If Hobby Lobby wins...

[DrDoomNGloom]

Actually, you have no idea what you are talking about. If you are the only person on the planet that believes in your religion it is no less valid, legally, than Catholicism or Islam.

I know exactly what I am talking about, just for grins and chuckles let me offer another bite off the apple before I defend my last sentiment.

The next argument that I will be making is "Time is of the essence" ...

I have my arguments ready, how about you??
Hint, needs to relate specifically to this issue ...

You have idiotic arguments ready? Why am I not surprised? Do you operate under the delusion that the mere fact that you claim to have an argument somehow makes your argument valid?

What are you trolling this morning or what??

I can sling mud with the best, cool your heels ...

I dealt with people like you before, I will win...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know exactly what I am talking about, just for grins and chuckles let me offer another bite off the apple before I defend my last sentiment.

The next argument that I will be making is "Time is of the essence" ...

I have my arguments ready, how about you??
Hint, needs to relate specifically to this issue ...

You have idiotic arguments ready? Why am I not surprised? Do you operate under the delusion that the mere fact that you claim to have an argument somehow makes your argument valid?

What are you trolling this morning or what??

I can sling mud with the best, cool your heels ...

I dealt with people like you before, I will win...

I suggest you go look back at my posting style and stop acting like you are fucking special.

 

[paperview]

They were not required to purchase a fucking thing, all they had to do was have one. They were perfectly free to steal it, borrow it from a friend, receive it as a gift, or even make it in their barn.

"free to steal it."



"Make it in their barn..."

This is what all every able-bodied free white men (between 18 - 45* -with a few exemptions) had to be prepared to show up with a number of times a year, and be prepared to parade with them -- or be fined or jailed.

"...a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder."


Yes, this was the government for some 50 years after our founding forcing citizens to provide themselves with a wide array of materials.

No, "stealing them" wasn't an option.

Anything in there about them having to buy them?

Didn't think so.

Are you aware that muskets were often made by the local blacksmith? Or that ammo was not interchangeable because rifles rarely had the same bore? I thought you were the history buff, do you only study history that supports your position?

The blacksmith didn't give them away, bub.

Just a thought, if everyone was required to won a gun, what does that do to the argument that no one should be allowed to own a gun?

Ask the person who is making that argument. I am not.

 

[paperview]

I know exactly what I am talking about, just for grins and chuckles let me offer another bite off the apple before I defend my last sentiment.

The next argument that I will be making is "Time is of the essence" ...

I have my arguments ready, how about you??
Hint, needs to relate specifically to this issue ...

You have idiotic arguments ready? Why am I not surprised? Do you operate under the delusion that the mere fact that you claim to have an argument somehow makes your argument valid?

What are you trolling this morning or what??

I can sling mud with the best, cool your heels ...

I dealt with people like you before, I will win...

This morning?

You're new here.

The bag of wind is set to permanent troll status. Way he rolls.

You'll see as he continues his usual troll self, day after day.

 

[Avatar4321]

I complete agree. The lefties who hate hobby lobby for doing this because they are Christian would be on their side if they were Muslim. Total hypocrisy.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Actually, you have no idea what you are talking about. If you are the only person on the planet that believes in your religion it is no less valid, legally, than Catholicism or Islam.

I know exactly what I am talking about, just for grins and chuckles let me offer another bite off the apple before I defend my last sentiment.

The next argument that I will be making is "Time is of the essence" ...

I have my arguments ready, how about you??
Hint, needs to relate specifically to this issue ...

You have idiotic arguments ready? Why am I not surprised? Do you operate under the delusion that the mere fact that you claim to have an argument somehow makes your argument valid?

Actually what I should have told you was that I am just that GOOD!! I will give you the play book, tell you which players are going in and what the next play will be, and will still have complete reign over YOU in this conversation ...

 

[emilynghiem]

I complete agree. The lefties who hate hobby lobby for doing this because they are Christian would be on their side if they were Muslim. Total hypocrisy.

Actually, a Muslim case might expose hypocrisy on both the left and the right at the same time.

Look at the cases of religious freedom where conservatives pushed legislative and legal action to shut down Mosques.

The difference is, in those cases, both the Muslims and the Conservatives submit to Constitutional laws and authority to settle the disputes.

With prochoice liberal activists pushing for "right to health care"
I don't see them submitting to or respecting Constitutional authority.
They keep relying on Partisan or Political force to override Constitutional defense of the opponents; since clearly the Constitution is on the side of the freedom not govt mandates.

 

[emilynghiem]

I know exactly what I am talking about, just for grins and chuckles let me offer another bite off the apple before I defend my last sentiment.

The next argument that I will be making is "Time is of the essence" ...

I have my arguments ready, how about you??
Hint, needs to relate specifically to this issue ...

You have idiotic arguments ready? Why am I not surprised? Do you operate under the delusion that the mere fact that you claim to have an argument somehow makes your argument valid?

Actually what I should have told you was that I am just that GOOD!! I will give you the play book, tell you which players are going in and what the next play will be, and will still have complete reign over YOU in this conversation ...

I agree with QW that one's religious freedom is inherent, given by human nature
governed by natural laws, and NOT determined, defined or decided by government.

However, given our Constitutional structure and statutory laws based on judicial precedence, the government is used to make determinations in cases of conflict.

Dr. D&G: you are arguing on the level of laws under our given legal system
and our political culture that imposes biases on the legal and govt systems.

QW is arguing on the level of NATURAL LAWS that exist INDEPENDENT of GOVT.

You are both right in your respective context.

But the legal/govt system is wrong, it contradicts itself, so even though Dr. D&G is right about what is going on in reality, this goes against natural laws and is essentially wrong or unconstitutional for govt to be abused to decide religious freedom based on popular views.

That IS what is happening, but it is problematic and contrary to natural laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"free to steal it."



"Make it in their barn..."

This is what all every able-bodied free white men (between 18 - 45* -with a few exemptions) had to be prepared to show up with a number of times a year, and be prepared to parade with them -- or be fined or jailed.

"...a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder."


Yes, this was the government for some 50 years after our founding forcing citizens to provide themselves with a wide array of materials.

No, "stealing them" wasn't an option.

Anything in there about them having to buy them?

Didn't think so.

Are you aware that muskets were often made by the local blacksmith? Or that ammo was not interchangeable because rifles rarely had the same bore? I thought you were the history buff, do you only study history that supports your position?

The blacksmith didn't give them away, bub.

Just a thought, if everyone was required to won a gun, what does that do to the argument that no one should be allowed to own a gun?

Ask the person who is making that argument. I am not.

Does the alleged fact that blacksmiths don't give away old muskets somehow prove the blacksmith couldn't make a musket for himself? Or that someone with enough training couldn't do the same thing? Would the blacksmith be required to pay someone else for the weapon he made? What if they weapons were inherited?

 

[koshergrl]

I complete agree. The lefties who hate hobby lobby for doing this because they are Christian would be on their side if they were Muslim. Total hypocrisy.

Actually, a Muslim case might expose hypocrisy on both the left and the right at the same time.

Look at the cases of religious freedom where conservatives pushed legislative and legal action to shut down Mosques.

The difference is, in those cases, both the Muslims and the Conservatives submit to Constitutional laws and authority to settle the disputes.

With prochoice liberal activists pushing for "right to health care"
I don't see them submitting to or respecting Constitutional authority.
They keep relying on Partisan or Political force to override Constitutional defense of the opponents; since clearly the Constitution is on the side of the freedom not govt mandates.

First of all, Christian churches and the mosques of Islam are not equal entities.

Second, mosques are places where TRADITIONALLY terrorists are groomed, educated, recruited, and where ILLEGAL PLANS are made to commit ILLEGAL acts of terrorism. The only mosques I have heard of in threat of being *shut down* are those mosques IDENTIFIED as places where terrorist recruiting was actively taking place, or alternately, being proposed as monuments to successful attacks upon Christians and westerners.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know exactly what I am talking about, just for grins and chuckles let me offer another bite off the apple before I defend my last sentiment.

The next argument that I will be making is "Time is of the essence" ...

I have my arguments ready, how about you??
Hint, needs to relate specifically to this issue ...

You have idiotic arguments ready? Why am I not surprised? Do you operate under the delusion that the mere fact that you claim to have an argument somehow makes your argument valid?

Actually what I should have told you was that I am just that GOOD!! I will give you the play book, tell you which players are going in and what the next play will be, and will still have complete reign over YOU in this conversation ...

You are good enough to have stupid arguments ready to defend an untenable position?

Personally, I prefer being intelligent enough to argue my position based on its merits, not on the fact that I can find other idiots that agree with me. Take notes, that is the difference between us.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, okay. So if I win the lottery, I'm obligated to purchase health insurance for some wino sleeping in the overpass because I have the means to do so? I don't fucking think so. Please wrap your tiny mind around the idea that no one has an obligation to do ANYTHING for you, and the more you talk, the less DESIRE they have to do so.

You might also consider that nothing in the Constitution says, ". . . free exercise thereof . . . unless you happen to be rich and KNB envies you because he's too shit-poor and worthless to afford his own beer, in which case you have no rights except to shut up and pay him to stand around picking his nose".

Hobby Lobby doesn't have to be a church, because the only people who think the First Amendment applies only to churches are ignorant fuckstains like you who are challenged by reading "Cat in the Hat". In fact, I really hope I'm not being to articulate for you to understand right now. I'd hate for any of the contempt you create to be missed.

Then why did the Supreme Court decide that states couild outlaw polygamy? The Mormons argued, accurately, that polygamy was part of their religion.

Did the Court wrongly decide that case? Should Mormon polygamous marriages be required to be legal and recognized?

For the same reason the decided that states could require discrimination, they were wrong.

Either that, or you are wrong that marriage is a fundamental right.

Your choice.

What kind of an answer is that supposed to be? Was the Court wrong because polygamy is a religious practice?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then why did the Supreme Court decide that states couild outlaw polygamy? The Mormons argued, accurately, that polygamy was part of their religion.

Did the Court wrongly decide that case? Should Mormon polygamous marriages be required to be legal and recognized?

For the same reason the decided that states could require discrimination, they were wrong.

Either that, or you are wrong that marriage is a fundamental right.

Your choice.

What kind of an answer is that supposed to be? Was the Court wrong because polygamy is a religious practice?

The court was wrong for thousands of reasons, one of which is that you agree with them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes I would, it is a violation of the 1st amendment, it is not allowing the freedom of religion.

It is sad that to be a citizen in a country that forces you to buy product to remain a citizen in good standing, no other industrialized country forces that burden on its people. We have lost a huge freedom.

You don't think any of your tax dollars are used to buy anything? Are you fucking nuts?

The Supreme Court has said that no one has a say over the money the government steals from them.

Funny thing though, they have never once ruled that you can be forced to spend your money on something just because the government says so.

Really? You've never been required to pay for Social Security or Medicare? Where do you live?

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the same reason the decided that states could require discrimination, they were wrong.

Either that, or you are wrong that marriage is a fundamental right.

Your choice.

What kind of an answer is that supposed to be? Was the Court wrong because polygamy is a religious practice?

The court was wrong for thousands of reasons, one of which is that you agree with them.

Was the Court wrong because polygamy is a religious practice?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

You have idiotic arguments ready? Why am I not surprised? Do you operate under the delusion that the mere fact that you claim to have an argument somehow makes your argument valid?

Actually what I should have told you was that I am just that GOOD!! I will give you the play book, tell you which players are going in and what the next play will be, and will still have complete reign over YOU in this conversation ...

I agree with QW that one's religious freedom is inherent, given by human nature
governed by natural laws, and NOT determined, defined or decided by government.

However, given our Constitutional structure and statutory laws based on judicial precedence, the government is used to make determinations in cases of conflict.

Dr. D&G: you are arguing on the level of laws under our given legal system
and our political culture that imposes biases on the legal and govt systems.

QW is arguing on the level of NATURAL LAWS that exist INDEPENDENT of GOVT.

You are both right in your respective context.

But the legal/govt system is wrong, it contradicts itself, so even though Dr. D&G is right about what is going on in reality, this goes against natural laws and is essentially wrong or unconstitutional for govt to be abused to decide religious freedom based on popular views.

That IS what is happening, but it is problematic and contrary to natural laws.

IYHO

What I am arguing is that the rights(religious) of the 4 family members of HL have as much or more weight than that of a HR / SB passed in the middle of the night by a Democratic majority. Those four voices are loud and clear in what they are for and AGAINST, while complying with the law as far as their conscious would allow and finally taking a stand.


Going back to your absurd example, given any thought to Peyote and religious aspects??

Legality of Peyote

Baby Peyote Cactus Recreational use of peyote is prohibited in all of the states and territories and by federal law. Recreational users of peyote may face large fines or even jail time if caught. Additionally, the sale and production of peyote for non-religious purposes is also against the law in the United States. Although not discovered nearly as often, peyote growers are usually treated the same way by law enforcement as marijuana growers.

Although ceremonial use of peyote was also illegal at one time, the United States now exempts this type of peyote use as legal. However, legal peyote use is restricted to the Native American Church. The distinction does not extend to other Native American groups that use peyote in religious ceremonies. As such, a number of religious peyote growers and users have been targeted and prosecuted by local law enforcement agencies. For example, the Peyote Foundation in Arizona was raided by local officials in 1998. Other Native American groups continue to strive for the legalization of peyote, but have not been successful thus far.

See when the government made an exception for religious use it took steps to ensure NEW groups would not spring up seeking the same protectionism while only seeking to get "high".

this goes against natural laws and is essentially wrong or unconstitutional for govt to be abused to decide religious freedom based on popular views.

We agree here ... the 51% majority is forcing it's views on the 49% minority.
You contradict yourself in your post, you want to be both politically correct and religiously appropriate but in this case it comes off condescending. Take one side of the stance or the other, the view being forced upon HL's leaders are those of the needy and greedy wanting to impose the Obama will on us 49%.

You are a very diplomatic writer and I understand your point of view but at the end of the day we are both on the same side of the fence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't think any of your tax dollars are used to buy anything? Are you fucking nuts?

The Supreme Court has said that no one has a say over the money the government steals from them.

Funny thing though, they have never once ruled that you can be forced to spend your money on something just because the government says so.

Really? You've never been required to pay for Social Security or Medicare? Where do you live?

Do you understand the difference between taxes, aka theft, and telling me I have to pay through your birth control out of the money you don't steal from me, aka extortion?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What kind of an answer is that supposed to be? Was the Court wrong because polygamy is a religious practice?

The court was wrong for thousands of reasons, one of which is that you agree with them.

Was the Court wrong because polygamy is a religious practice?

As I explained earlier, if marraige is a fundamental right, the court was wrong. If it isn't, you are.

 

[Papageorgio]

No one can force beliefs on employees because no one is obligated to become the employee of someone else.

Heres the rub tho. What if more employers start imposing more "beliefs"? And a few turn to hundreds? The rule still applies that no one HAS to work there but many will have to work somewhere which means some will be exposed to it.

Does the worker lose their right to the CEO's belief?

Cons in the government are trying to force their beliefs on us. Birth control, abortion, women's rights, immigration, taxes, pentagon spending, religious beliefs, and on and on....And then they say, "it's the liberals that are doing it."

The government is forcing companies to include certain aspects of the health care and they are forced to buy it.

Businesses are offering insurance as a benefit, they aren't forcing anyone to take it, you are free to purchase you own insurance,

There is no force of beliefs, on the employee.

 

[paperview]

Anything in there about them having to buy them?

Didn't think so.

Are you aware that muskets were often made by the local blacksmith? Or that ammo was not interchangeable because rifles rarely had the same bore? I thought you were the history buff, do you only study history that supports your position?

The blacksmith didn't give them away, bub.

Just a thought, if everyone was required to won a gun, what does that do to the argument that no one should be allowed to own a gun?

Ask the person who is making that argument. I am not.

Does the alleged fact that blacksmiths don't give away old muskets somehow prove the blacksmith couldn't make a musket for himself? Or that someone with enough training couldn't do the same thing? Would the blacksmith be required to pay someone else for the weapon he made? What if they weapons were inherited?

Still costs the blacksmith. He was forced by the gov't to provide it...as well as the long list of other items I listed.

lol at you moving goalposts waaaaaaaaaaay over.