Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pretty good huh?
P.S. - The "I" isn't me.
You do realize you don't have to be a Church to exercise religious liberty, right?
Or do you think that you only have the freedom to express your religion if it's as part of a Church?
He actually believes that he is an intelligent and well informed poster because he doesn't have to figure out where the other people are coming from, you can't really expect him to understand what you are saying.
Sometimes pictures help
this is Ben and Jerry
Ben is a person.
Jerry is also a person.
This is Ben And Jerry's.
Ben And Jerry's is not a person.
Class dismissed.
That is a great example of why you are wrong. Ben and Jerry's regularly practices the religious beliefs of the company founders. The reason that you don't notice is that their religious beliefs coincide with your personal bigotry.
Ben & Jerry?s co-founder explains how to do well by doing good | Food | Jewish Journal
Values | Ben & Jerry's
I was hoping some idiot would go there, so glad it was you.
The company certainly does support social benefits that I agree with, through public disclosure on their website Values | Ben & Jerry's ; how they do business How We Do Business | Ben & Jerry's ; organizations their foundations support Ben & Jerry's Foundation | Support grassroots activism and community organizing for social justice ; what political issues they link their customers to Get The Dough Out Of Politics! | Ben & Jerry's ; and sometimes even in the name of a new ice cream flavor Fossil Fuel | Ben & Jerry's
They do ALL this without imposing ridiculous and contrived restrictions on their employees reproductive health - something that was never a separately billed part of ANY insurance plan.
See the difference?
Of course you don't.
That is a great example of why you are wrong. Ben and Jerry's regularly practices the religious beliefs of the company founders. The reason that you don't notice is that their religious beliefs coincide with your personal bigotry.
Ben & Jerry?s co-founder explains how to do well by doing good | Food | Jewish Journal
Values | Ben & Jerry's
I was hoping some idiot would go there, so glad it was you.
The company certainly does support social benefits that I agree with, through public disclosure on their website Values | Ben & Jerry's ; how they do business How We Do Business | Ben & Jerry's ; organizations their foundations support Ben & Jerry's Foundation | Support grassroots activism and community organizing for social justice ; what political issues they link their customers to Get The Dough Out Of Politics! | Ben & Jerry's ; and sometimes even in the name of a new ice cream flavor Fossil Fuel | Ben & Jerry's
They do ALL this without imposing ridiculous and contrived restrictions on their employees reproductive health - something that was never a separately billed part of ANY insurance plan.
See the difference?
Of course you don't.
Hobby Lobby isn't imposing any restrictions on reproductive health either. If you want to know who is doing that ask yourself why the US is one of the few nations to require a prescription for birth control.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard the Hobby Lobby case, which concerned an Obamacare-mandated requirement that employers provide free contraceptive drugs to their employees. The owners of Hobby Lobby are resisting that requirement based on their religious beliefs and the fact that they have always operated their business based on those beliefs.
That is a great example of why you are wrong. Ben and Jerry's regularly practices the religious beliefs of the company founders. The reason that you don't notice is that their religious beliefs coincide with your personal bigotry.
Ben & Jerry?s co-founder explains how to do well by doing good | Food | Jewish Journal
Values | Ben & Jerry's
I was hoping some idiot would go there, so glad it was you.
The company certainly does support social benefits that I agree with, through public disclosure on their website Values | Ben & Jerry's ; how they do business How We Do Business | Ben & Jerry's ; organizations their foundations support Ben & Jerry's Foundation | Support grassroots activism and community organizing for social justice ; what political issues they link their customers to Get The Dough Out Of Politics! | Ben & Jerry's ; and sometimes even in the name of a new ice cream flavor Fossil Fuel | Ben & Jerry's
They do ALL this without imposing ridiculous and contrived restrictions on their employees reproductive health - something that was never a separately billed part of ANY insurance plan.
See the difference?
Of course you don't.
Hobby Lobby isn't imposing any restrictions on reproductive health either. If you want to know who is doing that ask yourself why the US is one of the few nations to require a prescription for birth control.
Look in the mirror granny. Because that describes your side, not mine. You and your type are too dimwitted to realize that a starting a business doesn't mean that you have to accommodate everyone's sensibilities. You don't like the job? Leave. Start your own business if no one else will hire you. But clinging on to nurse off of someone else's pocketbook and demanding that they adopt your value system is nothing but parasitic. Hobby lobby broke no laws, violated none of the Constitution and you simpletons crying about it doesn't change anything.Okay you wingnut tards, here's the situation:
The Constitution guarantees individual religious rights and liberties.
A business does not have the right to infringe upon those liberties.
Hope I didn't type that too fast for you oligarch-supporting sheep.
Okay you wingnut tards, here's the situation:
The Constitution guarantees individual religious rights and liberties.
A business does not have the right to infringe upon those liberties.
Hope I didn't type that too fast for you oligarch-supporting sheep.
Sometimes pictures help
this is Ben and Jerry
Ben is a person.
Jerry is also a person.
This is Ben And Jerry's.
Ben And Jerry's is not a person.
Class dismissed.
Why do you support government tyranny?
[MENTION=39530]AceRothstein[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION] (Yesterday), [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=43400]OnePercenter[/MENTION] (Yesterday), [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=31101]theliq[/MENTION] (Yesterday)
wow, not one had the courage to answer.
pardon me if I don't bother to quell my surprise.
[MENTION=39530]AceRothstein[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION] (Yesterday), [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=43400]OnePercenter[/MENTION] (Yesterday), [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=31101]theliq[/MENTION] (Yesterday)
maybe tomorrow
I was hoping some idiot would go there, so glad it was you.
The company certainly does support social benefits that I agree with, through public disclosure on their website Values | Ben & Jerry's ; how they do business How We Do Business | Ben & Jerry's ; organizations their foundations support Ben & Jerry's Foundation | Support grassroots activism and community organizing for social justice ; what political issues they link their customers to Get The Dough Out Of Politics! | Ben & Jerry's ; and sometimes even in the name of a new ice cream flavor Fossil Fuel | Ben & Jerry's
They do ALL this without imposing ridiculous and contrived restrictions on their employees reproductive health - something that was never a separately billed part of ANY insurance plan.
See the difference?
Of course you don't.
Hobby Lobby isn't imposing any restrictions on reproductive health either. If you want to know who is doing that ask yourself why the US is one of the few nations to require a prescription for birth control.
You get a Mostly False for that one. Only 35 countries like China and overpopulated third world nations do.
Breaking, World, US & Local News - nydailynews.com - NY Daily News
But thanks for supporting readily available contraception for women.
The reason why your position isn't resonating is because it's like arguing for a different set of civil liberties for those who don't agree with the current set.But its neither you nor Darkwind.
Nor do you or CCJones get that these are
valid religious beliefs and liberties
being overrun by federal mandates in violation of Constitutional equal protections.
At least Synthaholic asked for a better explanation of how liberties were lost.
If I fail to work this out in my attempt with Synth,
Luddly I will try again to post a thread to you and CCJones
trying to sort out where we are missing each other's political positions and beliefs.
To me, even if I disagree with yours,
I should treat include and DEFEND your beliefs equally as mine or anyone else's
in order to be respectful of Constitutional standards I want govt to follow.
So if you want Singlepayer or a central national system to govern health care
under rules and regs YOU want, I want YOU to have that.
Just NOT at the expense of other people who want another set of choices outside govt.
So I am seeking the best way where EVERYONE can get the system they want
without conflict or imposition with any other system other people set up to use.
Isn't that more Constitutionally inclusive and fair?
To respect all beliefs and let everyone set up and exercise what THEY believe in equally?
That would allow those who believe that blacks are nothing but a bunch of N-words, get to operate their business by discriminating against them, and things of that nature.
We are living in a society, that means that the society will do things that you personally, even a group of you do not agree, believe in, or or like. That's just part of the contract we all sign by choosing to be a member of society.
They are not a health care provider nor a church but as I already posted, they want it both ways. They want the benefits of being one thing AND the benefits of being the other.
Which is it?
Since they support abortion, this is not and never has been about religion or abortion.
We are losing our liberties. It used to be that if person A had a job to be done that he could into into an agreement with person B to do the job. Person A may offer Person B 30 chickens to do the job. If Person B agrees then he does the job for 30 chickens. If person B does not agree, because 30 chickens are not enough benefit for him to do the job, then he does not have to do the freaking job. But what person A and Person B agree to be the compensation is none of the government's F'ing business. It's really that simple folks.
Pretty good huh?
P.S. - The "I" isn't me.
I was hoping some idiot would go there, so glad it was you.
The company certainly does support social benefits that I agree with, through public disclosure on their website Values | Ben & Jerry's ; how they do business How We Do Business | Ben & Jerry's ; organizations their foundations support Ben & Jerry's Foundation | Support grassroots activism and community organizing for social justice ; what political issues they link their customers to Get The Dough Out Of Politics! | Ben & Jerry's ; and sometimes even in the name of a new ice cream flavor Fossil Fuel | Ben & Jerry's
They do ALL this without imposing ridiculous and contrived restrictions on their employees reproductive health - something that was never a separately billed part of ANY insurance plan.
See the difference?
Of course you don't.
Hobby Lobby isn't imposing any restrictions on reproductive health either. If you want to know who is doing that ask yourself why the US is one of the few nations to require a prescription for birth control.
1
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVmS7a07mXA"]Allergic to Bullshit[/ame]
A decision for Hobby Lobby could be the right one to makeA decision for Hobby Lobby could be the right one to make
which, in itself is bullshit, because as I already pointed out, the reproductive coverage in health insurance is "something that was never a separately billed part of ANY insurance plan."The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard the Hobby Lobby case, which concerned an Obamacare-mandated requirement that employers provide free contraceptive drugs to their employees. The owners of Hobby Lobby are resisting that requirement based on their religious beliefs and the fact that they have always operated their business based on those beliefs.
2
When all else fails, deflect.
I was hoping some idiot would go there, so glad it was you.
The company certainly does support social benefits that I agree with, through public disclosure on their website Values | Ben & Jerry's ; how they do business How We Do Business | Ben & Jerry's ; organizations their foundations support Ben & Jerry's Foundation | Support grassroots activism and community organizing for social justice ; what political issues they link their customers to Get The Dough Out Of Politics! | Ben & Jerry's ; and sometimes even in the name of a new ice cream flavor Fossil Fuel | Ben & Jerry's
They do ALL this without imposing ridiculous and contrived restrictions on their employees reproductive health - something that was never a separately billed part of ANY insurance plan.
See the difference?
Of course you don't.
Hobby Lobby isn't imposing any restrictions on reproductive health either. If you want to know who is doing that ask yourself why the US is one of the few nations to require a prescription for birth control.
You get a Mostly False for that one. Only 35 countries like China and overpopulated third world nations do.
Breaking, World, US & Local News - nydailynews.com - NY Daily News
But thanks for supporting readily available contraception for women.
Unlike The U.S., Most Countries Offer Birth Control Pills Over The Counter | ThinkProgressA new study from reproductive health researchers in Oakland, CA finds that the majority of countries ease women’s access to reproductive health services by making birth control pills available over the counter. The United States is one of 45 countries that still require women to obtain a prescription for oral contraceptives.
To be honest, I'm still not getting your argument. Not that I haven't tried to understand it either.
It seems to me that there are those that are just fundamentally opposed to the government being involved in any aspect of health care insurance.
And to me, that is radical.
Tyranny; government by force or coercion.
Telling Americans they must by a product or face a fine is coercion. Telling the owners of the business they must provide a product or be fined is the same thing.
We are losing our liberties. It used to be that if person A had a job to be done that he could into into an agreement with person B to do the job. Person A may offer Person B 30 chickens to do the job. If Person B agrees then he does the job for 30 chickens. If person B does not agree, because 30 chickens are not enough benefit for him to do the job, then he does not have to do the freaking job. But what person A and Person B agree to be the compensation is none of the government's F'ing business. It's really that simple folks.
What liberties are you losing Emily?Let's separate these two issues here:
1. One is the issue itself of the role of government in relation to health care
and now to health care insurance
2. the other is biases toward or against views on health care and govt, which should be addressed separately. Just because your or I agree or disagree with a view, should not affect the validity of the belief, or legal defenses which depend on whether the belief is in conflict with law such as causing harm by promoting killing or something else illegal or threatening danger or damage.
For 1: Since health care is not necessary for govt to manage as the military is in comparison (except for safety regulations regarding malpractice, fraud, licensing to ensure professional competence etc that people generally agree on govt regulating), but health care has been successfully and effectively provided by free market businesses, schools, charities, etc.
then we have two schools of thought
a. those who believe in minimal federal govt, and sticking to what is specifically prescribed in the Constitution, while maximizing as many other functions and rights reserved to the States and people
b. those who believe in public access and equality being established and guaranteed by federal govt, and being more liberal in making changes instead of stricter adherence
which the other approach requires a formal Constitutional Amendment to change.
One is only sticking to what is SPECIFICALLY granted to federal govt
One is being open to anything not SPECIFICALLY DENIED to federal govt
(whether or not people believe or agree in interpreting general welfare as including health care, or if the ACA is or is not a tax as it was set up, the fact that it mixes private industry with govt and compels taxpayers to buy a PRIVATE SERVICE OF INSURANCE instead of paying for health care directly is unprecedented as a "hybrid" and not mentioned in the Constitution, so this has divided people in groups a or b if they believe this is valid or not, or requires an Amendment to be valid. Even when the Federal Reserve was set up which is a hybrid of private investors with federal govt, people are not fined if they do not use it; it is legal to use independent local currency, so people are not forced or fined as with ACA.)
Since there was already health care provided through the free market approach,
and since reforms to insurance and trying to cover more people DO NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE federal govt forcing all citizens to buy insurance (which is a separate issue)
but COULD BE DONE OTHER WAYS, then the argument is this is not compelling to lose liberties when there were OTHER WAYS that do not require losing those liberties.
In fact, not only do these OTHER WAYS of providing health care exist (besides buying insurance), but they ARE STILL NEEDED ANYWAY because the reforms still do not cover all the people nor all the costs of the people who are supposedly covered.
So citizens are facing fines for paying for other means of health care (where insurance is the only option not fined) when these other means are still needed anyway.
I won't get in to all the other ways health reforms or coverage could be paid for WITHOUT
losing liberties, but they mainly involve govt responsibility for going after the people who DO incur these costs to taxpayers ALREADY ESTABLISHED, instead of charging taxpayers IN ADVANCE for costs or needs they haven't incurred yet and cannot be proven to owe yet.
As for health insurance which is separate from health care, this is a specific issue where people are not paying for actual health care services they are using, or providers or facilities to be developed but compelled by law to pay private insurance companies that do not provide this.
If the argument is to reduce costs, again, there are OTHER WAYS to reduce costs that do not require losing liberties without due process nor require purchasing private insurance.
So there is no COMPELLING govt reason for ACA mandates, except that is what the politicians came up with, purely arbitrary and as above, biased by political beliefs that unconstitutionally exclude half of the citizenry who believe procedures were violated.
2. as for personal and political biases for or against the above two positions and any variations thereof,
this should NOT affect legal arguments for whether someone's beliefs are VALID.
The most anyone could explain is that people have agreed to treat political differences as subject to majority rule, and not established these are protected as religious beliefs;
thus, it is a stretch for people to recognize "political beliefs" as included equally with religious beliefs or creeds protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
the same way people are making a leap in allowing federal govt to expand its interpretations or powers beyond what opponents say is authorized without requiring written laws amending this.
So again I ask for consistency.
If people are making a leap and interpreting the Constitution as "loosely" as possible, where it is not specifically banned from federal govt to create this hybrid mandate/exchange system, then I ask the interpretation of religious freedom and creed (and especially prochoice) to be interpreted "loosely" to include the Constitutional beliefs in limited fed govt.
And if people are going to be "strict to the letter"
and say Constitutional beliefs and arguments do not count as protected
unless the law is changed FIRST to count political beliefs as creed or religion, or these are argued in Court first as included by law and protected from discrimination,
then the law should be interpreted "strictly" where an Amendment is also needed FIRST before granting federal govt specific authority to manage health care.
So whichever way people believe, I ask to be consistent.
We don't have to agree with each other's approach or beliefs,
but should be respectful and as consistent as possible,
and be open to mutual correction where this isn't happening.
Thanks Marc
I hope we can make a difference in how these conflicts are resolved globally.
