The Democrats are Starting to Piss me Off

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IGregory, Jul 12, 2014.

  1. IGregory macrumors 6502a

    IGregory

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    #1
    First, I am a Democrat and I support a woman right to choose.

    That said, I agree with the Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case. Just as a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion a company whose religious values are central to its mission should also have the right to not contribute to the cost of an abortion.

    The democrats are using the Hobby Lobby case as a way to increase contributions to Democrats. I am being bombarded daily by democratic emails to contribute. They imply that an effort will be mounted to change the court decision. This is all BS. The only way the "Democrats" are going to change things is if they are in the majority in both houses. The way I understand it in order to change the Constitution a Constitutional amendment must pass both houses of Congress and then it must be approved by three quarters of the states. That's not going to happen on this issue.

    Don't get me wrong the Republicans are just as guilty for using selective headlines for campaign purposes. They call FOX News and tell them to hype this story for two weeks.

    Anyway, I'm getting pissed by the Democrats false advertising.
     
  2. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #2
    You are so going to get flamed in this forum with those views. Trust me, I'm with you.
     
  3. APlotdevice, Jul 12, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2014

    APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #3
    The Hobby Lobby case had NOTHING to do with actual abortions. If preventing a fertilized cell from embedding into the uterine wall was abortion, then up to 80% of all fertilized cells are "aborted" naturally.

    So yeah, if you believe that human life begins at conception, then realize that this would mean the overwhelming majority of humans die before they even resemble human beings. It's been this way since long before contraceptives were invented.
     
  4. noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #4
    So you believe birth-control equals abortion?
     
  5. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #5
    If that was really the case they wouldn’t be doing business with China - a country that has forced abortions. Link

    ETA: They should also not have their 401K contributions make money off of pharmaceutical companies that make the drugs and devices (IUD’s) that Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to cover. Never mind the drugs that they don’t want to cover are only abortifacients in their minds. More rational doctors who know what they are talking abut disagree with Hobby Lobby.
     
  6. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #6
    Central to its mission?

    They sell crafting material. Their "central mission" is to make money.


    You might want to look into email filters.

    Problem solved.


    What do you mean by "false advertising"?

    Please be specific.
     
  7. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #7
    Maybe he thinks that since Hobby Lobby was right, that it equates to factual truth and will always be the case. Therefore whatever claims that “democrats” make in email fundraisers would be impossible and they know it so therefore they are being deceptive.
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    Would that mean that since abortion is likewise "right" and a "factual truth" that any claims made Republicans would be likewise deceptive?
     
  9. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #9
    I, too, would be interested in OP explaining his statement himself, rather than others, with the best of intentions, explaining it for him.
     
  10. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #10
    Do you realize that the Supreme Court decision didn't reach the First Amendment claims? That is, the court did not come to its decision by considering the First Amendment claims. All they considered was RFRA, because that's all they needed to consider.

    The court ruling was based solely on the wording of RFRA, where "person" included corporations. It's as simple as that.

    Read the actual court decision, and this will become clear:
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
    The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held
    corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statu-
    tory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First
    Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns.

    The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is
    affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356
    is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceed-
    ings consistent with this opinion
    That quote is directly from the end of the Opinion of the Court, p. 55 of the PDF. Note the second sentence where they say they didn't need to consider the First Amendment claim.

    I recommend reading the entire decision and the dissent, or at least the Syllabus.


    Under RFRA, there was no explicit exclusion of corporations as persons, so Title 1 of the US Code applied:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_1_of_the_United_States_Code

    Under that interpretation of "person", RFRA does apply to corporations, or any other legal person. It doesn't just apply to non-profit corporations, or to natural persons.


    Congress can amend RFRA so it applies only to natural persons, or to natural persons plus non-profit corporations, or whatever.

    Congress does not need a 2/3 majority in both Houses, nor a 3/4 ratification by the States, in order to amend RFRA. It could do it by a simple majority in both Houses (assuming it can get a cloture vote in the Senate), and a Presidential signature. If the President vetos the RFRA amendments, then it needs 2/3 in both Houses. In no case does it need ratification by any States.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

    Assuming the RFRA amendments became law, then and only then could a corporation sue for loss of RFRA rights. I have no idea how that would play out in the courts, nor in the business world.
     
  11. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #11
    I think you misunderstand what the HobbyLobby case really means....

    Yes, it was about birth control kind of, but the bigger problem is it opens up the floodgates to "protect" (i.e. allow full legal discrimination) based on religion and it's already started.
     
  12. Hieveryone macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #12
    Tell me about it brother.

    I use to be a Democrat until I realized one day how shameful many of their policies are.

    I have since become Independent because of it.

    I am ashamed of my former party because of the illegal NSA spying, wreckless spending on vacations by Obama, illegal targeting he did with the IRS on US citizens, his lies about keeping your healthcare, and the fact he just seems Un-American in many ways.
     
  13. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #13
    I'm not well informed on Hobby Lobby's position, but I thought they were fine with contraception but was drawing the line on the morning after type drugs.
     
  14. dec., Jul 12, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2014

    dec. Suspended

    dec.

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #14
    Personally I believe in the freedom of/from "religion" and that's why I cannot understand why a company would be able to have a "religious" influence on the medical prescriptions of an individual who has her/his own "beliefs" (or not, not everyone thinks that there's some "god" out there). I just don't get the point, it's the same as those people that go to some gay prides with their idiotic signs "bla bla sin", who ****ing cares what you think? Keep your "religion" to yourself, "pray" 24/7, so what? Don't force that stuff upon others, thanks. How difficult is it to accept that not everyone is all mythological and spiritual and crazy about some sky "god"? jesus. Run a business like real people.

    So I don't really see how that could possibly piss someone off. Unless that company would be declared a "cult" like the christians, satanists, voodoo followers or other similar groupings a company is a company.
     
  15. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #15
    I don't agree with you when a company is privately held, but isn't Hobby Lobby a public holding? Off the top of my head...a publicly traded company should lose that protection.
     
  16. dec. Suspended

    dec.

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #16
    I agree, as a public holding Hobby Lobby should be forced to accept people of all "beliefs" and also those who don't share that concept of "belief".

    But also for a private company, how ****ed up do you have to be as a business owner to truly "believe" that your "god" will punish you when you hire a non-"believer" or person that prefers contraceptives that you don't agree with (for whatever mythological reasons... why do "religious" people always feel the need to force their own "belief" upon others? Especially as those "beliefs" in most cases are just a set of rules that the person has been trained to follow from a young age on).
     
  17. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #17
    Privately owned corporations are still their own entities split off from their owners to manage risks. I think if you're going to take advantage of that, you should be subject to whatever regulations come with it.
     
  18. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #18
    Either you know nothing about the case or deliberately lied to try and make Hobby Lobby look worse and your point more valid. Hobby Lobby has never been accused of discriminating in its hiring practices. The worst part is that you know this is true. However, the fact that Hobby Lobby wouldn't pay for 4 out of 20 types of contraception based upon the religious reasons of the owners isn't enough to rally the base and enrage them. So you throw in a statement like that so you can make it appear that they are discriminatory in their hiring practices.

    Do you have any links to show that Hobby Lobby is discriminatory in their hiring practices?
     
  19. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #19
    I think "false advertising" is claiming that people are going to flame the OP, when it doesn't seem like it's going to happen. ;)

    Maybe Dec. didn't use the best wording, but he's still got a point in that it's discriminatory in the way they treat employees, if not actual hiring practices. That doesn't exactly make it a whole lot better.

    Well, this is another disturbing part of the ruling. As I understand it, the Supremes based their decision on the fact that Hobby Lobby is a "closely held" public company. According to Investopedia, a closely held company is

    Okay, then, Supremes -- define that. How many shareholders is a "limited" number? Five? Fifty? Fifteen hundred? Five thousand? Where exactly is the borderline defining who is eligible for your legalistic religious privilege?
     
  20. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #20
    Hey, when I saw the thread title, I broke out the popcorn. :cool:

    That is the thing, Hobby Lobby doesn't discriminate, they don't buy insurance that covers these four contraception for anyone. They don't care if you use them, they don't care if yo have a full out abortion. They just don't want to be involved.
     
  21. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #21
    And that is precisely the heart of the matter. They want to run a public company, but not obey all the laws other public companies have to.
     
  22. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #22
    The SCOTUS has ruled. If it is a closely held company, like Hobby Lobby, the owners do not give up their religious beliefs. If you don't like it, you can find a plaintiff with standing who can start another case. Then when that case reaches the SCOTUS, maybe, just maybe this decision will get reversed.
     
  23. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #23
    A company cannot have religious beliefs. Only owners and workers can. The questions is whether the owners can shove their religious beliefs down the throats of their workers, while getting protection from the State to do so. SCOTUS made a mistake in answering in the affirmative. They are supposed to look out for the interest of those with little power. Instead they chose to back the owners by a ludicrous argument that the rights of a 'company' (a.k.a. a 'group of owners') can outweigh the rights of a person. SCOTUS demeaned itself with this decision. Shame on them.

    Let us see what happens when atheist companies start precluding leave for religious holidays and events, or the wearing and display of any religious icons or other symbols.... Or even worse, let us see what happens when religious companies require their workforce to wear religious icons and symbols.
     
  24. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #24
    The owners did not shove their religious beliefs down anyone's throat. They simply refused to violate their conscious and pay for something that went against their religious beliefs. If an employee of Hobby Lobby wants to use Plan B, they still can. Just Hobby Lobby won't be footing the bill.
     
  25. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #25
    That would be interesting. I'm sure the irony would not be appreciated by the religious.
     

Share This Page