quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

All of this buttresses the argument that the more government control matters, the more people will turn to government to control us more. This ruling would not have occurred had it not been for Obamacare in the first place. What you end up with are people on both the left and the right clamoring for more government control, rather than less. If you want to envision the worst, most oppressive state possible imagine taking everything that Rick Santorum wants and combining it with everything Barack Obama wants.

Similarly, gays have not helped their cause by going after private bakeries who happily serve gay customers but for their own religious reasons (I'm an atheist, so I'd have made the cake) feel it's a violation of their personal beliefs to make a wedding cake, not because they hate gays, but because they don't support gay marriage specifically. Yet gays went to court over this and essentially destroyed their business. That is absolutely nothing but spiteful.

The article that Gauge cites is an example of the chickens coming home to roost to the detriment of all who rely on government power rather than on reciprocal civility and respect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

For those who thought that the ruling would not open the door to discrimination, take a look at this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/religious-leaders-want-exemption-hiring-lgbt-peopl/

And so it begins.

Huh?

Do you have trouble walking? I'd ask if about walking and chewing gum at the same time but clearly...

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

I'm saying that to be opposed to gay marriage is not discriminatory. I happen to be in favor of gay marriage myself. Other people, including some gays, may oppose it. (In fact, I don't believe in state-sanctioned marriage at all. If you want to get married as a whatever-you-are, more power to you. That's between you and yours. There ought to be no tax bias or anything, one way or the other. If you don't like your church's beliefs regarding marriage, it's a free country -- find another church, try to change the one you belong to, or abandon all religion). To say someone who holds a heartfelt belief that gay marriage is wrong and then to penalize them for what's in their mind and to FORCE them to violate their religious beliefs is a violation of the 1st Amendment, an amendment under which you may call them discriminatory and others may call them anything else. The gay couple was free to, among other things, not patronize the bakery, tell all their gay friends not to patronize, even to picket it. But how about live-and-let live when there is absolutely nothing to suggest the bakery owners had any hate for gays? In fact, to the contrary, they were happy to make them anything except a wedding cake, because of a personally held belief. Just like Jenny McCarthy might refuse to give me an autograph because I tell her anti-vaccine stance is moronic and actually killing children (a hell of a lot worse than the bakery's owners) -- still, that's her right to refuse me, assuming I was celebrity-obsessed enough to want hers. I have no more "right" to a Jenny McCarthy autograph than a gay couple has to a marriage cake from a privately held bakery.

As for your example, if I think Jews are going to hell because they don't believe Christ is the Messiah and I think I'm going there too by serving anyone who doesn't believe similarly, then, no I don't think they should sue either. Take their and their friends' business elsewhere. Obviously, such a bakery wouldn't last long in NY, anyhow. You can't criminalize stupidity or ignorance. But if they didn't serve Jews, but they served Buddhists, well then I'd conclude that instead of being irrational, that they hated Jews. There's a difference. We libertarians don't think the courts should be used to adjudicate personal beliefs, even if those beliefs are wrong and don't harm people. So, yes, given the plethora of other bakeries around and given the fact that the bakery happily made anything else except a wedding cake, I don't think hate had anything to do with it, and I believe the actions taken against the bakery were spiteful. I also think they picked easy targets. When they go into an Islamic bakery and make the same demands, perhaps I'd have more respect for them. But they'd never go there because they wouldn't go near anyone who actually believed homosexuals deserve the death penalty. The Christians were easy-pickins. Count me as singularly unimpressed.

Most Jim Crow laws were put in place by unions trying to protect white jobs -- one reason they were supported by Democrats at the time. Notice I said: Jim Crow laws. Institutionalized racism. Meaning if I wanted to serve to blacks, I was violating the gummint's law. Not acting privately. This is one reason, though not the only one, that the South also did very poorly economically. Denied a labor pool of blacks, they had to rely on a much smaller labor pool of whites, including plenty of unqualified whites whose jobs in a free market would be been taken by qualified blacks. So if I personally want to discriminate against someone without trying to get a law enacted, then yes, I say let the chips fall where they may. That includes picketing the bigot. Once you try to get a law enacted, then you want the government to institutionalize racism -- another reason all tax and other laws should be gender neutral and lifestyle neutral.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

I'm saying that to be opposed to gay marriage is not discriminatory. I happen to be in favor of gay marriage myself. Other people, including some gays, may oppose it. (In fact, I don't believe in state-sanctioned marriage at all. If you want to get married as a whatever-you-are, more power to you. That's between you and yours. There ought to be no tax bias or anything, one way or the other. If you don't like your church's beliefs regarding marriage, it's a free country -- find another church, try to change the one you belong to, or abandon all religion). To say someone who holds a heartfelt belief that gay marriage is wrong and then to penalize them for what's in their mind and to FORCE them to violate their religious beliefs is a violation of the 1st Amendment, an amendment under which you may call them discriminatory and others may call them anything else. The gay couple was free to, among other things, not patronize the bakery, tell all their gay friends not to patronize, even to picket it. But how about live-and-let live when there is absolutely nothing to suggest the bakery owners had any hate for gays? In fact, to the contrary, they were happy to make them anything except a wedding cake, because of a personally held belief. Just like Jenny McCarthy might refuse to give me an autograph because I tell her anti-vaccine stance is moronic and actually killing children (a hell of a lot worse than the bakery's owners) -- still, that's her right to refuse me, assuming I was celebrity-obsessed enough to want hers. I have no more "right" to a Jenny McCarthy autograph than a gay couple has to a marriage cake from a privately held bakery.

As for your example, if I think Jews are going to hell because they don't believe Christ is the Messiah and I think I'm going there too by serving anyone who doesn't believe similarly, then, no I don't think they should sue either. Take their and their friends' business elsewhere. Obviously, such a bakery wouldn't last long in NY, anyhow. You can't criminalize stupidity or ignorance. But if they didn't serve Jews, but they served Buddhists, well then I'd conclude that instead of being irrational, that they hated Jews. There's a difference. We libertarians don't think the courts should be used to adjudicate personal beliefs, even if those beliefs are wrong and don't harm people. So, yes, given the plethora of other bakeries around and given the fact that the bakery happily made anything else except a wedding cake, I don't think hate had anything to do with it, and I believe the actions taken against the bakery were spiteful. I also think they picked easy targets. When they go into an Islamic bakery and make the same demands, perhaps I'd have more respect for them. But they'd never go there because they wouldn't go near anyone who actually believed homosexuals deserve the death penalty. The Christians were easy-pickins. Count me as singularly unimpressed.

Most Jim Crow laws were put in place by unions trying to protect white jobs -- one reason they were supported by Democrats at the time. Notice I said: Jim Crow laws. Institutionalized racism. Meaning if I wanted to serve to blacks, I was violating the gummint's law. Not acting privately. This is one reason, though not the only one, that the South also did very poorly economically. Denied a labor pool of blacks, they had to rely on a much smaller labor pool of whites, including plenty of unqualified whites whose jobs in a free market would be been taken by qualified blacks. So if I personally want to discriminate against someone without trying to get a law enacted, then yes, I say let the chips fall where they may. That includes picketing the bigot. Once you try to get a law enacted, then you want the government to institutionalize racism -- another reason all tax and other laws should be gender neutral and lifestyle neutral.

Fair enough. I can accept the explanation as you give it, I just wanted a bit of clarification. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is a decently made point. Thank you for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

Yes. Not only walking, but talking, thinking, gum chewing, other forms of mastication, pretty much whatever it may be, you may assured I have trouble doing it. I have little trouble, though, admiring your consistency is responding to reasoned posts with which you disagree with inflammatory rhetoric. You'd have made a great leftist. Oh, but wait, I repeat myself. (You see, I can do it, too.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
For those who thought that the ruling would not open the door to discrimination, take a look at this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/religious-leaders-want-exemption-hiring-lgbt-peopl/

And so it begins.

All of this buttresses the argument that the more government control matters, the more people will turn to government to control us more. This ruling would not have occurred had it not been for Obamacare in the first place. What you end up with are people on both the left and the right clamoring for more government control, rather than less. If you want to envision the worst, most oppressive state possible imagine taking everything that Rick Santorum wants and combining it with everything Barack Obama wants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Similarly, gays have not helped their cause by going after private bakeries who happily serve gay customers but for their own religious reasons (I'm an atheist, so I'd have made the cake) feel it's a violation of their personal beliefs to make a wedding cake, not because they hate gays, but because they don't support gay marriage specifically. Yet gays went to court over this and essentially destroyed their business. That is absolutely nothing but spiteful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
The article that Gauge cites is an example of the chickens coming home to roost to the detriment of all who rely on government power rather than on reciprocal civility and respect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Domnotlooking

I wonder why no mutual fund doesn't have a christian-sensitive stock fund.

Oh wait, I don't wonder.

It's because it wouldn't make any money. If the fund doesn't make any money, than your lord lovin' ass is eating cat food in retirement. Pragmatism -such a motherfucker.

I'm sure there is something in your retirement fund that contradicts your principles. I personally don't think you're a hypocrite for that.

On the other hand, I AM one because I will boycott stupid, small potato's Hobby Lobby, but not Shell Oil in my portfolio.

I love my planet, but my fund has evil oil companies in it.

Fuck me, huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

There are indeed socially-conscious mutual funds, environmentally conscious funds, and so forth, for those who choose.

http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T041-C016-S001-5-mutual-funds-for-socially-responsible-investors.html
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10393815/1/five-eco-friendly-funds.html
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-03-27/funds-for-christian-investors
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T041-C000-S002-the-7-top-funds-for-ethical-investing.html

Now, I don't think it's "evil" to invest in oil. But you're wrong that the choice doesn't exist, and that they don't make money.

They do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Domnotlooking

I wonder why no mutual fund doesn't have a christian-sensitive stock fund.

Oh wait, I don't wonder.

It's because it wouldn't make any money. If the fund doesn't make any money, than your lord lovin' ass is eating cat food in retirement. Pragmatism -such a motherfucker.

I'm sure there is something in your retirement fund that contradicts your principles. I personally don't think you're a hypocrite for that.

On the other hand, I AM one because I will boycott stupid, small potato's Hobby Lobby, but not Shell Oil in my portfolio.

I love my planet, but my fund has evil oil companies in it.

Fuck me, huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
If no one has brought this up, perhaps this bears discussion, perhaps not, but Hobby Lobby got caught with their foreskin in their zipper.

[...] Perhaps when one takes a case [...] to SCOTUS to defend their religious beliefs, they should not be investing in the very same pharmaceutical companies that make the contraceptives they are so outraged to be asked to provide. They see no problem with taking the money from this company, yet somehow find it immoral to make sure it is covered for their employees.

Hypocrite much?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
HL may have been investing in a mutual fund / stock pool, whose MANAGERS decided which specific stocks to invest in. That's kind of the entire point of funds/pools - an expert makes the decisions for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
If no one has brought this up, perhaps this bears discussion, perhaps not, but Hobby Lobby got caught with their foreskin in their zipper.

[...] Perhaps when one takes a case [...] to SCOTUS to defend their religious beliefs, they should not be investing in the very same pharmaceutical companies that make the contraceptives they are so outraged to be asked to provide. They see no problem with taking the money from this company, yet somehow find it immoral to make sure it is covered for their employees.

Hypocrite much?

1.) You really don't see the difference between investing and spending, do you? The confusion is understandable though, since our government has been calling spending (including outright waste) "investments" for years now. Not surprising that the distinction has been erased in the minds of the easily-influenced.

2.) Pharmaceutical companies make 100's, sometimes 1000's of products, not only contraceptives. So your argument is only valid up to 1%-10%. At the most.

3.) HL may have been investing in a mutual fund / stock pool, whose MANAGERS decided which specific stocks to invest in. That's kind of the entire point of funds/pools - an expert makes the decisions for you. If you're going to go over the selections with a fine-toothed comb (assuming you had the time, expertise, and inclination for it), in order to find some choices that may have been objectionable - why the hell would you pay a manager 18% in the first place?

4.) Swinging back to investing vs spending... just because I own Apple stock, doesn't mean I should be forced to buy people iPads. Whether the objection is religious, moral, or simply personal.

5.) Speaking of the types of objections - would you have as much of a problem if a company's owners said "I don't want to pay for contraception because I simply don't want to? It's my money, it's my decision, keep your hands in your own pockets!"? Or if they had some other reason, that had nothing to do with religion? Would that objection be somehow more acceptable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress


1.) You really don't see the difference between investing and spending, do you? The confusion is understandable though, since our government has been calling spending (including outright waste) "investments" for years now. Not surprising that the distinction has been erased in the minds of the easily-influenced.

quote:

2.) Pharmaceutical companies make 100's, sometimes 1000's of products, not only contraceptives. So your argument is only valid up to 1%-10%. At the most.

quote:

3.) HL may have been investing in a mutual fund / stock pool, whose MANAGERS decided which specific stocks to invest in. That's kind of the entire point of funds/pools - an expert makes the decisions for you. If you're going to go over the selections with a fine-toothed comb (assuming you had the time, expertise, and inclination for it), in order to find some choices that may have been objectionable - why the hell would you pay a manager 18% in the first place?

quote:

4.) Swinging back to investing vs spending... just because I own Apple stock, doesn't mean I should be forced to buy people iPads. Whether the objection is religious, moral, or simply personal.

quote:

5.) Speaking of the types of objections - would you have as much of a problem if a company's owners said "I don't want to pay for contraception because I simply don't want to? It's my money, it's my decision, keep your hands in your own pockets!"? Or if they had some other reason, that had nothing to do with religion? Would that objection be somehow more acceptable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

1.) You really don't see the difference between investing and spending, do you? The confusion is understandable though, since our government has been calling spending (including outright waste) "investments" for years now. Not surprising that the distinction has been erased in the minds of the easily-influenced.

No, I understand the difference perfectly. Our government spending/investing is not the topic that I have brought up to discuss. If you bothered to read the entire thread you would see that I am not easily influenced and that I have a functioning brain and I am not afraid to use it.

quote:

2.) Pharmaceutical companies make 100's, sometimes 1000's of products, not only contraceptives. So your argument is only valid up to 1%-10%. At the most.

Yes, they make hundreds if not thousands of products including contraceptives. My argument is not based on any objection to pharmaceutical companies whatsoever. My argument is with Hobby Lobby. So, your counter argument is 100% not valid in this particular case.

quote:

3.) HL may have been investing in a mutual fund / stock pool, whose MANAGERS decided which specific stocks to invest in. That's kind of the entire point of funds/pools - an expert makes the decisions for you. If you're going to go over the selections with a fine-toothed comb (assuming you had the time, expertise, and inclination for it), in order to find some choices that may have been objectionable - why the hell would you pay a manager 18% in the first place?

As others have linked before there are funds for those people who want specific investment directions, Christian funds, so-called "green" funds and so on. These options have been around for quite some time, and it is foolish to believe that Hobby Lobby didn't have the presence of mind to investigate where their 401K plan would ultimately be invested. Especially if they took a case to the Supreme Court based on religious objections to specific contraceptives in which they had a financial interest.

quote:

4.) Swinging back to investing vs spending... just because I own Apple stock, doesn't mean I should be forced to buy people iPads. Whether the objection is religious, moral, or simply personal.

This statement is not logical whatsoever. If I try to glean some point from here I think you might be asking me that even though they are invested in companies that make "abortion" drugs/devices" that they should not be forced to buy them for their employees? If this is your point, then my answer is they should not be taking a case to the Supreme Court to object to having to pay for "abortion drugs/devices" based on a moral objection to abortion when they have investments in the manufacturers of "abortion drugs/devices."

quote:

5.) Speaking of the types of objections - would you have as much of a problem if a company's owners said "I don't want to pay for contraception because I simply don't want to? It's my money, it's my decision, keep your hands in your own pockets!"? Or if they had some other reason, that had nothing to do with religion? Would that objection be somehow more acceptable?

We can play the "What If" game all day. This isn't a case of "what if" it is a case of factual information which points to a direct conflict with the basis of their case. It is hypocritical no matter how you want to dress it up. They are against abortion, that is their right. They are invested in companies that manufacture "abortion" drugs and devices. They also have products on their shelves from China. China has mandatory abortion as a form of birth control. Hobby Lobby owners are against abortion... and yet it seems that their pious morality is for sale. If you don't see a problem with that, that is fine. I do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress


If you're going to take the route of "you may not invest in anything that may contradict your religious beliefs", there will be VERY few investments, if any, left.

quote:


Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. If your objection is that HL invested in pharma co's, which make contraceptives, I was reminding you that pharmas don't make contraceptives alone, but 1000's of other products. Let's say one of HL's investments was in Church & Dwight. Would that be a "problem"? ZOMFG they make TROJAN CONDOMS!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

1.) You're muddling together [HL's investments] and [spending money on contraceptive coverage].

quote:

2 and 3.) Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. If your objection is that HL invested in pharma co's, which make contraceptives, I was reminding you that pharmas don't make contraceptives alone, but 1000's of other products. Let's say one of HL's investments was in Church & Dwight. Would that be a "problem"? ZOMFG they make TROJAN CONDOMS! But they also make:

Aim Toothpaste, Answer, Arm & Hammer (toothpaste / baking soda / cleaning products), Arm & Hammer Spinbrush, Arrid, Auro-Dri, Cameo, Carter's Laxative, Close-Up, Delicare, First Response, Gentle Naturals, Kaboom, Lady's Choice, L'il Critters, Mentadent, Nair, Nice'n Fluffy, Orajel, Orange Glo, OxiClean, Parsons, Pearl Drops, Pepsodent, Pepsodent toothpaste. Rain Drops, Rigident, RUB A535, Scrub Free, Sedomy Lite, SnoBol, Vitafusion, and Xtra laundry detergent.

So, what, should a corporate entity deny themselves an investment, just because there's ONE product in the investee's product line that someone might consider "hypocritical"?

What about investing in companies like Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Pratt & Whitney, GE, IBM, and Intel? Some of their products are used in the military - what about "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?

What about investing in Google, Yahoo, or GoDaddy? They host / advertise porn sites, among others. Oh noes, that conflicts with "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife"!

What about investing in any publishing house, art studio, magazine, or anything photography-related? After all, they assist in creating "graven images".

And so on, and so on.

If you're going to take the route of "you may not invest in anything that may contradict your religious beliefs", there will be VERY few investments, if any, left.

quote:

4.) Your original objection boils down to "if they don't want to provide contraception, they shouldn't invest in contraceptive manufacturers". I'm showing you the illogic of that by applying the same principle to another type of product.

If you don't want to pay for contraception for your employees, you shouldn't invest in contraceptive makers.
Conversely = if you do invest in contraceptive makers, you should be forced to pay for contraception to your employees.

So, let's change "contraception" to another product.

If you don't want to pay for iPads for your employees, you shouldn't invest in Apple.
Conversely = if you do invest in Apple, you should be forced to pay for iPads for your employees.

If your original objection was logical, it would have withstood the application to another specific item. But it looks ridiculous when applied to another product, which means it's not logical.

quote:

5.) See #2 and 3. If you're going to make 2nd/3rd/4th-order inferences, like "products from China - China has mandatory abortion - abortion contradicts HL's principles - HL should remove China-made products"... where does it end? Should they remove any product that includes Chinese-made components? If they sell a glue that's made in the US, but has one component produced by a chemical factory in China, should that be gone too? It's a very slippery slope.

quote:

The problem that I see is the persecution of people who have moral / religious / political views that contradict those of the party-in-power, and the use of vacuous, shifty definitions to come up with ways to undermine them.

quote:

It's not just about HL specifically, it's about the loss of respect for other viewpoints, which has become the norm in American politics and society.

quote:

Those who claim they're oh-so-tolerant, in practice, are the most intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them, and will use the dirtiest tactics, and the dirtiest words, to destroy their enemies' public image.