RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission

RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Mouth4Mistress -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/10/2014 1:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery 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. Oh, there will be some. And what's wrong with that? Nobody realistically tries to invest in everything. For example, I know that conventional wisdom where I'm at (high middle class businessman) says the quickest and most reliable new income stream is real estate. But, other than my house or personal camps, it's just an area that makes me nervous--admittedly simply my own ignorance of that area--and doesn't really interest me . . . so I pass and invest in other areas. Point is, I get to choose. And investments don't have to be in large enterprises either. What's wrong with that is, I feel that pressuring people to drop their investments, for whatever concocted "hypocrisy" reason, undermines one of the freedoms that our nation was founded upon - the lawful application of capital in investments or ventures that the person (or company) chooses.

Mouth4Mistress -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/10/2014 1:34:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge I am invested in abortion products and products directly related to abortion. My objection to being forced to pay for abortion products is hypocritical because I don't object to making money from abortion. >> "I am invested in a conglomerate that makes 1000's of various products, not only abortifacients." There, fixed that for ya.

Mouth4Mistress -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/10/2014 1:40:04 PM)
OK, Gauge, let me ask you just one more question. In your opinion, should an individual or a business, who may claim an objection to something on religious grounds, be "allowed" to invest, directly or through a derivative / fund, in any of the following companies, without being called a hypocrite? Northrop Grumman Raytheon General Dynamics Boeing Lockheed Martin Johnson & Johnson Novartis Roche Pfizer Sanofi GlaxoSmithKline Merck Bayer HealthCare AstraZeneca Eli Lilly Kraft IBM Google Yahoo

Musicmystery -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/10/2014 1:56:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery 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. Oh, there will be some. And what's wrong with that? Nobody realistically tries to invest in everything. For example, I know that conventional wisdom where I'm at (high middle class businessman) says the quickest and most reliable new income stream is real estate. But, other than my house or personal camps, it's just an area that makes me nervous--admittedly simply my own ignorance of that area--and doesn't really interest me . . . so I pass and invest in other areas. Point is, I get to choose. And investments don't have to be in large enterprises either. What's wrong with that is, I feel that pressuring people to drop their investments, for whatever concocted "hypocrisy" reason, undermines one of the freedoms that our nation was founded upon - the lawful application of capital in investments or ventures that the person (or company) chooses. What's wrong with your reply is nowhere does the post say anything about pressuring anyone to do anything, let alone "for whatever concocted 'hypocrisy' reason," and is therefore just a gratuitous rant, when the post displays nothing but "the lawful application of capital in investments or ventures that the person (or company) chooses." If you're gonna get all self-righteous, wait until someone actually does what you're anxious to get all righteous about.

Gauge -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/10/2014 1:59:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress OK, Gauge, let me ask you just one more question. In your opinion, should an individual or a business, who may claim an objection to something on religious grounds, be "allowed" to invest, directly or through a derivative / fund, in any of the following companies, without being called a hypocrite? When you ask a new question that I have not answered, I will answer it.

subrosaDom -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/10/2014 2:02:18 PM)
It depends who's doing the pressuring. Individuals and organizations have every right to pressure you through legal means (no violent threats or suggestions of harm or slander/libel). And you have a similar right to pressure them back. The government on the other hand shouldn't have any say in it whatsoever or its taking sides and using the inherent threat of force against you. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery 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. Oh, there will be some. And what's wrong with that? Nobody realistically tries to invest in everything. For example, I know that conventional wisdom where I'm at (high middle class businessman) says the quickest and most reliable new income stream is real estate. But, other than my house or personal camps, it's just an area that makes me nervous--admittedly simply my own ignorance of that area--and doesn't really interest me . . . so I pass and invest in other areas. Point is, I get to choose. And investments don't have to be in large enterprises either. What's wrong with that is, I feel that pressuring people to drop their investments, for whatever concocted "hypocrisy" reason, undermines one of the freedoms that our nation was founded upon - the lawful application of capital in investments or ventures that the person (or company) chooses. What's wrong with your reply is nowhere does the post say anything about pressuring anyone to do anything, let alone "for whatever concocted 'hypocrisy' reason," and is therefore just a gratuitous rant, when the post displays nothing but "the lawful application of capital in investments or ventures that the person (or company) chooses." If you're gonna get all self-righteous, wait until someone actually does what you're anxious to get all righteous about.

Gauge -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/10/2014 2:02:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge I am invested in abortion products and products directly related to abortion. My objection to being forced to pay for abortion products is hypocritical because I don't object to making money from abortion. >> "I am invested in a conglomerate that makes 1000's of various products, not only abortifacients." There, fixed that for ya. Do not presume to say something that I did not say. I am able to say exactly what I mean. If you read into my statements, ask me to clarify, do not commit the error of correcting my statement for me.

Musicmystery -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/10/2014 2:06:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom It depends who's doing the pressuring. Individuals and organizations have every right to pressure you through legal means (no violent threats or suggestions of harm or slander/libel). And you have a similar right to pressure them back. The government on the other hand shouldn't have any say in it whatsoever or its taking sides and using the inherent threat of force against you. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery 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. Oh, there will be some. And what's wrong with that? Nobody realistically tries to invest in everything. For example, I know that conventional wisdom where I'm at (high middle class businessman) says the quickest and most reliable new income stream is real estate. But, other than my house or personal camps, it's just an area that makes me nervous--admittedly simply my own ignorance of that area--and doesn't really interest me . . . so I pass and invest in other areas. Point is, I get to choose. And investments don't have to be in large enterprises either. What's wrong with that is, I feel that pressuring people to drop their investments, for whatever concocted "hypocrisy" reason, undermines one of the freedoms that our nation was founded upon - the lawful application of capital in investments or ventures that the person (or company) chooses. What's wrong with your reply is nowhere does the post say anything about pressuring anyone to do anything, let alone "for whatever concocted 'hypocrisy' reason," and is therefore just a gratuitous rant, when the post displays nothing but "the lawful application of capital in investments or ventures that the person (or company) chooses." If you're gonna get all self-righteous, wait until someone actually does what you're anxious to get all righteous about. Since in this case NO ONE is doing ANY pressuring, you equally are on a rant about something that hasn't happened here. [8\|]

subrosaDom -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/10/2014 2:12:47 PM)
That's rather far from a rant. I made a statement about the nature of pressuring, a topic already brought up. I didn't accuse anyone of pressuring unless I did so in invisible virtual ink. Rants to be long, discursive and usually filled with invective or dawdling sarcasm, all absent from my post. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom It depends who's doing the pressuring. Individuals and organizations have every right to pressure you through legal means (no violent threats or suggestions of harm or slander/libel). And you have a similar right to pressure them back. The government on the other hand shouldn't have any say in it whatsoever or its taking sides and using the inherent threat of force against you. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery 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. Oh, there will be some. And what's wrong with that? Nobody realistically tries to invest in everything. For example, I know that conventional wisdom where I'm at (high middle class businessman) says the quickest and most reliable new income stream is real estate. But, other than my house or personal camps, it's just an area that makes me nervous--admittedly simply my own ignorance of that area--and doesn't really interest me . . . so I pass and invest in other areas. Point is, I get to choose. And investments don't have to be in large enterprises either. What's wrong with that is, I feel that pressuring people to drop their investments, for whatever concocted "hypocrisy" reason, undermines one of the freedoms that our nation was founded upon - the lawful application of capital in investments or ventures that the person (or company) chooses. What's wrong with your reply is nowhere does the post say anything about pressuring anyone to do anything, let alone "for whatever concocted 'hypocrisy' reason," and is therefore just a gratuitous rant, when the post displays nothing but "the lawful application of capital in investments or ventures that the person (or company) chooses." If you're gonna get all self-righteous, wait until someone actually does what you're anxious to get all righteous about. Since in this case NO ONE is doing ANY pressuring, you equally are on a rant about something that hasn't happened here. [8\|]

Musicmystery -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/10/2014 2:19:05 PM)
Fair enough. Still a tangent to a tangent to a tangent, but I suppose that's par down here.

slaveoubliette -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/10/2014 2:31:30 PM)
greetings girl offers that once again we have been duped. Hobby Lobby always offered their employees access to 16 forms of birth control with no co pay. Seems that someone in the government wanted to make it 17 types or too incorrectly state that the Government is your friend and is here to help. yup, to assume that a Christian business wouldn't offer their employees access to birth control is well just nuts girl, slave and property of Mistress Summer

DomKen -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/10/2014 4:46:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery 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. Oh, there will be some. And what's wrong with that? Nobody realistically tries to invest in everything. For example, I know that conventional wisdom where I'm at (high middle class businessman) says the quickest and most reliable new income stream is real estate. But, other than my house or personal camps, it's just an area that makes me nervous--admittedly simply my own ignorance of that area--and doesn't really interest me . . . so I pass and invest in other areas. Point is, I get to choose. And investments don't have to be in large enterprises either. What's wrong with that is, I feel that pressuring people to drop their investments, for whatever concocted "hypocrisy" reason, undermines one of the freedoms that our nation was founded upon - the lawful application of capital in investments or ventures that the person (or company) chooses. This country was founded on no such no thing. That is nonsense of the first order. The founders would have found such an idea ludicrous.

thompsonx -> RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission (7/11/2014 8:18:42 AM)
It would appear that your hypocracy is in lock step with theirs. You support their religious objections but give them a pass when they ignore their religious objections to make money. Your admonition to us that you are an athiest is like the bigot making sure to say some of his best friends are...[8\|]

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875