|
George Takei vs Hobby Lobby
By Jetackuu 2014-07-09 21:54:53
I have avoided the heck out of this thread, so if this link has already been posted, please disregard.
13 Reactions to the Hobby Lobby Case That Are Completely Misinformed:
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a28069/hobby-lobby-lies/
(Sorry that it's Cosmopolitan >.> but it's worth taking the 5 minutes to read and understand anyways.) I'll have to admit, that I'll have to change my previous argument.
The SCOTUS did have the authority to chime in on this, however the act that they ruled on should never have been needed in the first place.
By Voren 2014-07-11 07:30:29
If the one on the left supports HL and doesn't take birth control the least she can do for society is swallow.
The one on the right I have a feeling is being back-handed into the kitchen to make more sammiches.
Garuda.Chanti
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11456
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-07-11 10:54:20
No, the one on the right became a suicide bomber, took out four people and herself.
The one on the right probably likes being back handed into the kitchen.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-11 10:55:53
Still doesn't look ~27
Inbreeding done right I guess. (WV joke).
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-11 11:01:23
Still doesn't look ~27 Inbreeding done right I guess. (WV joke).
There's nothing funny about WV or their inbreeding.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-11 11:07:44
Still doesn't look ~27 Inbreeding done right I guess. (WV joke).
There's nothing funny about WV or their inbreeding. Considetring I'm within 4 hours of that abomination (the "woman"), I'll laugh if I want to.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-11 11:16:44
Still doesn't look ~27 Inbreeding done right I guess. (WV joke). There's nothing funny about WV or their inbreeding. Considetring I'm within 4 hours of that abomination (the "woman"), I'll laugh if I want to.
Fair enough.
I was being facetious anyhow. I dislike Pennsylvania's proximity to West Virginia. A lot.
[+]
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24
By Bahamut.Wordlifee 2014-07-11 11:25:43
I would love to see a Muslim run company do this now and see all these religious Christians flip out over it.
I don't think any company should have this "power" over the people but I would love to see the butthurt from the Christians over it.
Sharia Law violates human rights where as Hobby Lobby employs Americans and stands for life. Plus why should the company not have the power to decide what it offers and doesn't offer it's employees? If you don't like it, then don't work there.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-11 11:42:00
Still doesn't look ~27 Inbreeding done right I guess. (WV joke). There's nothing funny about WV or their inbreeding. Considetring I'm within 4 hours of that abomination (the "woman"), I'll laugh if I want to.
Fair enough.
I was being facetious anyhow. I dislike Pennsylvania's proximity to West Virginia. A lot. Commonwealth brethren!
By driderk 2014-07-11 12:44:23
no one needs birth control to survive
Inaccurate.
The vast majority of women do not need birth control to survive.
For some women, child birth carries an extremely high chance of lethality. My mother is one of them. After I was born the doctor straight-up told her that having more children would be highly ill-advised and carried a very real possibility of death for both her and the child.
So unless you expect monogamous, married women to just cut off sexual relations with her husbands, your blanket statement is not applicable.
I realize you just said you're perfectly ok with birth control, but try not giving any more ammo to the religious fruitcakes than you have to.
You kind of disprove that it is a true need by citing other options your mother could go with in your example, making my original statement still accurate, until you can actually prove it wrong. I was unable to find one example of birth control being the only option in a life or death medical scenario. Also why can't daddy wrap it up or get a vasectomy? Not to mention if it was really life or death and the pill isn't even 100% effective if taken properly, mom would kind of be risking her life with each romp.
Again I am pro choice and think birth control should be provided to anyone who will take it, but I am not seeing the injustice here.
I'm sorry. I was under the impression that a vasectomy was a means of birth control.
Condoms break or otherwise fail. And yes, the pill isn't 100% effective. Which is yet another reason why morning-after medication availability is vital.
Forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy through to term because of a contraceptive failure, rape, or a simple error in judgment is inappropriate. If they choose to do so based on their personal beliefs, fine. But the morning-after methodology is not an abortion no matter how hard some religious zealots bang their drum. And, for that matter, even an actual abortion should be available without a bunch of ill-meaning zealots attacking you for having it.
The vasectomy option was in direct response to the example you gave, in which you claimed birth control for your mother was required for her survival. My point was, clearly the onus could have been placed on your father, making her birth control unnecessary. Furthermore, they could have had sexual relations in manners that wouldn't result in pregnancy, along with a multitude of other paths that would cause birth control for mom to not be essential for survival.
However they chose to bang anyway. I just don't understand how you can say oh, they can choose to do whatever they want, because they don't want to be inconvenienced, that option might be annoying, they don't want to pay, or buttsechs scares her. Then on the flipside you say, oh the owner of that company has a moral objection to being forced to do something against their will, and you know, that is perfectly alright because there are people in existence that might be inconvenienced if we don't force inconvenience on others first. So my point is, while I think birth control should be available to all, I don't understand why you should inconvenience some so you might not inconvenience others. Especially to the point that being irresponsible/lazy has more pull than someone's morality.
I am most certainly not saying to ban abortions, and made that clear before, so not sure where you were going with that last part. I never understood why some Christians act like monsters toward people getting abortions. Seems that not casting stones would be the proper route to take.
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-07-11 12:53:54
Quote: The one on the right probably likes being back handed into the kitchen.
You would be amazed at the sheer number of chicks, who call themselves "feminists", that really get into that submission sh!t. Restraints, cuffs, paddles, all that stuff, they really get into the kink. The worse you treat them, the more they want, which is kinda weird. My bedroom would make Quagmire blush, and yet they have often wanted stuff I wasn't prepared for.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-11 12:55:00
Bahamut.Wordlifee said: »I would love to see a Muslim run company do this now and see all these religious Christians flip out over it. I don't think any company should have this "power" over the people but I would love to see the butthurt from the Christians over it. Sharia Law violates human rights where as Hobby Lobby employs Americans and stands for life. Plus why should the company not have the power to decide what it offers and doesn't offer it's employees? If you don't like it, then don't work there.
The Bible violates human rights.
Parts it of advocate treating women (aka: half of humanity) like ***.
Yet here we are defending beliefs based upon its "teachings".
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-11 12:55:52
Quote: The one on the right probably likes being back handed into the kitchen. You would be amazed at the sheer number of chicks, who call themselves "feminists", that really get into that submission sh!t. Restraints, cuffs, paddles, all that stuff, they really get into the kink. The worse you treat them, the more they want, which is kinda weird. My bedroom would make Quagmire blush, and yet they have often wanted stuff I wasn't prepared for.
Consent and intent being quite key to the process.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-07-11 12:58:39
Quote: The one on the right probably likes being back handed into the kitchen.
You would be amazed at the sheer number of chicks, who call themselves "feminists", that really get into that submission sh!t. Restraints, cuffs, paddles, all that stuff, they really get into the kink. The worse you treat them, the more they want, which is kinda weird. My bedroom would make Quagmire blush, and yet they have often wanted stuff I wasn't prepared for. What does this have to do with anything? You'll just take any chance to make an irrelevant comment about Feminists and how they just want to be beaten by a man lol...
[+]
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-11 13:15:02
My bedroom would make Quagmire blush, and yet they have often wanted stuff I wasn't prepared for.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-11 13:16:39
If the one on the left supports HL and doesn't take birth control the least she can do for society is swallow.
The one on the right I have a feeling is being back-handed into the kitchen to make more sammiches. The one on the left fights to defend personal freedom, the one on the right fights to oppress people with terrorism.
Lakshmi.Flavin
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-07-11 13:19:36
Bahamut.Wordlifee said: »I would love to see a Muslim run company do this now and see all these religious Christians flip out over it. I don't think any company should have this "power" over the people but I would love to see the butthurt from the Christians over it. Sharia Law violates human rights where as Hobby Lobby employs Americans and stands for life. Plus why should the company not have the power to decide what it offers and doesn't offer it's employees? If you don't like it, then don't work there.
The Bible violates human rights.
Parts it of advocate treating women (aka: half of humanity) like ***.
Yet here we are defending beliefs based upon its "teachings". The United states violates Human rights. It has since it's humble beginnings.
It advocated slavery and treated women like ***!
Yet every day we defend it and even look back to those for answers that allowed all this to take place!
Cerberus.Pleebo
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-07-11 13:25:42
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-11 13:27:38
Bahamut.Wordlifee said: »I would love to see a Muslim run company do this now and see all these religious Christians flip out over it. I don't think any company should have this "power" over the people but I would love to see the butthurt from the Christians over it. Sharia Law violates human rights where as Hobby Lobby employs Americans and stands for life. Plus why should the company not have the power to decide what it offers and doesn't offer it's employees? If you don't like it, then don't work there. The Bible violates human rights. Parts it of advocate treating women (aka: half of humanity) like ***. Yet here we are defending beliefs based upon its "teachings". The United states violates Human rights. It has since it's humble beginnings. It advocated slavery and treated women like ***! Yet every day we defend it and even look back to those for answers that allowed all this to take place!
Edit: And some people would argue that slavery and treating women poorly is "tradition", and that "tradition" is a good reason to keep on doing something.
I'm actually not attacking the Bible directly this time, for once. I'm just saying that both women pictured think they're doing the right thing for the right reasons.
"Terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are just euphimisms for the same thing.
I actually agree with a lot of things in the Bible. In the new Testament, anyhow. That Jesus cat had some great ideas about how to treat others and interact with your fellow humans. I just don't believe in the divine nature of...anything.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-11 13:27:57
Almost everyone here has a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevance of the bible in modern Christianity.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-11 13:29:30
If the one on the left supports HL and doesn't take birth control the least she can do for society is swallow.
The one on the right I have a feeling is being back-handed into the kitchen to make more sammiches. The one on the left fights to defend personal freedom, the one on the right fights to oppress people with terrorism. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, like Pleebs said: they're one in the same.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-11 13:29:50
Almost everyone here has a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevance of the bible in modern Christianity.
No, I think we understand its place in "modern Christianity" just fine, assuming you define "modern Christianity" as the marriage of people with money using the Bible to backward-engineer their rights to treat everyone who doesn't agree with them like horse *** (aka: "Tea Party", people who throw the term "RINO" around, etc.)
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-07-11 13:31:19
Almost everyone here has a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevance of the bible in modern Christianity. yay, a near no-true Scotsman argument
everyone get out your logical fallacy bingo boards.
[+]
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-11 22:25:53
Almost everyone here has a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevance of the bible in modern Christianity.
Isn't that a lot of America Nausi? I mean people pick and choose from the bible as they see fit and that's dangerous especially when many read the bible verbatim rather than allegories.
Yes there are good Christians out there who emphasize the good parts of the bible such has helping the poor, good will toward men, etc., but there are also a lot of people who misuse the bible to oppress others.
I'm sorry, and you are entitled to disagree, but Christianity has never compelled me to control the lives of others. It is not my duty as a Christian to ensure others live sinless- that's their own duty. Me providing birth control to an employee doesn't make me any less of a Christian, even if hypothetically I opposed birth control in my own life/family.
EDIT:
Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act - MSNBC
Quote: The Supreme Court’s conservative majority had its say on contraception last week. As msnbc’s Irin Carmon reports, Senate Democrats will kick off their legislative response today.
On Wednesday, congressional Democrats plan to introduce the “Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act,” which according to a summary provided to msnbc, “ensures that employers cannot interfere in their employee’s decisions about contraception and other health services.” The bill states that all insurance plans – including those provided by for-profit corporations – must cover contraception, though it keeps the exemption for houses of worship and the “accommodation” for religious nonprofits.
The charge is being led by Washington Sen. Patty Murray, who said at the time of the decision that it “sets a dangerous precedent and takes us closer to a time in history when women had no choice and no voice.” She added, “Since the Supreme Court decided it will not protect women’s access to health care, I will.”
For Democrats and proponents of reproductive rights, this is no small development. Murray will host a press conference this morning to unveil her bill, standing alongside Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Mark Udall (D-Colo.); Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.); as well as the National Women’s Law Center’s Marcia Greenberger, NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Ilyse Hogue, and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s Cecile Richards.
A simple, perfunctory rollout this isn’t.
What’s more, Murray’s bill, which will immediately feature a companion measure in the House, will have the White House’s full support. Indeed, the measure was reportedly “put together in consultation with the Obama administration.”
For the Senate Democratic leadership, the question isn’t whether the chamber will tackle this bill, but rather, when. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said yesterday the Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act will be near the top of his to-do list.
“The one thing we’re going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men,” Reid said.
Looking ahead, there are two broad angles to keep an eye on.
The first is whether the bill can pass legal muster. After all, it’s not as if the legislative branch can simply overturn a Supreme Court ruling by passing a bill.
But note that the Hobby Lobby ruling wasn’t based on the First Amendment, but rather, something called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) from the 1990s. The new proposal from Murray and her allies intends to clarify this area of the law; its constitutional merit is not in question.
The second is whether the bill has any chance at all of becoming law this year. Realistically, even the most optimistic proponent of women’s rights would probably concede that a House dominated by far-right Republicans probably won’t approve legislation to make contraception access easier. On the contrary, the GOP-led House widely celebrated the high court’s Hobby Lobby ruling and sees no need to revisit the policy.
But for supporters of the Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act, it’s worth the effort. If there’s bipartisan agreement and the legislation reaches the Oval Office, great. If this joins the list of popular measures killed by congressional Republicans, Democrats and their allies have a campaign issue for the fall.
Either way, this is a fight progressives, and the reproductive rights community in general, are eager to have.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-12 10:52:47
oh look, another bill for the House to do nothing with
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-12 11:05:03
If the one on the left supports HL and doesn't take birth control the least she can do for society is swallow.
The one on the right I have a feeling is being back-handed into the kitchen to make more sammiches. The one on the left fights to defend personal freedom, the one on the right fights to oppress people with terrorism. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, like Pleebs said: they're one in the same. Refusing to recognize the distinction here is quite possibly the most short sighted thing you've ever contributed on this site.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-12 11:09:13
Oh look an insult. The point and the fact is that there isn't really a difference. They're both (well the one was) radical lunatics. The only difference is where they were born.
Stop being a Christian apologist it's disgusting.
edit: so is your direct insult there instead of making a point, but hey, this is P&R.
edit2: the fact that you don't grasp that they're two sides of the same coin is almost baffling.
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6558
By Odin.Zicdeh 2014-07-12 11:17:33
Almost everyone here has a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevance of the bible in modern Christianity. yay, a near no-true Scotsman argument
everyone get out your logical fallacy bingo boards.
And you've got to put yourself down for a Fallacy Fallacy. Just because a claim is a fallacy or poorly argued doesn't make it false.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-12 11:19:18
Almost everyone here has a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevance of the bible in modern Christianity. yay, a near no-true Scotsman argument
everyone get out your logical fallacy bingo boards.
And you've got to put yourself down for a Fallacy Fallacy. Just because a claim is a fallacy or poorly argued doesn't make it false. um... what?
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6558
By Odin.Zicdeh 2014-07-12 11:20:25
[+]
Wow he isn't giving up!
George Takei: What if Muslims Owned Hobby Lobby and Tried Imposing Sharia Law on Employees?
Quote: I’ve often said that these conservatives wading into the tricky waters of claiming “religious freedom” to justify breaking (or passing) laws should really be careful what they wish for. It’s advice I’d give to all of those conservatives who are celebrating the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling.
And based on his brilliant response to that ruling, George Takei seems to be an individual who understands this as well.
Posting his response on the website for his play Allegiance, Takei made several fantastic points concerning not only the hypocrisy of this ruling, but the dangerous precedent it could set going forward.
Takei wrote, “The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion.”
“Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).” he continued.
And that’s the slippery slope for which this ruling potentially opens the door. Where will the line be drawn where you say to a company, “Sorry, but your religious beliefs aren’t protected?”
What if someone who owns a corporation is anti-vaccine? What if they then say it’s against their religious beliefs for their company to offer health care that covers vaccines? Based upon this Supreme Court ruling, they could theoretically be within their rights to claim that.
But the best point Takei made was in a direct shot at right-wing ignorance. He wrote, “In this case, the owners happen to be deeply Christian; one wonders whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”
As we all know, when these conservatives talk about “religious freedoms” they’re really only referring to Christianity.
He also went on to make the point that Hobby Lobby has invested in companies which produce the morning after pill and it gets much of its inventory from China, a country where forced abortions are common.
In other words, they’re blatant hypocrites.
“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that,” Takei continued. “Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”
Once again, he’s absolutely right.
For some reason conservatives seem to think that a lack of options equates to “more” freedom. Before this ruling, women working at Hobby Lobby had the option to have access to these contraceptives. Now they won’t.
If the owners of Hobby Lobby reject specific types of contraceptives, that’s fine. They don’t have to use them. But now their beliefs are being imposed on women who might not share those same beliefs.
Take a good look, because that’s how an employer can determine an employee’s health care coverage. Because a woman working at Hobby Lobby now can’t get health care coverage for certain contraceptives, not because she’s against them, but because her employer is.
How exactly is that respecting her religious freedoms?
Takei also points out religion is a way many conservatives have tried justifying discrimination against homosexuals. These “religious freedom” bills that essentially give businesses the right to deny service to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs.
The bottom line is, religion has no place in government or in business. If someone wants to express their religious views to others, they need to start a church – not a for-profit corporation.
|
|