Christ Centered Gamer

You seem to be a lot more optimistic about the free market than I am. IMO, corporations will do whatever they feel they can get away with for the sake of the bottom line. Yes, sometimes corporations care about the people that work for them, but that is definitely not the norm these days it seems. Unless a boycott really takes off enough to significantly hurt their bottom line, most corporations will not change their policies. This goes for any issue, not just this one.

Also, simply telling an employee who doesn't like it to just find another job is kind of heartless I think. What if they have a very hard time doing so? Is it right to allow them to have to keep going through this? Wouldn't it be better for some sound laws regulating these things to be put into effect to keep the market fair and not allow corporations to get away with this stuff while preserving the freedoms of those who will not misuse or abuse them? Sometimes, the things that are required to preserve a free market aren't necessary the things that free market advocates like to do. There needs to be a balance between reasonable regulation and free market, otherwise you will lose both. A free market that is allowed to do its own thing with no consequences from some external authority will become a corporate oligarchy.

Plus, my biggest issue is that a lot of the reasoning behind this ruling was based on the idea of corporate personhood, an idea I fundamentally disagree with because it is just flat out absurd. Man-made organizations that are for profit and not directly or indirectly tied to some faith, charity, or cause should not be considered on the same level as those that are. Corporations are not people, they are artificial entities that happened to have people running them. Without corporate personhood, this ruling would have required a lot more to actually back it up. It is built on very shoddy foundations and if corporate personhood ever gets overturned, then this case will probably be next.

RoosterOnAStick wrote:You seem to be a lot more optimistic about the free market than I am. IMO, corporations will do whatever they feel they can get away with for the sake of the bottom line. Yes, sometimes corporations care about the people that work for them, but that is definitely not the norm these days it seems. Unless a boycott really takes off enough to significantly hurt their bottom line, most corporations will not change their policies. This goes for any issue, not just this one.

Also, simply telling an employee who doesn't like it to just find another job is kind of heartless I think. What if they have a very hard time doing so? Is it right to allow them to have to keep going through this? Wouldn't it be better for some sound laws regulating these things to be put into effect to keep the market fair and not allow corporations to get away with this stuff while preserving the freedoms of those who will not misuse or abuse them? Sometimes, the things that are required to preserve a free market aren't necessary the things that free market advocates like to do. There needs to be a balance between reasonable regulation and free market, otherwise you will lose both. A free market that is allowed to do its own thing with no consequences from some external authority will become a corporate oligarchy.

Plus, my biggest issue is that a lot of the reasoning behind this ruling was based on the idea of corporate personhood, an idea I fundamentally disagree with because it is just flat out absurd. Man-made organizations that are for profit and not directly or indirectly tied to some faith, charity, or cause should not be considered on the same level as those that are. Corporations are not people, they are artificial entities that happened to have people running them. Without corporate personhood, this ruling would have required a lot more to actually back it up. It is built on very shoddy foundations and if corporate personhood ever gets overturned, then this case will probably be next.

Well said. Corporate personhood makes sense in some cases (namely litigation against then), but I do agree that in this instance, it doesn't really make that much sense.

RoosterOnAStick wrote:You seem to be a lot more optimistic about the free market than I am. IMO, corporations will do whatever they feel they can get away with for the sake of the bottom line.

Corporations also HATE bad press. If the news media goes public about some of the wonky things a business is doing, you can bet that they'll start changing their tone pretty quickly. (I used to work for a newspaper, and have seen it happen!) It's why a free and impartial press is important to our nation.

RoosterOnAStick wrote:Also, simply telling an employee who doesn't like it to just find another job is kind of heartless I think. What if they have a very hard time doing so? Is it right to allow them to have to keep going through this?

So do you believe that every business is run by snake-handlers? Thing is, we all tend to land jobs that stink. It may not simply be religious practices that our employers have - maybe it's an objection to "casual Fridays." Or a coworker that just gets on the person's nerves. (I've even heard of one person who complained about having to wash dishes in a restaurant even though he was hired to be a dishwasher.) That worker simply needs to learn how to cope with things if they want a paycheck.

RoosterOnAStick wrote: Wouldn't it be better for some sound laws regulating these things to be put into effect to keep the market fair and not allow corporations to get away with this stuff while preserving the freedoms of those who will not misuse or abuse them? Sometimes, the things that are required to preserve a free market aren't necessary the things that free market advocates like to do. There needs to be a balance between reasonable regulation and free market, otherwise you will lose both. A free market that is allowed to do its own thing with no consequences from some external authority will become a corporate oligarchy.

This isn't to say that corporations should be given a complete white card to do what they want. For example, there may be nuisance laws or pollution laws that need to be obeyed. There does need to be a line drawn between regulations and free market practices, though - businesses should not be over-regulated to the point where it's next to impossible to make a profit. After all, if you can't make a profit, what's the point of even doing business?

RoosterOnAStick wrote:Plus, my biggest issue is that a lot of the reasoning behind this ruling was based on the idea of corporate personhood, an idea I fundamentally disagree with because it is just flat out absurd. Man-made organizations that are for profit and not directly or indirectly tied to some faith, charity, or cause should not be considered on the same level as those that are. Corporations are not people, they are artificial entities that happened to have people running them. Without corporate personhood, this ruling would have required a lot more to actually back it up. It is built on very shoddy foundations and if corporate personhood ever gets overturned, then this case will probably be next.

I quite agree with you there. Too many people have done some pretty lousy things while hiding behind the "corporate" tag. Corporations do NOT have the same rights as people, simply because corporations are NOT people. The people who run the corporations, however, should be subject and responsible for whatever practices the corporations have done - and that would include putting the CEO and Board of Directors in the field with shovels and haz-mat suits if need be.

Orodrist wrote:Interfering with my fighting. Let me be more explicit since you seem to be perpetually missing points.

I'm Asatru. I follow Odin and Freya and the gods of my forefathers. By interrupting a fight, the pigs are interfering with the practice of my religion, as in order to attain our positive afterlife (though to be fair, what we call Hel is hardly your barbaric Judeo-Christian hell) we have to fall bravely in combat.

All I hope for is that you end up in prison before you kill someone.

Corporations also HATE bad press. If the news media goes public about some of the wonky things a business is doing, you can bet that they'll start changing their tone pretty quickly. (I used to work for a newspaper, and have seen it happen!) It's why a free and impartial press is important to our nation.

I don't seem to see Comcast or Time Warner doing much

ChickenSoup wrote:

Corporations also HATE bad press. If the news media goes public about some of the wonky things a business is doing, you can bet that they'll start changing their tone pretty quickly. (I used to work for a newspaper, and have seen it happen!) It's why a free and impartial press is important to our nation.

I don't seem to see Comcast or Time Warner doing much

Or any major telecom/cable company for that matter. Net neutrality, and just how terrible ISPs are (Hint: I'd almost prefer Satan) is a whole different topic...

Deepfreeze32 wrote:

ChickenSoup wrote:

Corporations also HATE bad press. If the news media goes public about some of the wonky things a business is doing, you can bet that they'll start changing their tone pretty quickly. (I used to work for a newspaper, and have seen it happen!) It's why a free and impartial press is important to our nation.

I don't seem to see Comcast or Time Warner doing much

Or any major telecom/cable company for that matter. Net neutrality, and just how terrible ISPs are (Hint: I'd almost prefer Satan) is a whole different topic...

Considering how Big Media tends to be in the pocket of the government, I'd hesitate to call it "free and impartial."

So basically, 100% free market capitalism will only work in the most perfect of situations (I.e. On paper)?

I am pretty supportive of hands-free government, but there are always exceptions to any rule.

Besides. Only a Sith deals in absolutes

ChickenSoup wrote:So basically, 100% free market capitalism will only work in the most perfect of situations (I.e. On paper)?

Pretty much, yeah. Another aspect of the free market system that I disagree with - and I tend to disagree with the Libertarians on this as well - is the inevitable formations of monopolies. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." I think it could apply to any large corporation - especially those deemed "too big to fail," and is one of the main reasons why I tend to loathe Microsoft so much.

ChickenSoup wrote:I am pretty supportive of hands-free government, but there are always exceptions to any rule.

Besides. Only a Sith deals in absolutes

There are some regulations and laws that we may want to consider in terms of businesses, I'll agree to that. But violations of these laws and regulations need to target the owners of the companies, not the companies themselves. After all, if someone is shot to death, who do you arrest - the shooter, or the gun? Why should the rules be different just because the object in some cases is a company?

I hope we ban contraceptives completely someday. That, or I hope we ban Christians completely. Small victories are nice, but I would rather see an all-out war. Or an all-out harmony. Either all religions should be allowed to do what they consider to be right - if we're all so bloody equally moral - or no religion (but one, if any) should be allowed at all.

I more admire the ire Christian Spain and communist Russia raised in her dissenters, and the fire with which she squelched them both, than the lukewarm pot of floating chunks and bits that is the modern world, if only because they were decisive. I wish the Supreme Court's decision were a decisive victory for Christians in this country. It would have been if it the judges had decided abortifacients were inherently evil. But it's only a victory for that sleepy, milquetoast-y, blasé secularism that wishes neither to affirm nor criticise anything, and which pleases neither the virulent atheist nor the virulent Christian.

I would rather not fight with Orodist over whether we should have restrictions on liquor or on fighting. I would rather fight with him over whether God Himself made those things sacraments. I would rather not fight over whether we go to Heaven or Hell, or Valhalla or Hel. I would rather fight over whether we were deserving of any of them, and by what token.

This feels like a poorly written G.K. Chesterton knock-off.

Seems this decision caused a lot of talk and controversy here can only imagine what it is like in real life thought myself I feel that it was a great even though close decision and it did a couple of things one it showed how the supreme court is divided more by political than moral thought two it opened the door for more Christian groups to stand up for their right to follow what they feel God wants

ChesterKhan wrote:
I more admire the ire Christian Spain and communist Russia raised in her dissenters, and the fire with which she squelched them both, than the lukewarm pot of floating chunks and bits that is the modern world, if only because they were decisive.

Yeah, genocide is such a good solution

Orodrist wrote:

ChesterKhan wrote:
I more admire the ire Christian Spain and communist Russia raised in her dissenters, and the fire with which she squelched them both, than the lukewarm pot of floating chunks and bits that is the modern world, if only because they were decisive.

Yeah, genocide is such a good solution

Truth is more important even than life. Your gods are a prime example of that. The child-roasters of Molech are an example of that. And of course Christian martyrs are and were an example of that.

I'll tell you generally who is not, though: modern thinkers, especially relativists and atheists. They always accuse people of killing freethinkers or hating people who disagree with them. But I've never heard a YouTube atheist or somesuch person say that such-and-such a freethinker was a martyr for the truth (though they may portray such a person as a martyr). They say the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo, but not that Galileo was himself a Catholic. They say Copernicus feared persecution by the Church, but never that Copernicus himself worked for the Church (taking minor orders counts as that). That Giordiano Bruno was persecuted by the Church is known; that it was because he was a pantheist and a heretic is conveniently left out.

So, the whole holocaust thing was all good, right?


I'm calling Poe's law. If you actually are serious, consider suicide. I suggest suicide by scaphism.

Orodrist wrote:So, the whole holocaust thing was all good, right?


I'm calling Poe's law. If you actually are serious, consider suicide. I suggest suicide by scaphism.

Maybe I'm not being clear enough. I believe life is very important - because God does, and because His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit do. Whereas, if the law let you, you would want to live out the life your gods wish you to and harm people or things by committing acts of extreme violence. Am I right? I want to live for the truth. You wish to live for the truth. Very good.

What makes a man criminal is what makes him a hypocrite. Not all the time - a man can really feel he has the right to kill an innocence and still be guilty of murder - but generally. A freethinker says I have the right to think as I wish. Alright. I want to be a Catholic. He calls me a dogmatist and closed-minded and tells me atheism is the truth, and won't stop spouting such nonsense until I either accept atheism or ignore him. Even when I do answer his "proof", if it can be called that.

The "freethinker", then, is really a dogmatist. And therefore a hypocrite, a liar, and an evangelist, every bit as bad as the men he hates - or thinks he hates.

Worse still is the man who says "I am a Christian, but I don't let that interfere with my public life". Christianity is a way of life. Some of our government, such as Nancy Pelosi, although they may be Christians, favour godless things and things the Church or a church condemns. George Soros and Tim Gill, anti-Christian millionaires, help to bankroll Catholics (and I don't doubt other Christians) who want to undo at least part of what it means to be a Christian - i.e, what it means to be moral. They go about it the wrong way, by lobbying the Catholic Church. But nevertheless, they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

I prefer wolves in wolves' clothing. I would prefer Soros and Gill come out honestly and say they hate the Catholic Church, and finance its destruction more obviously. I doubt the government would care. Same goes for our President and the Supreme Court. If they want to destroy Christianity as it has been for 2000 years, let them come out like adults rather than children who think they can hide it. If hatred is hatred, let it be real hatred rather than implied.

I hate insincerity.