Congratulations America

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-16-2016, 12:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Ummm, riding in the back of the bus or a whites only water fountian would be examples of ACTING upon one's bias or bigotry and would be considered discrimination according to JustWin's post.

He wrote acted upon in a harmful way. Are you harmed by riding in the back of the bus?  No. Therefore it doesn't qualify as discrimination according to his misguided definition. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-16-2016, 11:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess what happens if it reaches 2 million. 

Nothing because a system created to appease slave owners is still law of the land.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-17-2016, 12:56 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: He wrote acted upon in a harmful way. Are you harmed by riding in the back of the bus?  No. Therefore it doesn't qualify as discrimination according to his misguided definition. 

If you have difficulty walking, then yes, you are harmed by having to walk to the back of the bus.
If you're forced to go to a specific location because of the color of your skin, I would say you're harmed (whether it's sitting in the back of the bus or being forced to the back of the crowd of reporters); maybe not physically harmed, but you're certainly harmed emotionally and having your freedoms restricted in an irrational way is another type of harm.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-17-2016, 11:04 AM)PhilHos Wrote: If you have difficulty walking, then yes, you are harmed by having to walk to the back of the bus.
If you're forced to go to a specific location because of the color of your skin, I would say you're harmed (whether it's sitting in the back of the bus or being forced to the back of the crowd of reporters); maybe not physically harmed, but you're certainly harmed emotionally and having your freedoms restricted in an irrational way is another type of harm.

(11-17-2016, 11:09 AM)PhilHos Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 09:19 PM)GMDino Wrote:

A 3 pack of condoms from Walmart costs $2.17 (and that's the name brand). If you can't afford that, how are you even having sex with someone other than yourself?

What were you saying about having your freedoms restricted in an irrational way is a type of harm?

[*PhilHos*]

(11-17-2016, 12:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What were you saying about having your freedoms restricted in an irrational way is a type of harm?

What freedoms are being restricted? Besides the freedom of the insurance company to offer whatever coverage they want?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-17-2016, 01:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What freedoms are being restricted? Besides the freedom of the insurance company to offer whatever coverage they want?

The freedom to choose a birth control method without an employer's religious beliefs affecting their employee's decision. 

See Hobby Lobby. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2016, 02:55 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The freedom to choose a birth control method without an employer's religious beliefs affecting their employee's decision. 

See Hobby Lobby. 

As I recall Hobby Lobby does cover many forms of contraceptives. They only object to measures after conception. Of course I do not deal with private insurance on a daily basis

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2014/0710/Hobby-Lobby-101-explaining-the-Supreme-Court-s-birth-control-ruling

Quote:The US Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that the owners of closely-held, profit-making corporations cannot be forced under the Affordable Care Actto provide their employees with certain kinds of contraceptives that offend their religious beliefs.


The decision arose from litigation filed by the owners of the national chain of craft stores called Hobby Lobby, and the owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinetmaker in Pennsylvania.

It has sparked a heated debate about the scope of religious liberty in the United States and whether bosses are now empowered to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. It has also raised concerns that female workers will now be denied access to contraceptives.

What was the basis of the owners’ religious objections?


Both Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are controlled by family members with shared religious beliefs. Those beliefs hold that life begins at conception and that any birth control method that may result in the destruction of a fertilized egg is a form of abortion and killing that is forbidden by their faith.



They also believe that supporting and financing their company health care plan in a way that provides their employees with the means to destroy a fertilized egg makes them complicit in a sinful and immoral act.


Do they oppose all birth control?


No. Their objections were to four of 18 methods required to be provided to female employees under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. They objected to paying for two forms of the emergency morning-after pill and two kinds of intrauterine device (IUD).


They did not object to providing their employees cost-free access to the most common forms of birth control, including daily birth-control pills.


Some religious owners of corporations oppose all birth control. Are those employers now entitled to eliminate birth control in every form from their company health care plans?


Maybe. The day after the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, the court vacated a decision by an appeals court that had ruled against a Michigan company that objected to providing any contraceptives under its employee health plan.


The case, Autocam v. Burwell, was remanded to the appeals court for “further consideration” in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case.


It is unclear how the appeals court will apply the Hobby Lobby decision in the Autocam case. But the appeals court could order the government to find an accommodation to ensure that Autocam’s workers can still receive the full range of cost-free contraceptives under the ACA.


Such an accommodation would involve either the government or an insurance provider paying for religiously-objectionable contraceptive services.


What was the basis for the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision?


The majority justices declared that Americans have a right to hold religious beliefs and to not be forced by the government to act in ways that violate those beliefs.


Under the ACA’s contraception mandate, the owners of Hobby Lobby were forced into a dilemma – either fund the objectionable contraception methods and violate their religious beliefs or pay up to $475 million in penalties and remain faithful to their beliefs.


Five members of the nine-member court agreed that the mandate went too far.


Four dissenting justices said the mandate was not coercive of religious beliefs because it only required the religious owners to support a health insurance program. Since it would be up to each employee to decide which services to choose, the owners’ part in that choice was too attenuated to trigger any religious protections.


Did the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion apply in the Hobby Lobby case?


No. Instead of analyzing the case from a constitutional perspective, the high court examined whether the ACA’s contraception mandate complied with the requirements of a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).


Why didn’t the First Amendment apply in the Hobby Lobby case?


In a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that religious groups were not entitled under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to an exemption or accommodation from neutral, generally applicable laws. Amid complaints from religious groups, Congress responded by passing the RFRA in 1993. The law sought to establish by statute what had been the essence of the constitutional safeguard under the Free Exercise Clause prior to the high court’s 1990 decision in the Smith case.


Instead of applying First Amendment protections in the Hobby Lobby case, the court sought to enforce the terms of RFRA.


How does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protect religious liberty?


Under RFRA, if a law substantially burdens someone’s religious practice, the government must prove that the burden is necessary to advance a compelling government interest. The government must also prove that its pursuit of that compelling interest is being undertaken by using the “least restrictive means.”


In its Hobby Lobby ruling, the high court found that the government had failed to demonstrate that the ACA’s contraception mandate was the least restrictive means (meaning least burdensome to religious practice) of achieving its goal of providing cost-free access to female employees to the full range of contraceptive methods.


What would be the least restrictive means of providing cost-free contraceptives to female workers at Hobby Lobby?


The Supreme Court said the most straightforward way would be for the government itself to pay the contraception costs of female employees at companies or organizations asserting religious objections.


The court also said it would be less restrictive of religious freedom for the government to offer objecting companies the same accommodation it offers to nonprofit religious groups. Under that plan, the contraception coverage is paid for by the insurance provider, not the employer.


Don’t women have a constitutional right to access to birth control and abortion?


They do. But there is no constitutional right to have someone else pay for it. The question in the Hobby Lobby case was whether the government can force someone else to pay for a woman’s contraceptives even though that person has religious objections to doing so.


Doesn’t a company owner’s insistence on a religious accommodation result in the imposition of his or her religious beliefs on employees?


It would do so only if the government was unwilling to provide a less restrictive accommodation. RFRA requires the government to pursue the “least” restrictive means in terms of any burden on religious beliefs.


Traditionally, religious liberty has been revered as a positive attribute of American society. In the Hobby Lobby case, government lawyers argued that a broad assertion of religious freedom poses a threat to American workers, particularly female workers. That threat to the receipt of free contraceptives by female employees outweighed any threat to religious liberty, the government said.


Four Supreme Court justices agreed with this view.


The court majority rejected it. The clash between the religious rights of company owners and the workers’ rights to receive government benefits is a direct result of the government’s contraception mandate. It is up to the government – not company owners – to fashion an accommodation that respects both the religious rights of owners and the rights of workers, the high court said.   


What kind of accommodation will the government authorize in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision?


It is still unclear. A White House spokesman has said President Obama favors an effort in Congress to overturn the high court decision by amending RFRA.


Democrats in the House of Representatives are drafting a bill called the Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act of 2014. It would exempt federally-mandated health services from RFRA.


Specifically, the law would prohibit religious owners of for-profit companies from making a religious objection to any health service required by federal law.

The law would continue to permit a full religious exemption for churches and other houses of worship. And it would allow accommodations for religious, nonprofit groups that object to contraceptives on religious grounds. A similar bill is expected to be introduced by Democrats in the US Senate.

The Catholic church, universities, and hospitals held similar objections to providing health insurance coverage for contraceptives.  I'm not sure what the latest status is with them.

Let's assume for a second Hobby Lobby was owned by Christian Scientists instead of Christians; they could provide employer sponsored health insurance which only covered prayer as a method of contraception.  But, so what?  Condoms are cheap at Walmart.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-17-2016, 02:55 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The freedom to choose a birth control method without an employer's religious beliefs affecting their employee's decision. 

See Hobby Lobby. 

I must have missed the news story that showed that Hobby Lobby employees were restricted from purchasing certain types of birth control. Or that an employee of ANY company was denied the ability to use birth control by the company.

[xxlt]

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

Latest numbers show Clinton up by 1.3 million in popular vote. Thank god we get the president that more Americans wanted: Trump. The man has a mandate.

Heard this snippet of a (pre)seasonal tune on radio this AM:

Donald with your brain so bright
Won't you make America white

[Shake n Blake]

People are still whining about the popular vote?

1. If presidents were elected based on the popular vote, the campaigns of Trump and Clinton would've been entirely different. There's no way of knowing if Trump could've drummed up more overall votes with a different strategy.

2. States like New York and California, with huge populations of mostly democrat voters, would pretty much decide every election for the entire nation. Hardly fare to the rest of the country, which has many varying sets of morals, beliefs and economic issues.

The electoral college is far from perfect, but it's in place for a reason and it beats the alternative.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-19-2016, 03:19 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: People are still whining about the popular vote?

1. If presidents were elected based on the popular vote, the campaigns of Trump and Clinton would've been entirely different. There's no way of knowing if Trump could've drummed up more overall votes with a different strategy.

2. States like New York and California, with huge populations of mostly democrat voters, would pretty much decide every election for the entire nation. Hardly fare to the rest of the country, which has many varying sets of morals, beliefs and economic issues.

The electoral college is far from perfect, but it's in place for a reason and it beats the alternative.

This is the 5th time a president elect lost the popular vote. So your #2 is an invalid argument.

So the alternative. Which is every American with voting rights has an equal say in who becomes president is way worse than a dated system that was made so slave states could have a little more pull.

Other than your claim democrats would win every election. Is there any good reason to not use a popular vote with the technology we now have?

[JustWinBaby]

(11-17-2016, 01:02 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Nothing because a system created to appease slave owners is still law of the land.

Wow...no offense, but you must be a special kind of  fry bundler

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2016, 05:16 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: 1) This is the 5th time a president elect lost the popular vote. So your #2 is an invalid argument.

2) So the alternative. Which is every American with voting rights has an equal say in who becomes president is way worse than a dated system that was made so slave states could have a little more pull.

3) Other than your claim democrats would win every election. Is there any good reason to not use a popular vote with the technology we now have?

1) And only going by the latest 2, it is accompanied by a strong showing from a 3rd candidate. So instead of the left crying about how the EC caused them the election, they should cry about those that voted for Johnson. So even if we went popular just like all the left is crying about now Hills does not have the Majority so she would not automatically be President, just as Trump would not have if he hadn't got the majority of the EC.

2) Every American has an equal say with in their State and every state has a proportional say in who governs their Nation.

3) Yes, because in a Nation of United States, each state should have a voice; as we are a diverse Nation.


If Congress decides tomorrow to scrap the EC in favor of an alternate plan, then folks can whine because their Candidate won under the new plan, if it ever happened. I would not be opposed to a revamping that awarded EC on a proportional bases. Therefore, each state gets its say.  As for the current state it is nothing but sour grapes and a tactic employed to further divide the country. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-20-2016, 11:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1) And only going by the latest 2, it is accompanied by a strong showing from a 3rd candidate. So instead of the left crying about how the EC caused them the election, they should cry about those that voted for Johnson. So even if we went popular just like all the left is crying about now Hills does not have the Majority so she would not automatically be President, just as Trump would not have if he hadn't got the majority of the EC.

2) Every American has an equal say with in their State and every state has a proportional say in who governs their Nation.

3) Yes, because in a Nation of United States, each state should have a voice; as we are a diverse Nation.


If Congress decides tomorrow to scrap the EC in favor of an alternate plan, then folks can whine because their Candidate won under the new plan, if it ever happened. I would not be opposed to a revamping that awarded EC on a proportional bases. Therefore, each state gets its say.  As for the current state it is nothing but sour grapes and a tactic employed to further divide the country. 

Im all for the end of the two party system.

A popular vote is what it is. 4 good candidates get a large number of votes , it doesnt matter if someone hits some preset majority indicator. The person who gets the most votes wins.

Except its not really an equal say in the state. If a person wins by one vote they get all the EC votes. If EC votes were split it may resemble equal say. Even though half of the state wanted the other person all the weight that state carries goes one way. 


Good point. We are a diverse Nation. And we are all voting on the same thing. Each state has a voice when they elect their own representatives. We are voting as individuals of a nation. The manner in which votes are counted should reflect that. This isnt a local or state election. I am voting for the leader of my country. It doesnt matter what state I live in.

Little over 1.5 million sour grapes.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-13-2016, 12:48 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: This one was even better:

Only thing I got from that video is this guy is a real American Hero:

(11-23-2016, 01:59 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Im all for the end of the two party system.

A popular vote is what it is. 4 good candidates get a large number of votes , it doesnt matter if someone hits some preset majority indicator. The person who gets the most votes wins.

Except its not really an equal say in the state. If a person wins by one vote they get all the EC votes. If EC votes were split it may resemble equal say. Even though half of the state wanted the other person all the weight that state carries goes one way. 


Good point. We are a diverse Nation. And we are all voting on the same thing. Each state has a voice when they elect their own representatives. We are voting as individuals of a nation. The manner in which votes are counted should reflect that. This isnt a local or state election. I am voting for the leader of my country. It doesnt matter what state I live in.

Little over 1.5 million sour grapes.

You know, for this being a thread of pure condescension you created about how uneducated people chose the President, you are hilariously (and ironically) uneducated about the Electoral College.

I may just be a humble HS Graduate, but I know that how the EC votes are awarded are up to the state. For instance, both Maine and Nebraska actually split up their electoral votes which are awarded based off of districts they've made in their state. Maine is split into two districts. Winning one will award 1 EC vote. The other 2 of their 4 votes Maine can award are given to the winner of the overall state popular vote.

If your state awards them winner take all, perhaps you should go and try to get involved by writing your Governor to try to get it changed instead of crying because you lost in a system who's rules were already established and you were happy to play by... until you lost.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-23-2016, 02:53 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Only thing I got from that video is this guy is a real American Hero:






You know, for this being a thread of pure condescension you created about how uneducated people chose the President, you are hilariously (and ironically) uneducated about the Electoral College.

I may just be a humble HS Graduate, but I know that how the EC votes are awarded are up to the state. For instance, both Maine and Nebraska actually split up their electoral votes which are awarded based off of districts they've made in their state. Maine is split into two districts. Winning one will award 1 EC vote. The other 2 of their 4 votes Maine can award are given to the winner of the overall state popular vote.

If your state awards them winner take all, perhaps you should go and try to get involved by writing your Governor to try to get it changed instead of crying because you lost in a system who's rules were already established and you were happy to play by... until you lost.

I was aware there are some exceptions. I am by no means a history guru. I hated the subject.

When they wrote the laws that determined the proper fractionional value of a slave in regards to population and state representation in federal government, my state wasnt a state. 

Im not the first and wont be the last to complain about the busted ass EC. When i first figured out what it was and how it worked in 2000 i was unhappy with the system. So its really nothing new.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-23-2016, 04:19 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I was aware there are some exceptions. I am by no means a history guru. I hated the subject.

When they wrote the laws that determined the proper fractionional value of a slave in regards to population and state representation in federal government, my state wasnt a state. 

Im not the first and wont be the last to complain about the busted ass EC. When i first figured out what it was and how it worked in 2000 i was unhappy with the system. So its really nothing new.

1. How does that have anything to do with anything in this thread? The electoral votes are adjusted every 10 years based off the census data. I am pretty sure 2010, when the last census was, was after the Civil War. I'll give you a pass for not knowing that, though. You were too busy getting a super valuable college education to know silly things like history that us uneducated folk busy ourselves with.

2. Do you have some kind of weird fetish over the topic of slavery? You seem to mention it at least once every 2 posts or so. Are you one of those people who just brings up slavery/racism/Hitler in every debate ever, as some kind of perceived trump card?

[JustWinBaby]

(11-17-2016, 12:56 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: He wrote acted upon in a harmful way. Are you harmed by riding in the back of the bus?  No. Therefore it doesn't qualify as discrimination according to his misguided definition. 

Yes, you are harmed by being forced to ride in the back of the bus because you're made to feel like a second-class citizen.  Crossing the street to avoid someone is more of a gray area - pyschological "harmful", perhaps, but mostly pretty benign.  Nothing comparable to kicking someone out of your store or refusing an interview or promotion.

You can be a bigot and tell all the offensive jokes you want in the privacy of your own home.  But you're not a racist until you make a conscious act that causes actual harm to someone.

Although it's interesting you don't think being forced to ride in the back of the bus, or drink from a black's only water fountain is harmful...yet still think a person is a racist even if they've committed no outward or harmful act.

I guess what I'm saying is, despite what someone may believe, if we are defined by our actions then a person cannot be a racist until they take a harmful racist action, no?  It's the difference between REAL discrimination and simply having bigoted views. Biases are natural, and everyone has them....some biases are associated with race, even if that's not the predominant factor. But bias and discrimination are not the same thing.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-23-2016, 05:23 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 1. How does that have anything to do with anything in this thread? The electoral votes are adjusted every 10 years based off the census data. I am pretty sure 2010, when the last census was, was after the Civil War. I'll give you a pass for not knowing that, though. You were too busy getting a super valuable college education to know silly things like history that us uneducated folk busy ourselves with.

2. Do you have some kind of weird fetish over the topic of slavery? You seem to mention it at least once every 2 posts or so. Are you one of those people who just brings up slavery/racism/Hitler in every debate ever, as some kind of perceived trump card?

1. Because I was responding to a post that told me to write the governor of my state to get the law changed.  And I was simply pointing out the fact my state wasn't a state when the laws were written to make up the EC. Chances are you could probably give me a sick burn on a history fact sooner or later if you keep trying though. 

2. I have been a member of the bengals message board since like 2007 i think it was. This is probably at tops the 10th or so time I have mentioned slavery.