okay. Good luck with that though. Just make sure to include the corporate exceptions that the guys on your side claim.
 Bismarck.Ramyrez
Offline
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
user: Ramyrez
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-07 14:29:16  
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Who cares if your employer doesn't want to cover your anti depressants (or in hobby lobby's case only wishes to cover 80% of anti depressants FDA approved)? Why is it their obligation to cover that for you?
Who cares if your employer doesn't want to cover a flu shot or cancer treatments or pregnancy? Where does the line stop? It is not the company's decision to decide what is covered and what is not, their ONLY responsibility is paying their part of the insurance premiums. They have no responsibility as to what is provided and don't have to feel bad about it. They shouldn't even know.
Wrong wrong wrong! It's entirely their decision what they want to cover. It's your decision to decide if you want to work for them or not.
It's absolutely not their decision. That's what the Affordable Care Act is all about.

If I understand it correctly, because Hobby Lobby isn't publically traded, ACA doesn't apply directly, and it is their decision. ACA would pickup the tab, but this way Hobby Lobby doesn't have to do so, so they're using religious as a way to lay the ground for further legal loopholes. It's just another step following that corporate personhood crap.
 Bismarck.Ramyrez
Offline
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
user: Ramyrez
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-07 14:30:26  
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved.
Or corporations could stop being people and conform to the laws equally. Enough with the exceptions, it will get ridiculous.

Or, better yet, no special treatment for religions or religious considerations at all. You're free to practice them. You don't get freedom from laws (or taxes) for practicing them.
Offline
Posts: 1534
By ScaevolaBahamut 2014-07-07 14:33:25  
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: »
If I understand it correctly, because Hobby Lobby isn't publically traded, ACA doesn't apply directly, and it is their decision. ACA would pickup the tab, but this way Hobby Lobby doesn't have to do so, so they're using religious as a way to lay the ground for further legal loopholes. It's just another step following that corporate personhood crap.

ACA applies to closely-held corporations; it applies to any employer with 50 or more employees. The closely-held issue is only relevant insofar as there are definable owners whose religious beliefs may be vindicated, as opposed to faceless shareholders.
Offline
Posts: 42703
By Jetackuu 2014-07-07 14:36:06  
I'm up for removing all special treatment for even non-profit religious companies, there's no reason they should be able to skip it either.

The ***is complicated enough, without making more loopholes.

edit: *** better yet: single payer.
 Bismarck.Ramyrez
Offline
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
user: Ramyrez
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-07 14:36:16  
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: »
If I understand it correctly, because Hobby Lobby isn't publically traded, ACA doesn't apply directly, and it is their decision. ACA would pickup the tab, but this way Hobby Lobby doesn't have to do so, so they're using religious as a way to lay the ground for further legal loopholes. It's just another step following that corporate personhood crap.
ACA applies to closely-held corporations. The closely-held issue is only relevant insofar as there are definable owners whose religious beliefs may be vindicated, as opposed to faceless shareholders.

Ah. Well then.

Either way, it's all a bunch of ***.
[+]
 Ragnarok.Sekundes
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Sekundes
Posts: 4197
By Ragnarok.Sekundes 2014-07-07 14:49:19  
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: »
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: »
If I understand it correctly, because Hobby Lobby isn't publically traded, ACA doesn't apply directly, and it is their decision. ACA would pickup the tab, but this way Hobby Lobby doesn't have to do so, so they're using religious as a way to lay the ground for further legal loopholes. It's just another step following that corporate personhood crap.
ACA applies to closely-held corporations. The closely-held issue is only relevant insofar as there are definable owners whose religious beliefs may be vindicated, as opposed to faceless shareholders.

Ah. Well then.

Either way, it's all a bunch of ***.

If it was okay for them to do this, they wouldn't have had to win a court case to do it, they would have just done it.
 Shiva.Nikolce
Offline
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Nikolce
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2014-07-07 14:53:59  
Well it's a lot like playing the game of monopoly with people who want to cheat and do stuff like borrow from the bank, or rob the bank, or rob other players when they aren't looking or cheat and put five hotels on every property they own.... and they lie and take extra turns and pretend they dropped the dice when it doesn't come up a number they like and then they roll again.

and then you have the rule nazis that want to play by each and every rule in the archaic rule book and they yell and scream and hold the book up and recite page numbers and watch everyone like a hawk and complain about everyone else cheating.

then you also have the rule changers that want to make up new rules all the time throughout the game but they never right them down or make them clear and then when someone else tries to benefit from the rull they take the rule back and change it back to the way it was.

and then you have the people that start loosing real bad and they flip the board over and scream and cry and roll on the floor and demand satisfaction and break all the things and scatter all the piles of money and start fights

and then you have the normal people who would like to enjoy a fun, friendly game of monopoly without all the drama and cheating and rule nazis and sulking....and no matter how many times the board gets flipped they are always hopeful they will one day make it to the end of the game....
[+]
 Bismarck.Ramyrez
Offline
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
user: Ramyrez
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-07 14:58:29  
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Well it's a lot like playing the game of monopoly with people who want to cheat and do stuff like borrow from the bank, or rob the bank, or rob other players when they aren't looking or cheat and put five hotels on every property they own.... and they lie and take extra turns and pretend they dropped the dice when it doesn't come up a number they like and then they roll again. and then you have the rule nazis that want to play by each and every rule in the archaic rule book and they yell and scream and hold the book up and recite page numbers and watch everyone like a hawk and complain about everyone else cheating. then you also have the rule changers that want to make up new rules all the time throughout the game but they never right them down or make them clear and then when someone else tries to benefit from the rull they take the rule back and change it back to the way it was. and then you have the people that start loosing real bad and they flip the board over and scream and cry and roll on the floor and demand satisfaction and break all the things and scatter all the piles of money and start fights and then you have the normal people who would like to enjoy a fun, friendly game of monopoly without all the drama and cheating and rule nazis and sulking....and no matter how many times the board gets flipped they are always hopeful they will one day make it to the end of the game....

And then there are the people who just wanted to play cards and have a few beers.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 1534
By ScaevolaBahamut 2014-07-07 14:58:58  
Shiva.Nikolce said: »

and then you have the normal people who would like to enjoy a fun, friendly game of monopoly without all the drama and cheating and rule nazis and sulking....and no matter how many times the board gets flipped they are always hopeful they will one day make it to the end of the game....

And those are the dumbest people, because they're the ones who don't even realize they're playing for their lives.
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 15:00:15  
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like.
Offline
Posts: 42703
By Jetackuu 2014-07-07 15:02:59  
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like.
isn't that the loudest ones?
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 15:04:17  
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like.
isn't that the loudest ones?

Or rather it's everyone, because what successful business doesn't exploit whatever loopholes they can to stay ahead?
[+]
Offline
Posts: 42703
By Jetackuu 2014-07-07 15:06:52  
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like.
isn't that the loudest ones?

Or rather it's everyone, because what successful business doesn't exploit whatever loopholes they can to stay ahead?
I was talking about people, not businesses.

There's many, but I'm afraid if we start listing them by name we'll get into further nitpicking and derail from the point.

Overall, we should be able to agree that the decision was the worst for the American people, as a whole.
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 15:09:06  
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like.
isn't that the loudest ones?

Or rather it's everyone, because what successful business doesn't exploit whatever loopholes they can to stay ahead?
I was talking about people, not businesses.

There's many, but I'm afraid if we start listing them by name we'll get into further nitpicking and derail from the point.

Overall, we should be able to agree that the decision was the worst for the American people, as a whole.

Even if that's the case, the consequences are being way overblown and it's not like there aren't worse laws on the books for businesses already. People are just complaining because this one is more transparent and involves religion.
Offline
Posts: 42703
By Jetackuu 2014-07-07 15:11:30  
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like.
isn't that the loudest ones?

Or rather it's everyone, because what successful business doesn't exploit whatever loopholes they can to stay ahead?
I was talking about people, not businesses.

There's many, but I'm afraid if we start listing them by name we'll get into further nitpicking and derail from the point.

Overall, we should be able to agree that the decision was the worst for the American people, as a whole.

Even if that's the case, the consequences are being way overblown and it's not like there aren't worse laws on the books for businesses already. People are just complaining because this one is more transparent and involves religion.
I'd say the consequences are being under blown personally, and people are complaining because it doesn't add up.
[+]
 Bismarck.Bloodrose
Offline
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
user: Bloodrose
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-07-07 15:18:56  
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like.
isn't that the loudest ones?

Or rather it's everyone, because what successful business doesn't exploit whatever loopholes they can to stay ahead?
I was talking about people, not businesses.

There's many, but I'm afraid if we start listing them by name we'll get into further nitpicking and derail from the point.

Overall, we should be able to agree that the decision was the worst for the American people, as a whole.

Even if that's the case, the consequences are being way overblown and it's not like there aren't worse laws on the books for businesses already. People are just complaining because this one is more transparent and involves religion.
I'd say the consequences are being under blown personally, and people are complaining because it doesn't add up.
I'm complaining because it doesn't add up to a *** under the table while playing a game of monopoly.
[+]
 Garuda.Chanti
Offline
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 11457
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-07-07 19:01:34  
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
How can anyone with a strait face compare Hobby Lobby to sharia law?
Its easy. An awful lot of the punishments in Sharia law come right out of the old testament. The stoning of adulteresses (but not adulterers) comes right to mind.

And some of the worst things about Christianity come RIGHT out of the old testament.

Leviathan.Redherring said: »
Does Hobby Lobby insurance cover Viagra for unmarried males?
I like that question.

Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
....
Who cares if your employer doesn't want to cover your anti depressants (or in hobby lobby's case only wishes to cover 80% of anti depressants FDA approved)? Why is it their obligation to cover that for you?
Waitafrickingminute.

You work for a total compensation package. You don't just work for wages, overtime, vacation, you work for your health care too. The obligation comes from the compensation package they offered when they hired you.

Its a contractual obligation you fool.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 729
By Fumiku 2014-07-08 03:48:36  
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Leviathan.Redherring said: »
Does Hobby Lobby insurance cover Viagra for unmarried males?
I like that question.

Totally read that wrong at 5am...
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-08 03:56:45  
Garuda.Chanti said: »
You work for a total compensation package. You don't just work for wages, overtime, vacation, you work for your health care too. The obligation comes from the compensation package they offered when they hired you.

Yes, but the compensation package varies from company to company. It wasn't until recently that there was a health care mandate, so you only worked for your health care if they offered it in the first place. Also, the company was more able to freely choose which health care package they offered, giving them more control over what was in it. None of this would be an issue if it weren't for Obamacare. Heck, all that's really happening with this ruling is giving back a tiny portion of power that was taken away from the companies in the first place.
First Page 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 13 14 15