It goes on much deeper within the article but the point is the word is used in an array of ways, just as I indicated.
As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term population to talk about genetic differences, historians, cultural anthropologists and other social scientists re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or social construct—a particular way that some people talk about themselves and others. Many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "ethnicity" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs concerning shared culture, ancestry and history.
So not to be an asshole but please give it a read to inform yourself.
Not at all. The ruling may have implications but only because the Constitution has implications. Abortion and contraception haven't become illegal because of this ruling. The company is paying for the health care plan. If they weren't then the court would have found that the company was without standing before the court.
You say they have no problem with Viagra or vasectomies. The objection isn't about sex or preventing pregnancy. They also have no issues with condoms, birth control pills, etc. The issue is about murder.
The ruling doesn't prevent the government from providing any and all services. The employees are not preventing from exercising their right to services or having someone pay for them who is not Hobby Lobby.
Explain for example how the government can provide subsidies for medical plans but not for contraception? How can someone apply for Blue Cross and get $400 back a month for it from the government but the government can't provide a subsidy or deliver cash for a contraceptive service provided privately?
That is what the court found for and it is right.
It is hypocritical because Apple can support a fundamental right and devote money towards it but Hobby Lobby can't in your view. Apple as a corporation does not have to remain neutral which is what many in this thread are advocating they do. Yet you demand Hobby Lobby do what you would not require of Apple.
I'm consistent. Apple and Tim Cook can push for marriage rights. Hobby Lobby can push for their religious rights. They are both fundamental rights per the Constitution.
I'm sorry as I said there is a distinction between Race & ethnicity. That is pretty much what you copy & pasted said. When someone starts a sentence with, not to be an asshole or anything...they usually are.
The rest I'm not going to deal with because you have to meet a minimum threshold to be worth the time of dealing with. You've drawn the exact opposite conclusion of the worlds. The link shows race and the concept of it evolving over time and being applied in a number of contexts. You ignore it all and repeat yourself. Have a nice day!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
The government should do it's job and it's job is to provide contraception if that is what it decrees the population should have rather than mandating a company take up the slack for them.
I just scrolled past this and thought it was very telling and interesting.
Government should "do its job" - but many people are opposed to any government options around healthcare, and say that it's the responsibility of the individual and/or employer. If you make healthcare coverage the responsibility of the employer, you must include all the relevant aspects of that. In other words, you can't have it both ways.
My view is that whoever provides the healthcare coverage is the one with the mandate to ensure appropriate access to treatments/services. Whether that's a company or the government is another issue entirely.
Many people are opposed but being opposed doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. (See gay marriage as a recent example.) For the people who say it is the responsibility of the individual, this ruling wouldn't affect that because compelling a company to pay for an individual wouldn't be the same. Likewise nothing about the court decision states that an individual is not allowed to pay for their own health choices including the ones that Hobby Lobby sought under a religious exemption. As for companies providing health care, that actually grew out of government interference and as usual, the government is both the problem and solution. Companies started providing health insurance as a workaround to the wage freezes put in place by government during WWII. The government froze wages. Companies couldn't attract workers by offering higher wages so they offered health insurance. Whatever insurance doesn't cover government still could cover but instead they prefer to regulate the insurance that came into being because they were busy regulating wages.....
Most people, when discussing health care in the United States fail to realize that the federal government already spends as much on health care as most other countries that offer universal health care in terms of pure GDP. The problem is we simply don't get any health care for that spending, however retirees and other interest groups do get their health care. As a result of government inefficiency, we now are mandated to purchase health insurance to cover the lack of health care provided by the government even though the money has already been taken.
This comes up in area after area. Why are people honestly so concerned about gay marriage as an example? It isn't because the government needs to sanction who you love. Rather it is because the government determines who can see you in a hospital, who can make decisions for you, who you can include in your trust or will, etc. and that is the much larger problem. It is a large and growing problem that even gay marriage in 50 states will fail to solve. It is the root problem.
I think we're done with this conversation. Agreed?
It was going pretty well until you decided to throw a whole bunch of insults into your post and not reply to anything I said. So no, “I’m leaving, therefore I’m right” is not an acceptable answer from you.
It was going pretty well until you decided to throw a whole bunch of insults into your post and not reply to anything I said. So no, “I’m leaving, therefore I’m right” is not an acceptable answer from you.
I apologize for the remarks. I took some of the things you said as cheap shots. Like:
Could you quote properly?
Who cares? Really?
"Is English not your first language? Nothing wrong with that; I just want to know so that I can explain things further ahead of time if need be.
Come on “we’re not talking about prescriptions at all” come on.
Were you talking about civil & law enforcement issues? You were not clear.
Is this another one of those things where I’m apparently the only one who can see the end result of a conversation and so leaves it unsaid because I assume everyone else comprehends what’s going on?
Who is everyone else? Some of your answers are like you are having a conversation with yourself & we are all supposed to understand what you are talking about.It seems like you are being condescending in some of your answers i.e. *cough* what does that mean? How do I reply to *cough*
Thanks for the nonsensical ‘argument’ here.
Maybe this is all just your sense of humor & I took it the wrong way or misunderstood. I don't know you. If so I apologize. I never declared myself the winner of anything. I was just done with your perceived (on my part) nonsense.
I do, as does everyone else. Helps immensely with visibility and subsequent quoting, unless you’re purposely going for “success by annoyance”.
Were you talking about civil & law enforcement issues? You were not clear.
Guy smokes a cigarette. Guy requires medical attention because of said cigarette. Medical attention requires time, money, and resources. Said time, money, and resources are removed from others who need the same attention who don’t commit suicide on a daily basis.
The rest I'm not going to deal with because you have to meet a minimum threshold to be worth the time of dealing with. You've drawn the exact opposite conclusion of the worlds. The link shows race and the concept of it evolving over time and being applied in a number of contexts. You ignore it all and repeat yourself. Have a nice day!
Many people are opposed but being opposed doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. (See gay marriage as a recent example.) For the people who say it is the responsibility of the individual, this ruling wouldn't affect that because compelling a company to pay for an individual wouldn't be the same. Likewise nothing about the court decision states that an individual is not allowed to pay for their own health choices including the ones that Hobby Lobby sought under a religious exemption. As for companies providing health care, that actually grew out of government interference and as usual, the government is both the problem and solution. Companies started providing health insurance as a workaround to the wage freezes put in place by government during WWII. The government froze wages. Companies couldn't attract workers by offering higher wages so they offered health insurance. Whatever insurance doesn't cover government still could cover but instead they prefer to regulate the insurance that came into being because they were busy regulating wages.....
Most people, when discussing health care in the United States fail to realize that the federal government already spends as much on health care as most other countries that offer universal health care in terms of pure GDP. The problem is we simply don't get any health care for that spending, however retirees and other interest groups do get their health care. As a result of government inefficiency, we now are mandated to purchase health insurance to cover the lack of health care provided by the government even though the money has already been taken.
This comes up in area after area. Why are people honestly so concerned about gay marriage as an example? It isn't because the government needs to sanction who you love. Rather it is because the government determines who can see you in a hospital, who can make decisions for you, who you can include in your trust or will, etc. and that is the much larger problem. It is a large and growing problem that even gay marriage in 50 states will fail to solve. It is the root problem.
There is a big assumption being made that a woman is pregnant or an egg has been fertilized before taking these pills? How exactly is that determined? Also, she can't be pregnant because the scientific definition of pregnant is not the fertilization of the egg or conception. You can fertilize eggs in a Petri dish. Is it abortion when those die or are killed? Pregnancy is the development of one or more offspring, known as an embryo or fetus, in a woman's uterus. It is the common name for gestation in humans. Justice Scalia stated the scientific definition did not matter because according to their(Hobby Lobby's) religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. Again I ask the same questions as above.
The argument was mostly based on The Religious Freedom Restoration Act & was misinterpreted.
I do, as does everyone else. Helps immensely with visibility and subsequent quoting, unless you’re purposely going for “success by annoyance”.
Okay. Understood. I did italicize my responses. Sorry, that you are easily annoyed.
Guy smokes a cigarette. Guy requires medical attention because of said cigarette. Medical attention requires time, money, and resources. Said time, money, and resources are removed from others who need the same attention who don’t commit suicide on a daily basis.
Shouldn’t be that hard to grasp.
Wouldn't have been if that is what you said. You just said Come on. "Is this another one of those things where I’m apparently the only one who can see the end result of a conversation and so leaves it unsaid because I assume everyone else comprehends what’s going on?" Yeah, this is perfectly clear. /s
I guess prescription drugs do not cause health issues. Do you lead a healthy lifestyle? If not aren't everyone's premiums going up because of that?
Humans get sick & die there is no avoiding that. There are other ways that marijuana is put into someone's system other than smoking.
Is this easier for you to read? I wouldn't want you bursting a vein in your head or anything, that would make my health premium go up.
Okay. Understood. I did italicize my responses. Sorry, that you are easily annoyed.
Knock it off.
I guess prescription drugs do not cause health issues. Do you lead a healthy lifestyle? If not aren’t everyone's premiums going up because of that?Humans get sick & die there is no avoiding that. There are other ways that marijuana is put into someone's system other than smoking.
So you don’t even remotely have an argument here. Why not just say that instead of spewing fallacy?
So you don’t even remotely have an argument here. Why not just say that instead of spewing fallacy?
What fallacy have I spewed? Prescription drugs can cause health issues. Being over weight can cause diabetes, heart disease, etc. People do get sick & die. Marijuana can be ingested, synthesized into an injectable by extracting the oil from the plant.
This comes up in area after area. Why are people honestly so concerned about gay marriage as an example? It isn't because the government needs to sanction who you love. Rather it is because the government determines who can see you in a hospital, who can make decisions for you, who you can include in your trust or will, etc. and that is the much larger problem.
You just answered why people are concerned about gay marriage. Until gay people can legally marry, numerous legal rights (I believe it's almost in the realm of 200 individual protections/rights) will not be available.
I agree - government doesn't need to sanction who you love. But I don't think anyone is making that argument, as such.
Of course...nothing has been achieved?!? Is it okay to be proud of your nationality? Seems like a narrow definition of the word pride.
I think you can admire the achievements of others, and you can love your country, but pride should be reserved for things you have done yourself. That's not to be narrow, it's because the feeling you get when you achieve a goal of your own is different enough from those other feelings to deserve it's own name.
I think you can admire the achievements of others, and you can love your country, but pride should be reserved for things you have done yourself. That's not to be narrow, it's because the feeling you get when you achieve a goal of your own is different enough from those other feelings to deserve it's own name.
That is one valid definition but it is not the only definition of the word pride. So it is a narrow definition.
You're funny. Har Har. The iTunes cards aren't for gay people, they are for all people. You don't have to be gay anything to attend the pride celebration.
Stop trolling. The company doesn't have the religious views. The owners have them and are being mandated to take private actions with their private company. The government should do it's job and it's job is to provide contraception if that is what it decrees the population should have rather than mandating a company take up the slack for them. The government doesn't mandate you hire security for your employees to protect their home. It doesn't mandate they build you roads. They don't mandate the company you work for print and mail you a ballot.
The Supreme Court that made this decision is the same court that struck down DOMA. It is the same court that upheld Obamacare. Dial down your hyperbole and try some reasoning instead.
If anybody's trolling, you are. There is a law, it should apply to everybody the same. A company should not be able to apply for exemptions on the basis of its owner's religious beliefs. If the owner has such strong beliefs that they clash with the laws, then they should get out of the business, period. I find it completely outrageous that this 13,000 employee company is being depicted as a little mom-and-pop shop where the poor religious owners are being bullied by big government. Moreover, these big hypocrites were paying for birth control before, so this move has absolutely nothing to do with so-called "deeply held religious beliefs" and everything to do with helping the right wing chip away at the ACA.
But then again you seem to lack the basic common sense to understand even something that simple. I pity you.
You are clearly the uneducated person here. An immature person who is too dumb to obey forum rules, as you are violating them by engaging in a childish personal attack. You sound exactly like a typical, low information liberal, one who is ignorant, one who is obviously not very well educated or well mannered, and you come across as a little chihuahua, all bark and no bite. I will not waste any more of my time responding to a poster which I have just designated to be a worthless specimen, and I hereby officially command that you are to be aborted from my sight, so off you go to the ignore list.
Stop trolling. The company doesn't have the religious views. The owners have them and are being mandated to take private actions with their private company. The government should do it's job and it's job is to provide contraception if that is what it decrees the population should have rather than mandating a company take up the slack for them. The government doesn't mandate you hire security for your employees to protect their home. It doesn't mandate they build you roads. They don't mandate the company you work for print and mail you a ballot.
The Supreme Court that made this decision is the same court that struck down DOMA. It is the same court that upheld Obamacare. Dial down your hyperbole and try some reasoning instead.
If anybody's trolling, you are. There is a law, it should apply to everybody the same. A company should not be able to apply for exemptions on the basis of its owner's religious beliefs. If the owner has such strong beliefs that they clash with the laws, then they should get out of the business, period. I find it completely outrageous that this 13,000 employee company is being depicted as a little mom-and-pop shop where the poor religious owners are being bullied by big government. Moreover, these big hypocrites were paying for birth control before, so this move has absolutely nothing to do with so-called "deeply held religious beliefs" and everything to do with helping the right wing chip away at the ACA.
But then again you seem to lack the basic common sense to understand even something that simple. I pity you.
The reality is that laws cannot overcome basic rights. The ruling for this decision is the same as that which supports gay marriage, that to have your rights denied, the government must have a rational basis for their actions that meets a strict scrutiny review. Religion is a fundamental right. It is the same as speech, and voting. It doesn't get abridged just because you say so.
This isn't about birth control. Even after this decision Hobby Lobby pays for 16 different types of contraception. The case was about abortifacients or drugs that act on a fertilized egg. Many religious groups consider this to be a form of abortion and actually the term is scientific and applied by industry for this class of drugs as well.
As for the law applying the same for everyone, the law already has exemptions for religious purposes. Hobby Lobby and other companies were simply denied access to the same exemption. For example the Catholic Church was given an exemption for religious reasons but Catholic Charities that are run by the same church, no, so they filed suit.
Speaking of basic common sense, common sense would dictate that the easiest way for the government to handle this, the least restrictive route is for government to provide the service. Government can provide a subsidy for an entire medical insurance plan. They can provide cards for food assistance. They can certainly do the same with abortifacients. Mandating your employer pay for your abortions is like mandating your employer print out and mail your ballot or pay for your wedding. If you can't understand that then the pity is reserved for you.
If you have a problem with someones post, debate them cordially , don't ever resort to name calling or bullying. It not only negates you position but gives the person you are flaming a stronger foot hold into your psyche.
Comments
Sorry but to be polite, you are as wrong as can be on the matter.
Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, in the 17th century, people began to use the term to relate to observable physical traits. Such use promoted hierarchies favorable to differing ethnic groups. Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[1][2][3]
It goes on much deeper within the article but the point is the word is used in an array of ways, just as I indicated.
As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term population to talk about genetic differences, historians, cultural anthropologists and other social scientists re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or social construct—a particular way that some people talk about themselves and others. Many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "ethnicity" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs concerning shared culture, ancestry and history.
So not to be an asshole but please give it a read to inform yourself.
Not at all. The ruling may have implications but only because the Constitution has implications. Abortion and contraception haven't become illegal because of this ruling. The company is paying for the health care plan. If they weren't then the court would have found that the company was without standing before the court.
You say they have no problem with Viagra or vasectomies. The objection isn't about sex or preventing pregnancy. They also have no issues with condoms, birth control pills, etc. The issue is about murder.
The ruling doesn't prevent the government from providing any and all services. The employees are not preventing from exercising their right to services or having someone pay for them who is not Hobby Lobby.
Explain for example how the government can provide subsidies for medical plans but not for contraception? How can someone apply for Blue Cross and get $400 back a month for it from the government but the government can't provide a subsidy or deliver cash for a contraceptive service provided privately?
That is what the court found for and it is right.
It is hypocritical because Apple can support a fundamental right and devote money towards it but Hobby Lobby can't in your view. Apple as a corporation does not have to remain neutral which is what many in this thread are advocating they do. Yet you demand Hobby Lobby do what you would not require of Apple.
I'm consistent. Apple and Tim Cook can push for marriage rights. Hobby Lobby can push for their religious rights. They are both fundamental rights per the Constitution.
I'm sorry as I said there is a distinction between Race & ethnicity. That is pretty much what you copy & pasted said. When someone starts a sentence with, not to be an asshole or anything...they usually are.
The rest I'm not going to deal with because you have to meet a minimum threshold to be worth the time of dealing with. You've drawn the exact opposite conclusion of the worlds. The link shows race and the concept of it evolving over time and being applied in a number of contexts. You ignore it all and repeat yourself. Have a nice day!
The government should do it's job and it's job is to provide contraception if that is what it decrees the population should have rather than mandating a company take up the slack for them.
I just scrolled past this and thought it was very telling and interesting.
Government should "do its job" - but many people are opposed to any government options around healthcare, and say that it's the responsibility of the individual and/or employer. If you make healthcare coverage the responsibility of the employer, you must include all the relevant aspects of that. In other words, you can't have it both ways.
My view is that whoever provides the healthcare coverage is the one with the mandate to ensure appropriate access to treatments/services. Whether that's a company or the government is another issue entirely.
Many people are opposed but being opposed doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. (See gay marriage as a recent example.) For the people who say it is the responsibility of the individual, this ruling wouldn't affect that because compelling a company to pay for an individual wouldn't be the same. Likewise nothing about the court decision states that an individual is not allowed to pay for their own health choices including the ones that Hobby Lobby sought under a religious exemption. As for companies providing health care, that actually grew out of government interference and as usual, the government is both the problem and solution. Companies started providing health insurance as a workaround to the wage freezes put in place by government during WWII. The government froze wages. Companies couldn't attract workers by offering higher wages so they offered health insurance. Whatever insurance doesn't cover government still could cover but instead they prefer to regulate the insurance that came into being because they were busy regulating wages.....
Most people, when discussing health care in the United States fail to realize that the federal government already spends as much on health care as most other countries that offer universal health care in terms of pure GDP. The problem is we simply don't get any health care for that spending, however retirees and other interest groups do get their health care. As a result of government inefficiency, we now are mandated to purchase health insurance to cover the lack of health care provided by the government even though the money has already been taken.
This comes up in area after area. Why are people honestly so concerned about gay marriage as an example? It isn't because the government needs to sanction who you love. Rather it is because the government determines who can see you in a hospital, who can make decisions for you, who you can include in your trust or will, etc. and that is the much larger problem. It is a large and growing problem that even gay marriage in 50 states will fail to solve. It is the root problem.
It was going pretty well until you decided to throw a whole bunch of insults into your post and not reply to anything I said. So no, “I’m leaving, therefore I’m right” is not an acceptable answer from you.
It was going pretty well until you decided to throw a whole bunch of insults into your post and not reply to anything I said. So no, “I’m leaving, therefore I’m right” is not an acceptable answer from you.
I apologize for the remarks. I took some of the things you said as cheap shots. Like:
Could you quote properly?
Who cares? Really?
"Is English not your first language? Nothing wrong with that; I just want to know so that I can explain things further ahead of time if need be.
Come on “we’re not talking about prescriptions at all” come on.
Were you talking about civil & law enforcement issues? You were not clear.
Is this another one of those things where I’m apparently the only one who can see the end result of a conversation and so leaves it unsaid because I assume everyone else comprehends what’s going on?
Who is everyone else? Some of your answers are like you are having a conversation with yourself & we are all supposed to understand what you are talking about. It seems like you are being condescending in some of your answers i.e. *cough* what does that mean? How do I reply to *cough*
Thanks for the nonsensical ‘argument’ here.
Maybe this is all just your sense of humor & I took it the wrong way or misunderstood. I don't know you. If so I apologize. I never declared myself the winner of anything. I was just done with your perceived (on my part) nonsense.
Who cares? Really?
I do, as does everyone else. Helps immensely with visibility and subsequent quoting, unless you’re purposely going for “success by annoyance”.
Guy smokes a cigarette. Guy requires medical attention because of said cigarette. Medical attention requires time, money, and resources. Said time, money, and resources are removed from others who need the same attention who don’t commit suicide on a daily basis.
Shouldn’t be that hard to grasp.
The rest I'm not going to deal with because you have to meet a minimum threshold to be worth the time of dealing with. You've drawn the exact opposite conclusion of the worlds. The link shows race and the concept of it evolving over time and being applied in a number of contexts. You ignore it all and repeat yourself. Have a nice day!
I didn't ignore anything. Here is another take:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race
This isn't relevant to what we are discussing.
Many people are opposed but being opposed doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. (See gay marriage as a recent example.) For the people who say it is the responsibility of the individual, this ruling wouldn't affect that because compelling a company to pay for an individual wouldn't be the same. Likewise nothing about the court decision states that an individual is not allowed to pay for their own health choices including the ones that Hobby Lobby sought under a religious exemption. As for companies providing health care, that actually grew out of government interference and as usual, the government is both the problem and solution. Companies started providing health insurance as a workaround to the wage freezes put in place by government during WWII. The government froze wages. Companies couldn't attract workers by offering higher wages so they offered health insurance. Whatever insurance doesn't cover government still could cover but instead they prefer to regulate the insurance that came into being because they were busy regulating wages.....
Most people, when discussing health care in the United States fail to realize that the federal government already spends as much on health care as most other countries that offer universal health care in terms of pure GDP. The problem is we simply don't get any health care for that spending, however retirees and other interest groups do get their health care. As a result of government inefficiency, we now are mandated to purchase health insurance to cover the lack of health care provided by the government even though the money has already been taken.
This comes up in area after area. Why are people honestly so concerned about gay marriage as an example? It isn't because the government needs to sanction who you love. Rather it is because the government determines who can see you in a hospital, who can make decisions for you, who you can include in your trust or will, etc. and that is the much larger problem. It is a large and growing problem that even gay marriage in 50 states will fail to solve. It is the root problem.
There is a big assumption being made that a woman is pregnant or an egg has been fertilized before taking these pills? How exactly is that determined? Also, she can't be pregnant because the scientific definition of pregnant is not the fertilization of the egg or conception. You can fertilize eggs in a Petri dish. Is it abortion when those die or are killed? Pregnancy is the development of one or more offspring, known as an embryo or fetus, in a woman's uterus. It is the common name for gestation in humans. Justice Scalia stated the scientific definition did not matter because according to their (Hobby Lobby's) religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. Again I ask the same questions as above.
The argument was mostly based on The Religious Freedom Restoration Act & was misinterpreted.
Some of the dessent (you can find the full dessent if you are interested): http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/30/justice-ruth-bader-ginsberg-trolls-scalia-in-blistering-dissent-of-hobby-lobby-ruling/
Where in the Constitution does it say that Gay people can't be married?
I do, as does everyone else. Helps immensely with visibility and subsequent quoting, unless you’re purposely going for “success by annoyance”.
Okay. Understood. I did italicize my responses. Sorry, that you are easily annoyed.
Guy smokes a cigarette. Guy requires medical attention because of said cigarette. Medical attention requires time, money, and resources. Said time, money, and resources are removed from others who need the same attention who don’t commit suicide on a daily basis.
Shouldn’t be that hard to grasp.
Wouldn't have been if that is what you said. You just said Come on. "Is this another one of those things where I’m apparently the only one who can see the end result of a conversation and so leaves it unsaid because I assume everyone else comprehends what’s going on?" Yeah, this is perfectly clear. /s
I guess prescription drugs do not cause health issues. Do you lead a healthy lifestyle? If not aren't everyone's premiums going up because of that?
Humans get sick & die there is no avoiding that. There are other ways that marijuana is put into someone's system other than smoking.
Is this easier for you to read? I wouldn't want you bursting a vein in your head or anything, that would make my health premium go up.
Knock it off.
So you don’t even remotely have an argument here. Why not just say that instead of spewing fallacy?
Knock it off.
Okay, after you.
So you don’t even remotely have an argument here. Why not just say that instead of spewing fallacy?
What fallacy have I spewed? Prescription drugs can cause health issues. Being over weight can cause diabetes, heart disease, etc. People do get sick & die. Marijuana can be ingested, synthesized into an injectable by extracting the oil from the plant.
http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/medical-marijuana-uses
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/
This comes up in area after area. Why are people honestly so concerned about gay marriage as an example? It isn't because the government needs to sanction who you love. Rather it is because the government determines who can see you in a hospital, who can make decisions for you, who you can include in your trust or will, etc. and that is the much larger problem.
You just answered why people are concerned about gay marriage. Until gay people can legally marry, numerous legal rights (I believe it's almost in the realm of 200 individual protections/rights) will not be available.
I agree - government doesn't need to sanction who you love. But I don't think anyone is making that argument, as such.
Of course...nothing has been achieved?!? Is it okay to be proud of your nationality? Seems like a narrow definition of the word pride.
I think you can admire the achievements of others, and you can love your country, but pride should be reserved for things you have done yourself. That's not to be narrow, it's because the feeling you get when you achieve a goal of your own is different enough from those other feelings to deserve it's own name.
I think you can admire the achievements of others, and you can love your country, but pride should be reserved for things you have done yourself. That's not to be narrow, it's because the feeling you get when you achieve a goal of your own is different enough from those other feelings to deserve it's own name.
That is one valid definition but it is not the only definition of the word pride. So it is a narrow definition.
You're funny. Har Har. The iTunes cards aren't for gay people, they are for all people. You don't have to be gay anything to attend the pride celebration.
.......... or apparently a sense of humor.
Stop trolling. The company doesn't have the religious views. The owners have them and are being mandated to take private actions with their private company. The government should do it's job and it's job is to provide contraception if that is what it decrees the population should have rather than mandating a company take up the slack for them. The government doesn't mandate you hire security for your employees to protect their home. It doesn't mandate they build you roads. They don't mandate the company you work for print and mail you a ballot.
The Supreme Court that made this decision is the same court that struck down DOMA. It is the same court that upheld Obamacare. Dial down your hyperbole and try some reasoning instead.
If anybody's trolling, you are. There is a law, it should apply to everybody the same. A company should not be able to apply for exemptions on the basis of its owner's religious beliefs. If the owner has such strong beliefs that they clash with the laws, then they should get out of the business, period. I find it completely outrageous that this 13,000 employee company is being depicted as a little mom-and-pop shop where the poor religious owners are being bullied by big government. Moreover, these big hypocrites were paying for birth control before, so this move has absolutely nothing to do with so-called "deeply held religious beliefs" and everything to do with helping the right wing chip away at the ACA.
But then again you seem to lack the basic common sense to understand even something that simple. I pity you.
You are clearly the uneducated person here. An immature person who is too dumb to obey forum rules, as you are violating them by engaging in a childish personal attack. You sound exactly like a typical, low information liberal, one who is ignorant, one who is obviously not very well educated or well mannered, and you come across as a little chihuahua, all bark and no bite. I will not waste any more of my time responding to a poster which I have just designated to be a worthless specimen, and I hereby officially command that you are to be aborted from my sight, so off you go to the ignore list.
Do you even read what you write? Pathetic.
Stop trolling. The company doesn't have the religious views. The owners have them and are being mandated to take private actions with their private company. The government should do it's job and it's job is to provide contraception if that is what it decrees the population should have rather than mandating a company take up the slack for them. The government doesn't mandate you hire security for your employees to protect their home. It doesn't mandate they build you roads. They don't mandate the company you work for print and mail you a ballot.
The Supreme Court that made this decision is the same court that struck down DOMA. It is the same court that upheld Obamacare. Dial down your hyperbole and try some reasoning instead.
If anybody's trolling, you are. There is a law, it should apply to everybody the same. A company should not be able to apply for exemptions on the basis of its owner's religious beliefs. If the owner has such strong beliefs that they clash with the laws, then they should get out of the business, period. I find it completely outrageous that this 13,000 employee company is being depicted as a little mom-and-pop shop where the poor religious owners are being bullied by big government. Moreover, these big hypocrites were paying for birth control before, so this move has absolutely nothing to do with so-called "deeply held religious beliefs" and everything to do with helping the right wing chip away at the ACA.
But then again you seem to lack the basic common sense to understand even something that simple. I pity you.
The reality is that laws cannot overcome basic rights. The ruling for this decision is the same as that which supports gay marriage, that to have your rights denied, the government must have a rational basis for their actions that meets a strict scrutiny review. Religion is a fundamental right. It is the same as speech, and voting. It doesn't get abridged just because you say so.
This isn't about birth control. Even after this decision Hobby Lobby pays for 16 different types of contraception. The case was about abortifacients or drugs that act on a fertilized egg. Many religious groups consider this to be a form of abortion and actually the term is scientific and applied by industry for this class of drugs as well.
As for the law applying the same for everyone, the law already has exemptions for religious purposes. Hobby Lobby and other companies were simply denied access to the same exemption. For example the Catholic Church was given an exemption for religious reasons but Catholic Charities that are run by the same church, no, so they filed suit.
Speaking of basic common sense, common sense would dictate that the easiest way for the government to handle this, the least restrictive route is for government to provide the service. Government can provide a subsidy for an entire medical insurance plan. They can provide cards for food assistance. They can certainly do the same with abortifacients. Mandating your employer pay for your abortions is like mandating your employer print out and mail your ballot or pay for your wedding. If you can't understand that then the pity is reserved for you.
Do you even read what you write? Pathetic.
If you have a problem with someones post, debate them cordially , don't ever resort to name calling or bullying. It not only negates you position but gives the person you are flaming a stronger foot hold into your psyche.