I think they should be *required* to discriminate in the hiring process, if they can pull that shit on the back end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Printable View
I think they should be *required* to discriminate in the hiring process, if they can pull that shit on the back end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Well that's what it equates to, because now we have the rallying cry of the personal responsibility crowd, who live in some kind of fantasy land where people who work at places like Hobby Lobby can somehow be choosy: the free market! Oh, the free market! Don't shop there and don't work there! And if things don't go right for you, TFB - you made lousy choices and should have to fend for yourself. I have no concern for you as a fellow human being and I shouldn't have to help you in any way, that's what charities are for.
Don't be a company that operates in America if the values mean that much to you. Or discriminate during hiring. Simple as that.
Are you posting drunk? The level of non-sequitur in this response makes no sense at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
1) I don't have to show you where religious organizations have to be not for profit because Hobby Lobby isn't a religious organization.
2) It's an "unusually successful family business", sure, but it's also a corporation. They incorporated. It's what they chose to do, and they get to live with the laws governing that.
James
I like Yoshi. He's consistent.
He hates Daddy Government and loves Daddy Cooperation.
Agreed, but only affirmative action allows them to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
edit: For James, do you know why you can sue corporations?
(In most cases) You can opt out of dealing with one of those when it goes in the shitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
You seem to think people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder have more say in where they earn their $7.50 than they actually do.
But that's ok! It doesn't apply to you. Except when you can kick 'em.
Since Hobby Lobby actually pays well above minimum wage, you may be onto something. They're so evil people may choose to stay for the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
All I know is, they have shitty markers. And now they're pulling some bullshit on secular women's health issues.
I don't think I've been in one, but my Mother-in-Law loves it, so it is possible that there is evil hidden within.
You're going to have to start drawing a line between the things you say and the things I say at some point. You can sue corporations for the same reason you can sue anything else-when they've violated the law against you in such a way that financial compensation is appropriate. If this has anything to do with anything in this thread, I've no idea what that connection can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
James
What does that have to do with changing the government to suit your god?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Is there an entitlement god?
Not gonna lie, I'm going to keep shopping get at hobby lobby.
Who else will let me rip them off everyday with a 40% off coupon? Kind of surprised Josh hasn't been flipping expensive model kits.
I have never heard of Hobby Lobby.
You don't know them. They don't know how lady parts work. Call it a wash.
you would think they would know all about lady parts. 99.9% of their products are things old white women can hot glue to other things. There whole business model is that cheap craft shelf that old walmarts have.
Its actually amazingly boneheaded that they pursued this as a company. They are alienating like 1/3 of their customers. That have 1 isle of models (mostly for men and children) and the rest of the store is for young and old women that want cheap wooden dowels and fabric from china. They are alinating those young women by pursuing this. And not to generalize, but how many conservative young women do you know that craft? Wouldn't it be safe to say that most women that craft anything are also typically more liberal and hate this decision?
It will be interesting to see if they can survive on old men building miniature Duke Boys and old women making comforters for their Yorkies.
Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization. It is a for profit corporation. For profit corporations are by definition secular. Hobby Lobby worships at the altar of the mighty dollar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
These guys can do whatever they want on their own time with their own profits, but they shouldn't be imposing their religious mores on employees. It's just not right in a secular society. What employees do with their compensation is their own business, not their employers'.
It will be a rallying cry for the Repubs.
I'd still work for them, but I'd spend all of my pay on abortions.
Fuck yeah, abortions.
God, I wish I was a woman just so I could go a couple months and then abort that bitch,
It's 'bortin' time!
I have never heard of Hobby Lobby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
My nigga.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
They're the bootleg "Michael's".
That's awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
I hate hobby lobby. My chick goes there all the time.
They are one of those places that has stupid expensive prices on everything, but then has eternal sales where everything is 40-60% off. Even after the discount, shit is a bit over priced, but the rubes think they're getting a deal. It's an obnoxious business practice, but it's been proven to work time and time again.
You should probably move to one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I already live in one, it's served us pretty well over time.
NopeQuote:
Originally Posted by James
That was exactly my point.Quote:
If this has anything to do with anything in this thread, I've no idea what that connection can be.
Forbes is full of stupid writers and there is one more. Corporations are corporate people, which is different from a human people. The conservative effort to give corporate people more human people rights is not at all logical or preordained. It's just a bunch of shit. The right to enter into a contract does not imply the right to take up a religion. These distinctions are made in law all the time (witness the "partial public employees" decision announced the same day). It's being collapsed on this thanks to corporate fetishism and because it's convenient for right wing politicians, that's all.
You're using "distinctions made in law" to refute a SCOTUS decision.
Yea and I explained why it is shit.
You always defer to SCOTUS decisions? You think Dred Scott and Plessy are well-founded rulings and good law?
You could have stayed a lot more contemporary by pointing to the technicality by which Obamacare survived.
If anything that ruling has a lot more gray area. Then you get into the political aspects of the SCOTUS.
I'm also not strictly opposed to Citizens United or McCutcheon. The problem comes when you mix up this ridiculous amount of money with the secrecy and non-disclosure. It becomes legalized bribery, basically. The money trail should be out in the open for everyone to see.
I absolutely agree with that.
Bitcoin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
If all political and politically oriented contributions had to be Bitcoin. Well that would solve the problem. We should all be able to go on the web and see every cent every political and political organization got, in real-time. If Sheldon Adelson wants to hide behind some creepy organization we can ask Newt who is behind Moon Base Gambling LLC and why did it give him $20 million.
The blockchain has the potential to be to finance what the internet was to communication. I hope it continues.
Flip the models man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
I can find articles written by crazy people too. Linking an article that simply repeats a point that I already said is completely wrong doesn't actually make it right. Corporations are not people, and it's a really stupid thing to say that they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
James
You can say whatever you want, but that is the reason that you can sue them, and that is the reason the law has now been interpreted to say they can have religious views.
See what Yoshi did there?
Wasted everyone's time with a false analogy and retarded non-logic?
I never said corporations have no rights. They do, and those rights can be violated. That doesn't make them people.
Again, this is retarded-stupid.
James
And apparently those rights include having religious beliefs, so what was your point again?
If you're for-profit, you're beholden to secular rules. That's how it's been since the word "go".
This flips that in a million subtle ways that haven't hit yet.
That is problematic.
I still want someone to produce where that is written. Freedom of religion was a key foundational principle not exclusion of religion.
edit:LinkQuote:
Originally Posted by Pew Research
I guess SCOTUS should give Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress credit for facilitating their decision.
Ugh groan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
To know what wasn't a "key foundational principle"? Corporate personhood.
Agreed. Notice that I've never said I agreed with it, only that it exists.
So which religions are ok and which aren't? My religion doesn't like black people
Oddly, I just read an article about that earlier today.
James
Yeah, didn't they trick that dude out of his inheritance by putting sheep skin on his hand?
Welp.
Other than needing an excuse, I don't see how that's different than a place like Curves or any number of black or women's colleges.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
The government is way too involved in business in both directions. There are way too many rules, and they sure as hell shouldn't be bailing any out either.
edit: I guess the reverse is true as well that business is way too involved in government, though the ridiculous amount of regulation is part of the cause of that and the related lobbyist mess.
Telling people to keep their business open and welcome to all and to leave non-commerce stuff back at home is hardly the government butting in to where it doesn't belong. It is the government taking necessary steps to keep commerce and economic opportunity available to all citizens.
We tried to let private actors run shop their own way, we got Jim Crow and powerful whites using the economy to maintain control and stifle economic opportunity for minorities. Evil shit.
We all know how conservatives feel about law based on Islam, so I am sure their reaction would be quite different were Hobby Lobby run by Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
This is not about religious freedom, it is about a Christian majority imposing its will. Pretty much the opposite of what the First Amendment was intended for.
Then why not fight against it? Does it need to be written anywhere that a for-profit organization should be secular, even if the owners have deeply religious views? How is that not common sense? If that kind of thing needs to be written down as a law or in the Constitution, how come it wasn't a big deal until this loophole was worked out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
While I normally hate conjecture, this is one of those things that is correlated by them passing unnecessary anti-Sharia laws. I won't be surprised if a business being run by a Muslim pops into the news because the owner took something out of the insurance plan or something, and if something like that does happen I will also not be surprised if the response is quite similar to the one given by women at this ruling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
That's bad enough but the even more bothersome thing for me is the calculated manipulation of these phrases like "religious freedom" and such. I can see right through it and while I'm no fan of abortion I'd rather just tackle the thing head on instead of these duplicitous loopholes.Quote:
This is not about religious freedom, it is about a Christian majority imposing its will.
My point is that the nature of religious beliefs make it impossible for a non-religious corporate entity to hold them, and the Supreme Court is wrong to think otherwise. Corporations are not people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
You keep saying something that's as unbelievable as the earth being flat, and keep expecting me to prove it's round. You're the one bringing the crazy, you need to provide proof that the things you say that look crazy actually aren't.
James
Silver lining: nobody can ever, ever use the phrase "war on Christianity" ever again. Ever.
Are you kidding? They'll be using it MORE now.
No, it's over. It's all over now.
I would really love to hear someone explain how a religion (supposedly) based on love and forgiveness can be used as a reason to hate black people. I've read that book, that chapter was missing from my copy.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Must've been missing an entire testament.
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
but more specifically in regards to hate'n black people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
Quote:
The relevant narrative occurs in the Book of Genesis and concerns Noah's drunkenness and the accompanying shameful act perpetrated by his son Ham the father of Canaan (Gen. 9:20–27).[2] The controversies raised by this story regarding the nature of Ham's transgression, and the question of why Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned, have been debated for over two thousand years.[3] The story's original objective was to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites,[4] but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Jews,[5] Christians and Muslims as a curse of, and an explanation for, black skin, as well as slavery.
And that's a bunch of bullshit.
Well yeah, it's from the bible.
You're from the bible.
But it's not from the Bible. It is clearly stated that hundreds of years later people twisted what was written in it to justify their own evil.
So let's burn all our Beatles albums since they told Manson to do his thing.
I don't know, have you read Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT?
Slavery was pretty common at the time, and it makes a point to treat them well. Still says nothing about hating black people.
NLT is a joke.
Have you read Ephesians 6:6?
It comes right after a verse that your evilbible page cites, yet didnt deem worth including.
I agree with your point, but there's plenty of similar stuff in the OT that needs no twisting. Xenophobia is a virtue throughout and it explicitly states some gnarly laws. Every religious text has its outmoded garbage, though.
Let's ask this village to circumcise all the men so we can be buds, then ride into town and kill them all when they are in bed crying
The SCOTUS interpretation is by definition true legally, so I don't need to provide shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
That was hilarious. And maybe genitally mutilating rapists then stabbing them while they writhe around holding their dorks isn't such a bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Again, except when it's Curves or a black or women's college. I don't believe that in 2014 there is any danger of any group being excluded from commerce. In fact, any idiot who wouldn't hire people of a certain group is putting himself at a disadvantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
HBCUs aren't black-only, dude.
This didn't seem to deter exclusionary hiring before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I agree completely. There is plenty of dumb shit in the Bible. That's why it annoys me when people twist things or remove context in order to make their point. Hell, the four gospels can't even keep their resurrection stories straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
People want to say the Bible shares the same origin as Scientology (man made), cool, because it does.
But let's keep things in perspective, and call a spade a spade when it actually is a spade.
I'm not sure it was true before, but without a doubt it is now.
Since there were two other examples, that doesn't really change the point, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I never said it wasn't legal. I said the judgement was wrong. A legal ruling calling cookies vegetables doesn't actually make them grow from the ground and provide any health benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
James
False. They're SCOTUS, not God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
How ironic is that post?
Also, how is it false? Unless Congress changes the law, the SCOTUS interpretation is the standard until a future SCOTUS sets a different precedent, is it not?
That analogy is terrible. You can't have peer reviewed science regarding a law. Obviously it's an opinion but a very powerful one.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
It was a humor joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yeah but then you can say that about everything. This isn't mathematics.
Oh I see I was late. But shitty ruling is shitty, it obviously runs contrary to other rulings. So I don't consider it "truth"
That's exactly my point. A SCOTUS ruling can't be "wrong," no matter how much you disagree with it.
But if you hold certain values to be true, for example earlier or more longstanding unscientific rulings or principles, you can certainly see the problem with this
Quoted for posterity. I have a feeling this post will be useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yeah, that strikes me as a regrettable thing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
James
Wrong being in quotes dilutes the power you might think that statement might have.
Counting black folks as 3/5 of a person wasn't "wrong." But it totally was wrong.
I thought those were citational quotes for quoting James when James said it was wrong. James.
Perhaps it was and I opened a back door for the dino.
We may never know the truth...
I actually did some research on Curves. There have been court cases on it. Some states have passed laws that allow single sex health clubs, laws that can be challenged in court if anyone feels injured. So, you know, that's how our legal system works. I personally don't support the idea of a single sex health club. I wouldn't go to Sausage Fitness, isn't the whole point of a gym looking at hot chicks in tight clothes bending over?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It's not like SCOTUS came down from heaven and said that black people can't be discriminated against. Somebody did some shit and somebody else challenged it. Brown was a real person.
So if you want to be the Brown of the Curves discrimination case, give it a try.
We demand life, liberty, and the pursuit of hot chicks in yoga pants.
Indeed they were.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
SCOTUS is wrong all the time. Just because it is the final authority on issues of federal law doesn't mean it cannot be (and frequently is) wrong. SCOTUS is also not a final authority on many legal issues, such as interpretations of state constitutional law and state statutory law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I would totally go to Sasuage Fitness if it was full of people actually lifting. Cardio Bunnies distract me from what I am there for.
Checking out dudes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
What else?