This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mad Max
Pages: 1 ... 565758 5960 ... 251
1711
« on: April 01, 2015, 01:37:35 PM »
I still don't get why the bill is even necessary to begin with.
To ensure economic sovereignty for businesses most likely.
The market always finds a way though, as this thread has amiably pointed out, so there was never really a fuss to begin with. Like I've said in the past, there's no money to be made in isolating your consumer base.
So if businesses aren't having their religious freedoms trampled on, why was this even passed, and why are there similar bills in more than a dozen other states?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The bill is there to protect economic freedom, not impede it. The government should not be forcing a business or a commercial body to serve someone. That's the entire point of the bill.
But this specifically focuses on religion. Isn't government forcing someone to do something against their religion already against the law?
Well, I'm not a legal expert, but the First Amendment is there to ensure the freedom to practice religion. I don't think it has anything to do with business practice.
But businesses are owned and run by people who are protected under the First Amendment, so wouldn't it extend to them?
1712
« on: April 01, 2015, 01:27:27 PM »
I still don't get why the bill is even necessary to begin with.
To ensure economic sovereignty for businesses most likely.
The market always finds a way though, as this thread has amiably pointed out, so there was never really a fuss to begin with. Like I've said in the past, there's no money to be made in isolating your consumer base.
So if businesses aren't having their religious freedoms trampled on, why was this even passed, and why are there similar bills in more than a dozen other states?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The bill is there to protect economic freedom, not impede it. The government should not be forcing a business or a commercial body to serve someone. That's the entire point of the bill.
But this specifically focuses on religion. Isn't government forcing someone to do something against their religion already against the law?
1713
« on: April 01, 2015, 01:20:12 PM »
I still don't get why the bill is even necessary to begin with.
To ensure economic sovereignty for businesses most likely.
The market always finds a way though, as this thread has amiably pointed out, so there was never really a fuss to begin with. Like I've said in the past, there's no money to be made in isolating your consumer base.
So if businesses aren't having their religious freedoms trampled on, why was this even passed, and why are there similar bills in more than a dozen other states?
1714
« on: April 01, 2015, 01:14:00 PM »
I still don't get why the bill is even necessary to begin with.
1715
« on: April 01, 2015, 12:30:35 PM »
Can confirm.
1716
« on: April 01, 2015, 11:24:41 AM »
Can you imagine all the things we could pay for if we didn't give Israel money?
1717
« on: April 01, 2015, 11:10:48 AM »
1718
« on: March 31, 2015, 11:33:23 PM »
I'm not LGBT, but close to many who are.
First of all, I understand where your mom was coming from and giving you the heads up, but in respect to your sister, it wasn't your mother's news to be sharing. That's kind of off-putting, but neither here nor there.
In person, Skype, or a phone call might be awkward because you don't know what her reaction will be, but I would definitely reach out to her and let her know that, regardless of how your childhood relationship was, that she's your sister and you accept her any way she is. Perhaps an email or facebook message is the right medium. A written message gives her the time to digest it and respond at her own pace.
1719
« on: March 31, 2015, 09:09:47 PM »
So he's just making fun of feminists.
Cool.
Why does this belong in Serious?
1720
« on: March 31, 2015, 08:17:36 PM »
I just want to point out that this thread was supposed to be about opinions regarding the boycotting of states because of bills they passed. I think the current topic has been beaten to death on Serious in the past.
My bad. I just wanted to establish a solid foundation from which to discuss the topic. On topic: I fully support and encourage businesses and people to avoid doing business in a state that has passed legislation they do no support. While that may be difficult depending on the goods/services you need or provide, I understand people who do not boycott a state because of its legislation. There's also people who will move their business to places like Indiana to show their support for such legislation. I also understand that some people just don't give a fuck and will do business wherever they want regardless of the legislation passed.
1721
« on: March 31, 2015, 08:08:06 PM »
Ok, I think I made my way through it. Before I pick at any sections of it, what was happening in Indiana that provoked this bill to be written? Were the people of Indiana's freedom of religious expression and services being infringed upon?
They're following suit with many other states taking the federal RFRA law and applying it at a state level. I don't think it's in response to a particular set of incidents, though the ACA is largely what spurned the trend.
How could healthcare possibly infringe upon someone's religious freedom?
Contraceptives, probably.
Ok, I think I made my way through it. Before I pick at any sections of it, what was happening in Indiana that provoked this bill to be written? Were the people of Indiana's freedom of religious expression and services being infringed upon?
They're following suit with many other states taking the federal RFRA law and applying it at a state level. I don't think it's in response to a particular set of incidents, though the ACA is largely what spurned the trend.
How could healthcare possibly infringe upon someone's religious freedom?
Contraception and abortion, I imagine.
The ACA forces people to take contraceptives and have abortions?
Wasn't there some huge debacle about forcing business to provide contraceptives in their heath insurance or something...
I forget how that court case turned out.
Yeah, the Hobby Lobby shit.
But I never saw the connection. The business owner isn't the one handling the contraceptives.
Would you ask a Muslim to pay for spam for the poor?
When would a Muslim specifically be forced to pay for a pork product for a poor person? Your taxes and shit go into one big bowl and get divvied up to different costs. There's no way to know that YOUR dollar paid for that sausage. Last I checked, you can't claim religious exemption from paying taxes.
1722
« on: March 31, 2015, 08:06:30 PM »
1723
« on: March 31, 2015, 08:05:14 PM »
Ok, I think I made my way through it. Before I pick at any sections of it, what was happening in Indiana that provoked this bill to be written? Were the people of Indiana's freedom of religious expression and services being infringed upon?
They're following suit with many other states taking the federal RFRA law and applying it at a state level. I don't think it's in response to a particular set of incidents, though the ACA is largely what spurned the trend.
How could healthcare possibly infringe upon someone's religious freedom?
Contraceptives, probably.
Ok, I think I made my way through it. Before I pick at any sections of it, what was happening in Indiana that provoked this bill to be written? Were the people of Indiana's freedom of religious expression and services being infringed upon?
They're following suit with many other states taking the federal RFRA law and applying it at a state level. I don't think it's in response to a particular set of incidents, though the ACA is largely what spurned the trend.
How could healthcare possibly infringe upon someone's religious freedom?
Contraception and abortion, I imagine.
The ACA forces people to take contraceptives and have abortions?
Wasn't there some huge debacle about forcing business to provide contraceptives in their heath insurance or something...
I forget how that court case turned out.
Yeah, the Hobby Lobby shit. But I never saw the connection. The business owner isn't the one handling the contraceptives.
1724
« on: March 31, 2015, 08:02:17 PM »
Ok, I think I made my way through it. Before I pick at any sections of it, what was happening in Indiana that provoked this bill to be written? Were the people of Indiana's freedom of religious expression and services being infringed upon?
They're following suit with many other states taking the federal RFRA law and applying it at a state level. I don't think it's in response to a particular set of incidents, though the ACA is largely what spurned the trend.
How could healthcare possibly infringe upon someone's religious freedom?
Contraceptives, probably.
Ok, I think I made my way through it. Before I pick at any sections of it, what was happening in Indiana that provoked this bill to be written? Were the people of Indiana's freedom of religious expression and services being infringed upon?
They're following suit with many other states taking the federal RFRA law and applying it at a state level. I don't think it's in response to a particular set of incidents, though the ACA is largely what spurned the trend.
How could healthcare possibly infringe upon someone's religious freedom?
Contraception and abortion, I imagine.
The ACA forces people to take contraceptives and have abortions?
1725
« on: March 31, 2015, 07:54:03 PM »
Ok, I think I made my way through it. Before I pick at any sections of it, what was happening in Indiana that provoked this bill to be written? Were the people of Indiana's freedom of religious expression and services being infringed upon?
They're following suit with many other states taking the federal RFRA law and applying it at a state level. I don't think it's in response to a particular set of incidents, though the ACA is largely what spurned the trend.
How could healthcare possibly infringe upon someone's religious freedom?
1726
« on: March 31, 2015, 07:29:56 PM »
Ok, I think I made my way through it. Before I pick at any sections of it, what was happening in Indiana that provoked this bill to be written? Were the people of Indiana's freedom of religious expression and services being infringed upon?
1727
« on: March 31, 2015, 07:23:46 PM »
Is there an ELI5 for this whole bill? I'd rather not read through the whole thing.
It's like 3 pages long.
Ah, I didn't realize. I assumed it was like, 50...because government. I should just go read it in its plain text. I'll admit I've fallen victim to trying to discuss this without having read it, so I'm going to try to refrain from doing so until I understand the contents of the bill.
1728
« on: March 31, 2015, 07:12:20 PM »
Is there an ELI5 for this whole bill? I'd rather not read through the whole thing.
1729
« on: March 31, 2015, 05:19:47 PM »
huh?
1730
« on: March 31, 2015, 03:06:31 PM »
Dat Liberal logic...
You idiot...
1731
« on: March 31, 2015, 03:03:40 PM »
Pierce brosnan is the best bond though
Objectively.
No
I disagree.
1732
« on: March 31, 2015, 02:56:43 PM »
Pierce brosnan is the best bond though
Objectively.
1733
« on: March 31, 2015, 11:50:22 AM »
1734
« on: March 31, 2015, 11:14:06 AM »
How did this thread get this long? Isn't the only response to this thread "duh"?
1735
« on: March 30, 2015, 08:10:52 PM »
Man, I can't wait until Sugar discovers Nyan Cat.
LMAO!
whats that?
You're not funny.
okay? It's a really shity poptart cartoon cat with web music. I don't recommend.
The fact that you're pretending to have never seen these videos is dumb.
1736
« on: March 30, 2015, 08:09:52 PM »
*were
1737
« on: March 30, 2015, 08:00:24 PM »
Man, I can't wait until Sugar discovers Nyan Cat.
LMAO!
whats that?
You're not funny.
1738
« on: March 30, 2015, 07:46:37 PM »
Man, I can't wait until Sugar discovers Nyan Cat.
1739
« on: March 30, 2015, 07:42:41 PM »
...are you just discovering viral videos from half a decade ago?
Pages: 1 ... 565758 5960 ... 251
|
Show Posts