Arizona Professor Black Woman Arrested for Jaywalking. Gets Worldwide Attention

Sp the hobby Lobby case denied nothing. It ruled that hobby lobby had the right to not pay for it. That is a fact. Any woman that want the products in question still have the right to buy it.

Why is hobby lobby's choice to not pay for something a woman wants any less important than the woman's right to get what she wants? Both rights were upheld in that decision and no one LOST a right.

Unless of course you think a persons right to demand someone else pay their way is primary, and in that case I'd say be careful what you wish for. Tables often turn.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

Sp the hobby Lobby case denied nothing. It ruled that hobby lobby had the right to not pay for it. That is a fact. Any woman that want the products in question still have the right to buy it.

Why is hobby lobby's choice to not pay for something a woman wants any less important than the woman's right to get what she wants? Both rights were upheld in that decision and no one LOST a right.

Unless of course you think a persons right to demand someone else pay their way is primary, and in that case I'd say be careful what you wish for. Tables often turn.

Ok, it maybe doesn't deny them anything, but it took away a previously approved healthcare product that was paid for by that employees health care plan (not Hobby Lobby). And why?? Because a business can now apparently believe in a god? I think its an extremely dangerous precedent. Whats next? Because this ruling has now given corporations freedom of religion rights, maybe there is a business out there that doesn't believe in vaccinations, or blood transfusions, or cancer treatments of any kind.

Anyway, I feel this conversation has got way too far off topic, if you want to continue discussing it, I suggest you make a new thread about it.

It only provides that right to closely held corporations, ya know, people like Diz, who are making decisions about THEIR money. Public companies, ie: Ford, Apple, cannot do this. Oh yeah, the press never mentions that either.

And it was government over reaching, challenged in court, and overturned. It's the way the system should, and does work.

And if you think that the insured corporations don't pay those fees, your not living in reality. The health insurance provider does not have a benign money tree in their back yard.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

It only provides that right to closely held corporations, ya know, people like Diz, who are making decisions about THEIR money. Public companies, ie: Ford, Apple, cannot do this. Oh yeah, the press never mentions that either.

Please provide me with a legal description of a "closely held corporation." So a corporation with $2.28B in revenue, 572 locations, and 21,000 employees is "closely held"? Since I have no idea what a closely held corporation is, I'm going to assume that what they really mean is that it only applies to Privately Held companies? By the way...the VAST majority of people in the US work for privately held corporations.

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

And it was government over reaching, challenged in court, and overturned. It's the way the system should, and does work.

And if you think that the insured corporations don't pay those fees, your not living in reality. The health insurance provider does not have a benign money tree in their back yard.

I'm not 100% familiar with American health care insurance, but in Canada the employee pays for part of their healthcare and the company they work for pays the rest. I'm not naive enough to believe there is a magic money tree. What I'm saying is, if the system works the same in US as it does here, the company is not the only one paying for the insurance.

Yeah, let's not breathe new life into NC's thread here by changing it into a Hobby Lobby thread, okay?

[reply=EricLindros]...

Well, brettbrady, the guy who made [Link]like 2 pages ago, is [Link], for starters.

Or you can look to guys like that Duck Dynasty loon Phil Robertson, [Link], or Rick Perry who has a family ranch named "[Blacklisted]head," or [Link]....I can keep going. The list of right-wing racists is not short.

The right wing, in fact, made racism an explicit political strategy. Look up Nixon's "[Link]." And it continued throughout the Reagan administration, as Lee Atwater admitted:
...

And there's stuff like this from John Erlichmann, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs during the Nixon administration:
...

And it's not ancient history. Republicans tend to be more racist across the board:


OK BUDDY, i guess you dont like the incovencient truth. lol just another liberal moron

Iam not Republican or Democrat but nice try.

democrat- Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963... "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them [Blacklisted]s voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".

http://www.iqtestforfree.net/average-IQ-by-country.html -hmmm
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/138668-dc-public-schools-spend-29349-per-student-83-proficient-reading/ -The ethnic breakdown of students enrolled in 2012 was 72% Black

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/07/02/black-children-denied-iq-tests-in-california/ - look it up it is illegal to give black students an i test in california because the tests show what they always have shown. an iq of about 70-80 on average, tests have shown these results for over 100yrs yet morons like this eric lindros clown plug there ears

no african city or society has ever prospered even when they black africa gets 26billion a YEAR, and there roads and cities were built by white engineers
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2013/01/28/foreign-aid-money-down-a-rat-hole/

According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and Native Americans and Asians 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher.
The "National Youth Gang Survey Analysis" (2009) state that of gang members, 49% are Hispanic/Latino, 35% are African-American/black, 9% are white, and 7% are other race/ethnicity.[34]

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness





http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/27/all-candidates-fail-liberia-university-test - never been colonized
http://documentaryaddict.com/The+Cannibal+Warlords+of+Liberia-9406-doc.html


www.fistulafoundation.org/what-is-fistula/fast-facts-faq
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/health/end-obstetric-fistula-day/


south africa was a prosperous colony, when it was built almost no one lived there except for some pygmies that blacks have been torturing and genociding for there whole existence. Again we are punished for succeeding where they failed, now the whole place is a cesspool that need a bomb dropped on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_South_Africa#Infant_rape_and_sexual_violence_against_minors
Although there are varying numbers on the number of reported rapes of children, one report states that in 2000, 21,538 rapes and attempted rapes of children under the age of 18 were reported and another from 2001 states that there were 24,892 rapes.

i could keep this up for awhile but sheeple like Ericlindros will just tune it out, another useful idiot. lol the mental gymnastics you must do to believe the crap you do

Wait, how do you get "8 times higher" from the percentages 52.5 and 45.3?

Quote:

Originally posted by Bangledeshica

Wait, how do you get "8 times higher" from the percentages 52.5 and 45.3?

I'd also like to know that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bangledeshica

Wait, how do you get "8 times higher" from the percentages 52.5 and 45.3?

I would have gone with, "How did you fail quoting that so badly?"

C'mon bangles.... The "rate 8 times higher" is as a percentage of the black demographic. Since the total US percentage of the population is predominantly white, the occurrence of the crimes within the black population has to be significantly higher in order to reach that percentage of total crime.

SP, I don't think the court recognizes the size of the business as a determining factor in their rulings, as they shouldn't. If you start a business, and it remains under close control of the owner(s), then they have the right to determine certain moral issues not dictated by other law. Even in the case of a large company with many owners, certain tax advantages enjoyed by public companies do not apply to closely-held, and the owners are more directly involved in the decisions regarding that company. Employees are free to go if they don't like the way it's run, customers are free to shop elsewhere if they don't like it, and the owners are free to determine their fate with their decisions. Whether it's $2,000/year or $2,000,000,000/year doesn't really matter.

BTW, Phil Robertson and his entire family was willing to walk away from TV for their beliefs. And those beliefs were stated in a very loving manner, if the entire context of his comments were read, which the press never reported. I had no idea who the Duck Dynasty people were two years ago and I've only seen the show a few times, but I've got to respect their conviction.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

BTW, Phil Robertson and his entire family was willing to walk away from TV for their beliefs. And those beliefs were stated in a very loving manner, if the entire context of his comments were read, which the press never reported. I had no idea who the Duck Dynasty people were two years ago and I've only seen the show a few times, but I've got to respect their conviction.

Yeah, he very lovingly said that black people were happier back when they had fewer civil rights and that gay people are sinners for being gay.

And no, you don't have to respect the conviction of someone who says bigoted things and then stands by them when lots of people tell them, "Hey, you just said a lot of bigoted things." I'd have respect for the guy if he thought about his position and realized that he was being a bigot and changed his convictions in light of some introspection and learning. Standing by stupid beliefs isn't laudable, it's stubborn and idiotic.

You're right EL, "You" don't have to respect him or his conviction. It's not the democrat way to respect anyone that disagrees with "you", but I do. Of course I never implied that you, or anyone else had to either.

Do you have the context of the "black people were happier back when they had fewer civil rights" comment? I've never heard, or read it.

I respect plenty of people that disagree with me on lots of different subjects. I don't respect bigots who try to tell people that their lifestyle is sinful and that they're going to hell if they don't stop being gay.

Robertson: https://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/yahoo-tv/-duck-dynasty--star-phil-robertson-digs-his-hole-a-little-deeper-by-also-stinging-african-americans-173821415.html

Quote:

While those quotes quickly went viral, it wasn't his only brow-raising statement in the interview; he also implied that African Americans were happier living under Jim Crow laws.

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," the reality star said of growing up in pre-Civil-Rights-era Louisiana. "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' — not a word!"

Robertson continued, "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

He also thinks that men should marry women at the ages of 15/16:

Quote:

“Make sure that she can cook a meal, you need to eat some meals that she cooks, check that out,” he said. “Make sure she carries her Bible. That’ll save you a lot of trouble down the road. And if she picks your ducks, now, that’s a woman.”

“They got to where they’re getting hard to find,” Robertson remarked. “Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry ‘em. Look, you wait until they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket.”

The Duck Commander company founder added: “You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16, they’ll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that of course.”

I wonder, would you respect him for his pedophilic convictions as well?

Not being black, I guess I can't really comment on how that comment would affect me, but to this white boy it didn't sound discriminatory. It sounded more like a guy that just respects hard work and a do-for-yourself attitude. He sure didn't suggest that equal rights be repealed.

I've got a black employee that I really enjoy talking to. That pretty much sum's up a lot of his sentiment about his "brothers". He's one of those kind of guys we were talking about earlier in this thread. Ya know, the ones that want to excel at life, try hard to do so, and get trashed by those that don't.

So, while I don't know that I think it was good for him to say, I don't know that I would disagree with him. We are all wrong in one way or another when we paint with broad brushes, and we all get frustrated or angry when someone from another viewpoint uses those broad strokes out of context to beat us up.

And I do still respect that the man will not hold his tongue for the sake of a dollar. He believes what he says and he doesn't allow pressure to silence him. Whether I agree with him or not, I will still respect him for his willingness to stand against pressure against him.

I think he and his wife were married at 15. I don't know the circumstances. The deep south, in a different time, was a different world. My grandmother left home at 15 and cared for herself. Had she married, I would not have considered it pedophilia. It's only pedophilia because we have set an age of 18 within our modern society.

As for my daughter. Ain't happening!!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

SP, I don't think the court recognizes the size of the business as a determining factor in their rulings, as they shouldn't. If you start a business, and it remains under close control of the owner(s), then they have the right to determine certain moral issues not dictated by other law. Even in the case of a large company with many owners, certain tax advantages enjoyed by public companies do not apply to closely-held, and the owners are more directly involved in the decisions regarding that company. Employees are free to go if they don't like the way it's run, customers are free to shop elsewhere if they don't like it, and the owners are free to determine their fate with their decisions. Whether it's $2,000/year or $2,000,000,000/year doesn't really matter.

Do you honestly think this is right, and this is a good thing for the country? To have some vague law that says if you own a company and are "closely involved" with the operation of that company...regardless of size, you can force your religious beliefs on to your employees? The message that this ruling is saying to business owners is this: Become more personally involved in your company so you can use your religious and personal beliefs to deny your employees healthcare that is otherwise a legal entitlement.

And as for Hobby Lobby, are you actually going to sit there and tell me that the owner(s) are more "closely involved" with their 21,000 employees than another equally large company? How do you determine that? The only reason they'e more involved is because they have a personal agenda.

Sugar pie, what I'm saying is ITS THEOR COMPANY, and if you don't like it, you can start a competing company. It's that simple. It's not an emotional issue. If it was your blood, sweat, tears and money, you would want, expect and deserve the same degree of control over YOUR COMPANY.

And this site is so damn iPad unfriendly I'm not fixing my typos.

And yes I do think its good. It's the freedom of enterprise this country was built upon. It's not Hobby Lobby's place to suit everyone, or any other company either. Life goes on, shop somewhere else. That's what I do.