Jewish corporations will now demand retroactive circumcisions for their male employees.
8 Likes
I do not want a retroactive circumcision, nor do I understand one.
1 Like
Beforeskin?
17 Likes
time for a boycott smack down.
2 Likes
Koch Industries sprang to my mind, as Charles and David each own 42%. If the company were public it would rank 17 on the Fortune 500.
2 Likes
The conservativeās decision is not a surprise, they are traditionalists, conditioned by a corporate āPlantation Stateā legacy, where the religious beliefs of Massa governs the wombs.
The court essentially just transferred Massaās traditional ārightsā to the Plantation, aka a āclosely held corporationā.
4 Likes
Unfortunately, I doubt that would do much good, because there are enough people who do think this is a āgood decisionā because of āreligious freedomsā who will actively shop there because they like the decision. Our own boycott will likely not put them out of business nor will it send much of a message. Iāve been avoiding the place since this all started (the blatant anti-Semitism was part of that too) and I suspect Iām not the only one.
That doesnāt mean a concerted effort canāt be made, just that those who support it will only double down on their end.
I will forever have a hard time with your insistence that people vote the lesser evil or they are contributing to the greater evil. That simply isnāt necessarily true. It might be true, depending on a lot of specific things in the situation, but it isnāt necessarily true.
To me, itās like this:
Donāt vote for A because he kills people! Vote for B because he only kills puppies.
I canāt vote for either of these two assholes.
Iād rather attack the system that makes it only possible to vote for A or B, a murderer or an animal cruelist. Or, in less strawmannish hyperbolic, more real terms, an overt corporatist vs. a covert corporatist.
No, they are not ALL like this every time (Sanders, Warren, Franken), but the point remains. If the system is presenting you with bad choice A or bad choice B and there are no alternatives, then in simple game theory terms, all you are doing by voting B is delaying the inevitable, eventual occurrence of A & vice-versa.
I would rather put my effort towards disincentivizing B from being corporatist, and therefore worthy of more votes and therefore stripping A of probability.
I am not voting for puppy killers because they are better than murderers. In real terms, I like Afghan and Pakistani children. I want them to live. I like government that isnāt full of biz-friendly Republicans-in-disguise Democratic cronies at the top echelons. I like laws and administrations that donāt use extra-legal prisons and secret courts. I like administrations that scale back police power and focus the judiciary on stuff that matters, not pot convictions. Etc.
Now, go ahead, attack away. But this is just a difference of opinion that nobody can win. I just cannot accept your lesser evil argument as the solution above all others. To me, the Lessig solution is the solution.
Now donāt start with me about the Lessig of two evils, triple fucking facepalm.
5 Likes
The frequent consonance between constitutionality and barbarism canāt be terribly comforting, can it?
Egad, weāve returned to the barbaric regulatory regime of ā¦ 2011.
Study this:
Then this:
(Try to notice the pattern there)
Then this:
Otherwise, weāll just have to agree to disagree.
DISCLAIMER: And, pleaseā¦ Iāve made it repeatedly clear in this BBS the end result is ushering in third parties. Iāve also offered nuances to my approach that includes voting third parties now as long as the end result doesnāt mean unrealisitcally throwing away a vote and ushering in more Republcians. And, Iāve repeatedly shown my support for Home | Rootstrikers etc.
2 Likes
If you study, and respond cogently to, my āgame theoryā logical argument, I might engage further. Iām not dismissing you; but I do feel somewhat dismissed. Or rather veered off into SCOTUS land. Whateverā¦
You do realize youāre posting in a SCOTUS thread, right? 
If you study, and respond cogently to, my āgame theoryā logical argument, I might engage further. Iām not dismissing you; but I do feel somewhat dismissed.
I apologize, it wasnāt my intention to dismiss you. In my opinion, I already addressed your points many times before in that thread I linked to and many other places on this BBS. I doubt you were able to read them that fast. Well, if you disagree, letās start a new thread to discuss it. Otherwise, weāre going to derail this SCOTUS thread. Agree?
1 Like
Your taxes are specifically exempt from this ruling.
I believe Hobby Lobby will still cover most contraceptives, but not day-after pills or IUDs.
-
Hypothetically, if my objection to providing contraceptives is not religious (ie not illogical) but instead based in some form of logical moral reasoning, am I not exempted? (āYou are only exempt if your reasoning is insane.ā)
-
As an antinatalist, I believe procreation is immoral. Does that mean I can be exempted from the individual mandate to enter an insurance pool that pays for othersā prenatal care? Or am I not exempted because my moral objection is not based in religious bullshittery (see #1 above)?
They might, but the real battle they wanted to win has much vaster implications. I donāt think this battle was about religion nor contraceptives hurting the Jeebus for the owners of Hobby Lobby. I think their past actions prove that, in my opinion.
Also what @koocheekoo says below I agree with.
2 Likes
As noted by Planned Parenthood, the typical IUD costs an employee earning minimum wage a monthās salary. Thatās no small thing. This is also an attempt to legalize dis-assembling the ACA. If they cannot defund it or repeal it, theyāll pick it apart piece by piece.
4 Likes
I like the Savio solution myself
The lesser of two evils argument is one of a false dilemma. These kinds of arguments are popular with partisans. They typically provide a narrow set of evidence that the āotherā choice is more evil than their own while ignoring the evils stemming from their own choice. Additionally, they tend to focus on a limited set of values/issues which they hold in higher regard than other values while ignoring the possibility that dissenterās values may be just as legitimate but with a completely different focus than those held by themselves.
2 Likes
If corporations are people then they should be eligible for the death penalty.
4 Likes
