The Democrats are Starting to Piss me Off

IGregory

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Aug 5, 2012
669
5
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.
 

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,109
3,749
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.

Much more often than not, the process fails. Although the statistics on the failure rate of human fertilization are not entirely robust, given the biological and ethical delicacy of conducting research in this area, the numbers consistently suggest that, at minimum, two-thirds of all human eggs fertilized during normal conception either fail to implant at the end of the first week or later spontaneously abort. Some experts suggest that the numbers are even more dramatic. John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, told the President’s Council on Bioethics last September that preimplantation embryo loss is “enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.” Moreover, an estimated 31 percent of implanted embryos later miscarry, according to a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine study headed by Allen Wilcox of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
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.
 
Last edited:

noisycats

macrumors 6502a
Jun 1, 2010
771
857
The 'ham. Alabama.
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.
So you believe birth-control equals abortion?
 

pdjudd

macrumors 601
Jun 19, 2007
4,040
65
Plymouth, MN
a company whose religious values are central to its mission should also have the right to not contribute to the cost of an abortion.
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.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
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.
Central to its mission?

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


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.
You might want to look into email filters.

Problem solved.


Anyway, I'm getting pissed by the Democrats false advertising.
What do you mean by "false advertising"?

Please be specific.
 

pdjudd

macrumors 601
Jun 19, 2007
4,040
65
Plymouth, MN
What do you mean by "false advertising"?
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.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
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.
Would that mean that since abortion is likewise "right" and a "factual truth" that any claims made Republicans would be likewise deceptive?
 

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
8,367
4,350
Pumpkindale
... 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.
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.
 

chrono1081

macrumors 604
Jan 26, 2008
7,432
1,401
Isla Nublar
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.
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.
 

Hieveryone

macrumors 601
Apr 11, 2014
4,147
1,471
USA
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.
 

Gutwrench

Contributor
Jan 2, 2011
3,906
9,023
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.
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.
 

dec.

Suspended
Apr 15, 2012
1,322
747
Toronto
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.
 
Last edited:

Gutwrench

Contributor
Jan 2, 2011
3,906
9,023
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 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.
 

dec.

Suspended
Apr 15, 2012
1,322
747
Toronto
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.
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).
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,668
1,743
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.
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.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
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).
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?
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,518
OBJECTIVE reality
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. ;)

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?
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.

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.
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

Any company that has only a limited number of shareholders. Closely held corporation stock is publicly traded on occasion, but not on a regular basis.
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?
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
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?
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.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
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.
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.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
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.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
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.
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.