Arizona Professor Black Woman Arrested for Jaywalking. Gets Worldwide Attention

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

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.

Awesome attitude. Don't like it, go get a job somewhere else. Nevermind the fact that jobs don't exactly grow on trees, or the fact that this ruling opens the doors for any corporation to change the laws they want to see changed because they are "closely held". Just because its THEIR company doesn't mean that they should get to change laws. Whats stopping from another company saying they don't want to hire gay people because its against their religion to associate with gays? Or how about a company owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses, and one of their employees needs a blood transfusion...nope sorry, we're not gonna cover that because its against our religion. This ruling opens the door wide open for anyone who owns a company to use their own personal religious beliefs to deny healthcare...and that my friend is an extremely dangerous precedent.

Ok there is really no justification for this IMO:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2680661/Trooper-filmed-beating-woman-head-California-highway.html

"A California trooper has been filmed brutally beating a woman on the side of a highway - but authorities claimed he simply stopped her for her own safety.

A passing motorist recorded the unidentified California Highway Patrol officer as he punched the woman at least 11 times in the head along the 10 Freeway in Los Angeles on Tuesday.

On the video uploaded to YouTube, the woman can be seen trying to protect herself by putting up her hands but she does not appear to resist the trooper.

'The most animalistic, most brutal way to subdue someone is to pound someone's head into the concrete with really big blows to the head,' witness David Diaz told ABC7."

What we have is a Corporate Supreme Court. The same one that said "Corporations are people too" in that they can give as much money as they want to to political campaigns. Naturally the majority of them side with Hobby Lobby. Unwanted/not planned Pregnancies prevention should be a priority. Then you wouldn't have to worry about abortions. The thing is, the right wing thinks minorities are becoming the majority, so preventing Caucasian births is destroying the white majority. Besides that abortion is a good political football--liberals killing babies fires up the voters. Even though many right wingers rush their daughters to abortion clinics.
I am not against big business. I am against big money in Politics
Just my opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

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

Yea we don't want an active forum keeping you from getting your beauty sleep haha

I love how an American company (presumably) want to change federal law (and succeeded) in a country where one of the cornerstones of said countries rights and freedoms is that State is separate from religion. So religious views should have no say in federal law.

Quote:

Originally posted by Althalus

I love how an American company (presumably) want to change federal law (and succeeded) in a country where one of the cornerstones of said countries rights and freedoms is that State is separate from religion. So religious views should have no say in federal law.

Welcome to the Republican party problem. The blur between the Separation of Church and State is lost when you vote Republican. Bush 2 slanted the court toward Religious extremism and Corporations

Id like to say that if youre not happy with the government in general lets make it smaller not bigger. If you cant handle critism, keep your fingers off the keys. And lastly (for now) if you expect immigrants to keep and show a green card on demand to law enforcement (circa 1980's federal law) so should you as a citizen. That would have prevented the person whom this thread was started for from getting beat up. Follow the laws, limit government or get out of our country. Your prerogative.

You could not function as a business in the USA without government assistance of some kind ie roads, bridges, water, sewer, airports, security etc etc. The current system has allowed us to build a 16 trillion dollar economy. Government could become more efficient and spend our money more wisely, but I wouldn't kill the goose that laid the golden egg

I can't believe the irony of the people that think "a woman should have the right..." want to clamp down on the rights of the people that say "Fine, but I don't want to pay for it".

If Sugar-daddy owned 400 Yamaha dealerships, and the government wanted him to pay for helmets and rider training and knee braces for every motorcyclist that bought a bike at his dealership, passed a law to that effect and then decided they would exclude small dealers because they don't have the money, and he's too big... would he be in his right to file a suit against the law based on the fact that it's not his responsibility to pay for something that every employee may not use, agree with or even want, but rather that those that want them should pay for those items themselves? And where would be a good place to draw that line of a dealer with too many dealerships?

It's not different, it's just not the issue being argued.

Y'all make it sound like federal law only applies when it's a democrat law. Bitching about Bush era law, but supporting OneBigAssMistakeAmerica law that you like. Embrace the system. It's how it works. Obi said "YOU ARE GONNA PAY!" and Hobby Lobby said "NO WE AREN'T!" then they fought it out in court. This was a Constitutional issue, once again, it denied no one anything, it just determined who had to pay for it. Had they lost, I would not be surprised if Hobby Lobby dropped their own insurance and said "Sorry folks, go buy your own on the exchange. You voted for it, now you got it.".

Gee, maybe that would have made everyone happier.


I wish I had the time right now to respond justly to the lunacy and double standard contained on this page alone.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

I can't believe the irony of the people that think "a woman should have the right..." want to clamp down on the rights of the people that say "Fine, but I don't want to pay for it".

If Sugar-daddy owned 400 Yamaha dealerships, and the government wanted him to pay for helmets and rider training and knee braces for every motorcyclist that bought a bike at his dealership, passed a law to that effect and then decided they would exclude small dealers because they don't have the money, and he's too big... would he be in his right to file a suit against the law based on the fact that it's not his responsibility to pay for something that every employee may not use, agree with or even want, but rather that those that want them should pay for those items themselves? And where would be a good place to draw that line of a dealer with too many dealerships?

I find this really oddly worded so I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say exactly. In your example you say the company would have to pay for helmets/training etc for their customers, but then say i shouldn't be his responsibility to pay for something that not every employee will use. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Also, thats not how healthcare works, you don't pick and chose what items are covered based on who will use them and who won't. If that were the case, then we'd have all sorts of people saying I'm not paying for cancer coverage because I don't have cancer, or I'm not paying for insulin because I don't have diabetes. If you allow business owners to pick and chose what their employees are covered for, then why bother having insurance at all? Besides...like I said before, the insurance is likely paid for by BOTH employer and employee, so why does the employer get to decide what coverage the employee gets, but the employee has no say?

Also, Hobby Lobby's response to the accusation that their employee 401 (k) invests in companies that produce abortion drugs was. "The employees choose to invest in that" . So why are they against their employees choosing to use said drugs? It's OK to make money off of a "sin" ?

Also, as a small businesses owner, I can know claim that anything I don't want to pay for goes against my religion. By granting businesses the ability to ignore laws based on fictional dichotomy, the Supreme court had opened a pandoras box of ridiculous scenarios.

This has gotten really off topic, to the point of being unrecognizable from the initial subject.

Agreed.

I may make a new thread if people want to continue the Hobby Lobby subject.

ALL FUTURE HOBBY LOBBY POSTS, PLEASE POST IN THE NEW THREAD.


https://whatboyswant.com/forums/read/162024

Mah Bad...

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

Mah Bad...

No not at all...BMF and I were the ones that got this thread way off topic, I just thought it was time to make its own thread.