|
esquilax posted:Nothing that happened should lead us to doubt the sincerity of their case, as people have implied. The fact that they are calling something "an abortion" that factually isn't an abortion pretty much takes away their ability to cry sincerity. It's clearly a politically motivated case. (Not that that will matter in the way the court finds the case.)
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:The fact that they are calling something "an abortion" that factually isn't an abortion pretty much takes away their ability to cry sincerity. It's clearly a politically motivated case. (Not that that will matter in the way the court finds the case.) Someone can sincerely believe in something that is factually wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The fact that they are calling something "an abortion" that factually isn't an abortion pretty much takes away their ability to cry sincerity. It's clearly a politically motivated case. (Not that that will matter in the way the court finds the case.) And Peyote merely induces a chemical reaction in the brain, not a connection to the spirit realm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And Peyote merely induces a chemical reaction in the brain, not a connection to the spirit realm. ... There is actually a decent argument that people should be able to smoke peyote for their religion since it doesn't effect anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:... There is actually a decent argument that people should be able to smoke peyote for their religion since it doesn't effect anyone else. Yes, but you're evading the point: religious ideas can be sincerely held even when scientifically wrong. Another example is the mormon belief that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel (definitively disproven through DNA testing).
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yes, but you're evading the point: religious ideas can be sincerely held even when scientifically wrong. Another example is the mormon belief that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel (definitively disproven through DNA testing). I happen to highly doubt that they are sincere and believe it's politically motivated. However there is no way to prove that and it's not going to part of the decision so I'll drop it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I happen to highly doubt that they are sincere and believe it's politically motivated. However there is no way to prove that and it's not going to part of the decision so I'll drop it. There are plenty of people that hold sincere beliefs related to misunderstandings of modern medicine. See anti vaccers and Jehovas Witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I happen to highly doubt that they are sincere and believe it's politically motivated. However there is no way to prove that and it's not going to part of the decision so I'll drop it. Jamelle Bouie argues exactly that over at Slate. The owners of Hobby Lobby may hold it as a serious religious tenet, but that tenet exists purely because of post-Wade politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
esquilax posted:While you're not misinterpreting her remarks, I don't think they relevant in the context of that discussion, or are indicative of the sort of dishonesty as FlamingLiberal is implying. Hobby Lobby lost grandfathered status before the contraceptive requirement was even proposed, so Sotomayor's comment there is more of a jab than a relevant comment. Oh I agree that it shouldn't have any bearing on the case, and it was just a jab on Sotomayor's part. I'm sure there is some universe where it's possible that the Greens are passionately concerned about the all-importance of saving the lives of precious little babies, but for some reason it didn't warrant the effort to actually read through their health plan. Sure they could believe that the peril of abortion is so great that they must deny women not only methods proven to cause abortion, but also methods that have no evidence they cause abortions as long as it hasn't been definitively proven that it's undeniably impossible for them to ever cause an abortion. The risk is just too great...just not great enough to be worth reading the documents you sign apparently. And it's entirely possible that they just so happened to notice this when people were combing through everything they could to find an excuse to cry persecution and wedge their religion into exemptions from public policy. It's also entirely possible that the Arizona bill was really about suddenly protecting black bakers from having to cater KKK rallies too and had nothing to do with the coincidental timing of gay marriages becoming legal in more and more of the country too. I don't think suspicious timing or suddenly realizing that something you were doing for years contradicts your faith and you just didn't notice before should prevent anyone from seeking a legal remedy. There are plenty of good reasons to deny this case without making a judgment about Hobby Lobby's beliefs or imposing some kind of sincerity test, and that kind of test could unfairly shut someone out who has a legitimate complaint. I just, you know, privately think the Greens are full of poo poo and this is a manufactured crisis to let the religious right scream about persecution like they always do while they actively persecute women and minorities. So I was pretty chuffed when Sotomayor mocked them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Even if they sincerely believe everything they are saying they are still paternalistic fucks for trying to force their thousands of female employees to share those beliefs and deserve zero benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
The religious right appears to have a different definition of sincerity than the rest of us, namely "can you deliver this as a talking point without smirking?" If you can do that, you get to act appalled at anybody who doesn't take your position seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The religious right appears to have a different definition of sincerity than the rest of us, namely "can you deliver this as a talking point without smirking?" If you can do that, you get to act appalled at anybody who doesn't take your position seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh I agree that it shouldn't have any bearing on the case, and it was just a jab on Sotomayor's part. I'm sure there is some universe where it's possible that the Greens are passionately concerned about the all-importance of saving the lives of precious little babies, but for some reason it didn't warrant the effort to actually read through their health plan. Sure they could believe that the peril of abortion is so great that they must deny women not only methods proven to cause abortion, but also methods that have no evidence they cause abortions as long as it hasn't been definitively proven that it's undeniably impossible for them to ever cause an abortion. The risk is just too great...just not great enough to be worth reading the documents you sign apparently. And it's entirely possible that they just so happened to notice this when people were combing through everything they could to find an excuse to cry persecution and wedge their religion into exemptions from public policy. It's also entirely possible that the Arizona bill was really about suddenly protecting black bakers from having to cater KKK rallies too and had nothing to do with the coincidental timing of gay marriages becoming legal in more and more of the country too. There should absolutely be a sincerity test! However they essentially automatically pass that test because the government has conceded the sincerity of Hobby Lobby in this case. They didn't question it because the examples that you're bringing up don't show what you think they show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:Whether someone sincerely holds a positions, and whether I would take their position seriously are entirely unrelated things. There's been several examples of people who sincerely believe obviously false/stupid things. Yeah sure, but if say the argument for the religious use of peyote was "well we just realized that we'd been forgetting to smoke it all this time, but we totally would have if we'd remembered because it's a central tenet of our faith and a grevious sin to do otherwise" I think I'd be justified in doubting their sincerity. I'm sure it happens, but I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people who forget about dearly-held doctrines until they need to hunt up a reason to scream persecution or see a way to publicly advance their religion's control over the lives of others. esquilax posted:There should absolutely be a sincerity test! However they essentially automatically pass that test because the government has conceded the sincerity of Hobby Lobby in this case. They didn't question it because the examples that you're bringing up don't show what you think they show. No, I think the government was right to concede the sincerity of the belief, because it would take a mind reader to determine when someone genuinely just didn't notice they were violating a sincere belief. The Greens being full of poo poo is my private belief that extends no farther than me making fun of them on an internet forum. People have terrible sincere beliefs all the time, so as long as their professed belief has any credible way to be interpreted as sincere then I'd be uncomfortable with the court just dismissing it. There are plenty of other reasons to rule against Hobby Lobby here and I'd prefer that the court use one of those. I didn't mean courts should never, ever look at the sincerity of beliefs. Obviously if Exxon created a religion tomorrow that claims dumping toxic waste into rivers is a sacrament it shouldn't be taken seriously. I think you're reading a lot more into my mockery of Hobby Lobby than I'd intended. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
esquilax posted:There should absolutely be a sincerity test! However they essentially automatically pass that test because the government has conceded the sincerity of Hobby Lobby in this case. They didn't question it because the examples that you're bringing up don't show what you think they show. Courts are TERRIBLE at judging if a belief is sincerely held or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Even if they sincerely believe everything they are saying they are still paternalistic fucks for trying to force their thousands of female employees to share those beliefs and deserve zero benefit of the doubt. My main problem is an organization using religion as a shield for denying basic rights when it comes to health and reproduction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I would also ask, are they refusing to cover Viagra? At least be consistent. Come on silly, you know fundys don't care about controlling men's sexual agency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:Whether someone sincerely holds a positions, and whether I would take their position seriously are entirely unrelated things. There's been several examples of people who sincerely believe obviously false/stupid things. Like Hobby Lobby's belief that UPC codes are a mark of the devil and thus they have to price things by hand?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I would also ask, are they refusing to cover Viagra? At least be consistent. To be fair (ugh) to Hobby Lobby, this really isn't an inconsistency. They do cover most methods of contraception. Their argument is if they imagine a method might abort a baby some day, they shouldn't have to. Women can get the standard birth control pill and presumably men could get Viagra because the Green family's imaginations don't contain instances of either one causing abortion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
duz posted:Like Hobby Lobby's belief that UPC codes are a mark of the devil and thus they have to price things by hand? So I feel a little silly asking this, but is this a real thing that Hobby Lobby does? Its gotten to the point I honestly can't tell the difference between a snarky internet comment, and how certain people and agencies behave in real life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:So I feel a little silly asking this, but is this a real thing that Hobby Lobby does? Its gotten to the point I honestly can't tell the difference between a snarky internet comment, and how certain people and agencies behave in real life. They do not use any sort of bar-coding system. No idea why they don't, but from their website... quote:Why don't you use bar code scanners?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:So I feel a little silly asking this, but is this a real thing that Hobby Lobby does? Its gotten to the point I honestly can't tell the difference between a snarky internet comment, and how certain people and agencies behave in real life. It's true, although they don't claim any particular reason for not using barcodes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:So I feel a little silly asking this, but is this a real thing that Hobby Lobby does? Its gotten to the point I honestly can't tell the difference between a snarky internet comment, and how certain people and agencies behave in real life. Barcodes are perhaps the means to which there shall be embedded the 'Mark of the Beast' from Revelationsm 13:16. Also why America doesn't have an all-in-one identification number. This may be a sincerely-held belief of theirs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Also why America doesn't have an all-in-one identification number. Social Security? It's a defacto ID number given how it's used for everything and tracks your identity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Social Security? It's a defacto ID number given how it's used for everything and tracks your identity. Compared to other countries, SS# is a work-around in the same manner that 'civil unions' are for achieving marriage for non-eligible couples; while the goals are largely met the amount of corner-cases and failure states show its flaws.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Compared to other countries, SS# is a work-around in the same manner that 'civil unions' are for achieving marriage for non-eligible couples; while the goals are largely met the amount of corner-cases and failure states show its flaws. I think there are very legitimate reasons to not want a national ID especially knowing how out of control our law enforcement/national security apparatus has become in this country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think there are very legitimate reasons to not want a national ID especially knowing how out of control our law enforcement/national security apparatus has become in this country. In what way would those things render a national ID worse than the current situation with social security numbers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:In what way would those things render a national ID worse than the current situation with social security numbers? I'm not sure that it would be all that much worse but it seems like something that would be ripe for abuse and wouldn't outweigh that with its benefits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
But the federal government has access to your state ID too, amongst many, many other things. It's not like they're unable to track people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Xandu posted:But the federal government has access to your state ID too, amongst many, many other things. It's not like they're unable to track people. Right. It's like with the Census and those people who don't want the government collecting their information. You've already given the government all the information it seeks in the census on various other documents, they just want an an up to date version of all certain data in one collection to get an accurate current view of demographics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
I would be for a national ID card if it was for something like a nationalized single provider health care system. Not sure what the justification or use for one would be short of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I would be for a national ID card if it was for something like a nationalized single provider health care system. Not sure what the justification or use for one would be short of that. A voter registration system that isn't bigoted and classist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I would be for a national ID card if it was for something like a nationalized single provider health care system. Not sure what the justification or use for one would be short of that. Voting would be a big reason. Issuing national ID cards to everyone would be a good way to squash a lot of the voter suppression going on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I'm not sure that it would be all that much worse but it seems like something that would be ripe for abuse and wouldn't outweigh that with its benefits. Ripe how? I mean you've posted three times about it and can't come up with a single abuse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:Voting would be a big reason. Issuing national ID cards to everyone would be a good way to squash a lot of the voter suppression going on. I'm not a fan of asking to see an ID before someone can vote. If you want to fix the voting system there are way better things you can do, Universal online reg, universal same day reg, greatly expanded early/weekend voting and voting by mail, national polling place standards ect ect before you get to a national ID.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Ripe how? I mean you've posted three times about it and can't come up with a single abuse. SS numbers still have the mostly-fictional idea in place that they're not supposed to be used for identification, or at least not as part of a centralized database for anything other than SS administration. The political shifts that would make national ID possible would erode the public perception that it's inappropriate to create a central database of Americans and their personal information. We know that intelligence agencies already feel free to collect whatever information they're able to, but national ID would further legitimize that attitude and spread it to all agencies. Then, when our government inevitably completes its transition to totalitarianism, it will be much easier to intern and control people. Being off the grid will become official cause for suspicion in and of itself. The issues that national ID purports to resolve are systemic and require significant changes to our national culture and politics. National ID is a simplistic tech fix that is periodically proposed with the same degree of detail and consideration as a border fence, and with the same agenda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:SS numbers still have the mostly-fictional idea in place that they're not supposed to be used for identification What fictional idea? The entire country accepts SS numbers as their ID, they're used not only in transactions with the federal government, but the state government and the private market as well. Hell you can't even register pre-paid gift cards without putting up your SS number.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
You can choose to know the identifier that your entire life is filed under, or to have that identifier be hidden from you in the databases of the FBI and CIA. For the day-to-day experiences of americans the former is better than the latter. And if you honestly fear an eventual internment and suppression than you have more concrete solutions present than to be worrying about the 'optics' of a national ID creating a slippery slope into the panopticon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Someone can sincerely believe in something that is factually wrong. That may be, but if a belief is demonstrably wrong and not reflective of reality, it shouldn't be given preference or accommodation under the law. To do otherwise is to legitimize fantasy and madness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:What fictional idea? The entire country accepts SS numbers as their ID, they're used not only in transactions with the federal government, but the state government and the private market as well. Hell you can't even register pre-paid gift cards without putting up your SS number. Well finish my sentence at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 23:14
|
|