It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

page: 29
53
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18126383]olaru12


dbl....
edit on 9-7-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Annee

Yep. It also seems to me that SCOTUS has also disenfranchised other's religious beliefs, who also may own closely held corporations, by ruling the "religious" objection only extends to the contraception mandate and excludes, say, a Scientologist business owner who wants to refuse to pay for depression medication.

prove it. This opens the door to every tax paying fiction, including you and i. It was ruled the aca is a tax (actually it cannot be, according to Justice Roberts brief on the decision. This bill originated in the senate. All taxes MUST originate in The House. It should have simply been sentback to the house but after the decision they were running out of time so they said "ok, we will call the aca a tax now. So lets sign it.) So any corporate fiction will have to be extended these same "rights" and exemptions in the end. If it is truly a tax, the aca that is. This is all corporate law in admiralty courts making decisions on commerce. No common law pleas



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
As an owner of 3 business perhaps I can claim religious affiliation and aversion to FOOLS.

I can think of a few ATS members that I'd send on their way; especially when they start their religious hyperbolic rants.

Also it would be nice not to have to do business with those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense.
i own a business. I produce food. No matter any court ruling, i would still help feed you. To me, that's common sense



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: manna2
Unless it isn't processed by THEIR system then they will come after you for it.WE can't have that pesky INDIVIDUALISM succeed can we?
Why does everyone try to politicize a simple fact?
LATE TERM is the issue,we let you kill them when they are younger obviously so Christians aren't all that IMPOSING unless you attempt to modify how we live in a way that opposes our faith.


Don't kill babies ,we will come AFTER you as we are able(Violence isn't necessary you aren't that dangerous just evil in our eyes). Other than that HOW you DON'T do it is YOUR affair .America IS in CHAOS due to absent fathers and PC lies,all because they can't handle ABSTINENCE until they can afford to have children.
SEX FEELS GOOD,now control yourselves and deal with the TRUTH.Who the hell knows what we have lost already?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: manna2

originally posted by: olaru12
As an owner of 3 business perhaps I can claim religious affiliation and aversion to FOOLS.

I can think of a few ATS members that I'd send on their way; especially when they start their religious hyperbolic rants.

Also it would be nice not to have to do business with those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense.
i own a business. I produce food. No matter any court ruling, i would still help feed you. To me, that's common sense


No thanks....

I have been following this thread and your posts...

Your obvious hatred of anything liberal, progressive or outside of your theological box would cause me to expect it might be tainted. I'll just mosey on down to the 7/11 and purchase a slim jim and a 6 of Tecate. So far 7/11 hasn't shown a propensity to discriminate against women or people of color.

To be perfectly honest; I have a very hard time trusting or believing anyone with discriminatory agenda.
edit on 9-7-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: manna2

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Annee

Yep. It also seems to me that SCOTUS has also disenfranchised other's religious beliefs, who also may own closely held corporations, by ruling the "religious" objection only extends to the contraception mandate and excludes, say, a Scientologist business owner who wants to refuse to pay for depression medication.

prove it. This opens the door to every tax paying fiction, including you and i. It was ruled the aca is a tax (actually it cannot be, according to Justice Roberts brief on the decision. This bill originated in the senate. All taxes MUST originate in The House. It should have simply been sentback to the house but after the decision they were running out of time so they said "ok, we will call the aca a tax now. So lets sign it.) So any corporate fiction will have to be extended these same "rights" and exemptions in the end. If it is truly a tax, the aca that is. This is all corporate law in admiralty courts making decisions on commerce. No common law pleas


What???????????

What does any of ^^THAT^^ have to do with the SCOTUS ruling excluding a Scientologist corporate owner who wants to refuse to pay for depression medication via religious objection?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc


Look. we both disagree with SCOTUS rulings and certain laws. It doesn't matter that we do. If you want to debate those concepts, make another thread. I won't debate contraception methods with you in this thread. It's off topic.

The fact that Hobby Lobby owner is a fundie dominionist is not.




You've been going on and on about how wrong a SCOTUS decision was and then turn around and essentially say "STFU SCOTUS has decided." That's pretty damned disingenuous.

Secondly this whole #ing entire thread is about court decisions and coverage and boundaries and overreach. You can't separate them from the subject.

You claim that the rights of women were violated. The answer is no, their rights were not violated.

You claim that the owners are "fundie dominionists." The truth is, no they are not. They did not demand that someone live under their principles. They just demanded to be able to run their own private business under their principles. Nobody was forced to do without birth control and nobody was forced to believe in their god and nobody was forced to work for them. The only coercion there was that of the state.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc
LOL. Ironic post is ironic. It's amusing how leftists fight hate and intolerance by being hateful and intolerant.


LOL. I find it hilarious that "Rightists" spend so much time convincing themselves that others are persecuting them that they lose their ability to distinguish Humor from Hate Speech.


LOL. That's laughable because the PC police and all of the ranting about hate speech is a lefty phenomenon. When a conservative tells a joke, it's hate speech, racism, intolerance, homophobia, sexism. When a leftist does it, it's "satire."



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

This ruling has, in fact, violated 1000's of women's 14th Amendment rights of Equal Protection, albeit temporarily. Hence the governmental scrambling.



This IS a ridiculous ruling.

Hobby Lobby provides health insurance. They, of course, pay for Viagra, and even said they pay for sterilization. Which, I am going to assume, means vasectomies. I have doubts they mean sterilization of women.

They do pay for some forms of birth control, but have selected a few they "believe" causes abortion, even though science says that's false.

So, because the owner of this company simply BELIEVES something, he has the right to deny his female employees AND their doctor.

And, as previously stated, he has no problem buying from companies that not only promote abortion, but sometimes force it.

This is NOT about being denied "free stuff".





One has no right to be subsidized. It may suck, it may be rude, and unfair, it may not be good business, it may be an intolerable limitation of your benefits package, but it is not a violation of your rights because you have no right to have something subsidized.

The answer is not to create even more laws and more governmental intrusion, the answer is to negotiate a mutually agreeable benefits package with your employer and if you cannot come to a mutually agreeable conclusion, to part ways. That is how freedom works, not more and more and more government mandates.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: manna2

originally posted by: olaru12
As an owner of 3 business perhaps I can claim religious affiliation and aversion to FOOLS.

I can think of a few ATS members that I'd send on their way; especially when they start their religious hyperbolic rants.

Also it would be nice not to have to do business with those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense.
i own a business. I produce food. No matter any court ruling, i would still help feed you. To me, that's common sense


No thanks....

I have been following this thread and your posts...

Your obvious hatred of anything liberal, progressive or outside of your theological box would cause me to expect it might be tainted. I'll just mosey on down to the 7/11 and purchase a slim jim and a 6 of Tecate. So far 7/11 hasn't shown a propensity to discriminate against women or people of color.

To be perfectly honest; I have a very hard time trusting or believing anyone with discriminatory agenda.


LOL. And you think he's intolerant.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
As an owner of 3 business perhaps I can claim religious affiliation and aversion to FOOLS.

I can think of a few ATS members that I'd send on their way; especially when they start their religious hyperbolic rants.

Also it would be nice not to have to do business with those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense.


And as a business owner you should have the right to refuse service to anyone you wish. Freedom of association. The question is, would you permit that right to other business owners?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




You claim that the rights of women were violated. The answer is no, their rights were not violated.


The only reason that you're saying that is because you disagree with the SCOTUS decision. The HL ruling squarely places the burden of giving these disenfranchised women the "free stuff ", that the law says they're entitled to, onto the government, Title X and that tax payer.

Unfortunately, the funding and infrastructure for these women's services and medicines is not yet in place. Until they are in place, regardless of your opinion of the validity of their legal access to these things, they're 14th Amendment rights are being violated. Not because I say so, because the "law" says so.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc




You claim that the rights of women were violated. The answer is no, their rights were not violated.


The only reason that you're saying that is because you disagree with the SCOTUS decision. The HL ruling squarely places the burden of giving these disenfranchised women the "free stuff ", that the law says they're entitled to, onto the government, Title X and that tax payer.

Unfortunately, the funding and infrastructure for these women's services and medicines is not yet in place. Until they are in place, regardless of your opinion of the validity of their legal access to these things, they're 14th Amendment rights are being violated. Not because I say so, because the "law" says so.







But their rights are not violated. Me refusing to buy you a computer to type on does not violate your free speech at all.


You mention the 14th Amendment, but the business owner has rights under the 1st Amendment. Whose rights are more important than the other person's rights? I know that you'd say a Christian's rights are subordinate, but they are not--they are supposed to be equal. This is a fine reason why the FF did not intend to have the federal government dictate such issues because you then get conflicts of rights.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: diggindirt

We're on page 24. You're late.
Arrogant smugness has already been covered.


Since the motto of the site is "Deny Ignorance" and another poster (Annee) asked for clarification, I gave those definitions as information to enlighten on the subject.
If being educated to the point of knowing the actual meaning of words is arrogant, then yes, I'm arrogant.
If you want to buzz about attempting to create fear and loathing using hyperbole, that is certainly your right under the First Amendment but don't get your panties in a wad when someone calls you out on it. However, my reply was to Annee....so you are misinforming people when you say I insulted you.
A remedy for a "potential situation"? Sorry, I have too much to do worrying about other situations which are real, not the wild imaginings of people with the critical thinking abilities of a twelve year old child. Now I have to go deal with real problems---like the weeds in my garden.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

LOL. That's laughable because the PC police and all of the ranting about hate speech is a lefty phenomenon. When a conservative tells a joke, it's hate speech, racism, intolerance, homophobia, sexism. When a leftist does it, it's "satire."


Yep that's right. We're persecuting you again, aren't we?!?!? Now with are Satire.

"Oh lord, when will this persecution end??? Why won't the Demon Possessed Progressives just let all us Saintly Right Wing Christian Business Owners simply run our Gay Bashing, Self-Righteous, Theocratic for profit businesses in Peace??? Why can't we just be left alone so that we can shove our Religious Rules in their faces without their consent??? I mean all we're trying to do as Warriors for Christ is show people what evil sinners they are and expose their sins before our Loving God sends them into Hell forever. It's the Constitutional Right of every Capitalistic Christian Soldier to Demonize the Poor for their leeching off the Government Dime while cheating on our taxes with Corporate Loopholes and Government Subsidies!!! Our white skinned, middle eastern born savior said we'd be hated during these End Times for nothing other than just being our Pure, Loving Christian selves!!!"

How's that for satire??? Now you don't need to cry about it any more because I've done it all for you.
edit on 9-7-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)


EDIT: After proof reading this post I noticed it's even funnier if you read with a drawl in your voice, like a southern gentleman/lady.
edit on 9-7-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12
As an owner of 3 business perhaps I can claim religious affiliation and aversion to FOOLS.

I can think of a few ATS members that I'd send on their way; especially when they start their religious hyperbolic rants.

Also it would be nice not to have to do business with those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense.


And as a business owner you should have the right to refuse service to anyone you wish. Freedom of association. The question is, would you permit that right to other business owners?


How in the holy hell can I have any influence of what other business owners do or chose to be their customers.
It's the SCOTUS that has taken the corporate personhood to an obscene level. Not me. Another incidence of big government stepping way out of bounds to favor the rich.
edit on 9-7-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc

LOL. That's laughable because the PC police and all of the ranting about hate speech is a lefty phenomenon. When a conservative tells a joke, it's hate speech, racism, intolerance, homophobia, sexism. When a leftist does it, it's "satire."


Yep that's right. We're persecuting you again, aren't we?!?!? Now with are Satire.

"Oh lord, when will this persecution end??? Why won't the Demon Possessed Progressives just let all us Saintly Right Wing Christian Business Owners simply run our Gay Bashing, Self-Righteous, Theocratic for profit businesses in Peace??? Why can't we just be left alone so that we can shove our Religious Rules in their faces without their consent??? I mean all we're trying to do as Warriors for Christ is show people what evil sinners they are and expose their sins before our Loving God sends them into Hell forever. It's the Constitutional Right of every Capitalistic Christian Soldier to Demonize the Poor for their leeching off the Government Dime while while cheating on our taxes with Corporate Loopholes and Government Subsidies!!! Our white skinned, middle eastern born savior said we'd be hated during these End Times for nothing other than just being our Pure, Loving Christian selves!!!"

How's that for satire??? Now you don't need to cry about it any more because I've done it all for you.


Aaaawwwww did the widdle progressive get his widddle feewings hurt by a little truth? So sorry. By the way, I'm an atheist, so about 99.9999% of your silly rant missed the mark entirely.

Believe it or not, there are many atheists who reject big government and nanny statists and think people should be left alone to believe as they please without being coerced to do the opposite by big brother and that foolish people who demand big government to "get those evil Christians" actually create power and precedent to hurt themselves but they can't see it due to the hatred they hold.

Edited to add, I'm from Michigan, so no, the drawl misses too. You love to embrace stereotypes. I wonder if you find stereotypes that say Hispanics are lazy funny too?
edit on 9-7-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12
As an owner of 3 business perhaps I can claim religious affiliation and aversion to FOOLS.

I can think of a few ATS members that I'd send on their way; especially when they start their religious hyperbolic rants.

Also it would be nice not to have to do business with those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense.


And as a business owner you should have the right to refuse service to anyone you wish. Freedom of association. The question is, would you permit that right to other business owners?


How in the holy hell can I have any influence of what other business owners do or chose to be their customers.
It's the SCOTUS that has taken the corporate personhood to an obscene level. Not me.


Really? Would you vote for or against various anti discrimination laws? Do you support or not support politicians who would tell your fellow business owners what to do or not to do?

Certainly you effect what your other business owners do every time you step inside that voting booth.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12
As an owner of 3 business perhaps I can claim religious affiliation and aversion to FOOLS.

I can think of a few ATS members that I'd send on their way; especially when they start their religious hyperbolic rants.

Also it would be nice not to have to do business with those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense.


And as a business owner you should have the right to refuse service to anyone you wish. Freedom of association. The question is, would you permit that right to other business owners?


How in the holy hell can I have any influence of what other business owners do or chose to be their customers.
It's the SCOTUS that has taken the corporate personhood to an obscene level. Not me.


Really? Would you vote for or against various anti discrimination laws? Do you support or not support politicians who would tell your fellow business owners what to do or not to do?

Certainly you effect what your other business owners do every time you step inside that voting booth.


I would vote against any laws that restrict free enterprise. However I realize that voting is pure BS and only works on the micro local level. I still vote in all elections and work for my Libertarian party at every opportunity. I still have no illusions that fascism is right around the corner all wrapped in the flag holding a Bible. TY S. Lewis.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12
As an owner of 3 business perhaps I can claim religious affiliation and aversion to FOOLS.

I can think of a few ATS members that I'd send on their way; especially when they start their religious hyperbolic rants.

Also it would be nice not to have to do business with those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense.


And as a business owner you should have the right to refuse service to anyone you wish. Freedom of association. The question is, would you permit that right to other business owners?


How in the holy hell can I have any influence of what other business owners do or chose to be their customers.
It's the SCOTUS that has taken the corporate personhood to an obscene level. Not me.


Really? Would you vote for or against various anti discrimination laws? Do you support or not support politicians who would tell your fellow business owners what to do or not to do?

Certainly you effect what your other business owners do every time you step inside that voting booth.


I would vote against any laws that restrict free enterprise. However I realize that voting is pure BS and only works on the micro local level. I still vote in all elections and work for my Libertarian party at every opportunity. I still have no illusions that fascism is right around the corner all wrapped in the flag holding a Bible. TY S. Lewis.


Okay. I'm confused. You say you are a libertarian but support religious people to be forced by government to do things and cannot see the fascism right here, right now, by the progressive left but worry about a created bugaboo?

ETA: and you didn't answer the question. Do you support laws that tell business who they may or may not serve. As a libertarian certainly you must agree with a bakery being legally allowed not to sell wedding cakes to gays, right?
edit on 9-7-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join