Monday, June 30, 2014

A small win for religious freedom...



...and a display of left-wing "tolerance" has already begun.

Pray for these terribly misguided and lost people whose rage and hatred run so very deep in their souls.

When the devil faces even a minor defeat, as he did today at the Supreme Court, he does not go down quietly.

May God protect Hobby Lobby and all its employees, and may God pour His grace and mercy upon our land.



+++++++



Related post (and worth pondering as we witness the wailing and gnashing of teeth over this decision):

What is so wrong with women's bodies?


And the best article I've seen on the particulars of the case: 




+++++++


278 comments:

  1. The problem with those comments full of hate is that it's like a spark of fire that can easily ignite another fire in someone. The few comments I read made me angry and that's when I had to shut it off. Pray for those people, but don't engage them in conversation--they aren't ready to listen or reason, just blow off more of their hate! My opinion, anyway.

    So happy for Hobby Lobby though!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Becky, you are exactly right. I have had a taste of that kind of rage and hatred directed at me, and it's scary precisely because of how out-of-proportion and visceral it is. Being in debates (not so much here on the Bubble) these past years has actually frightened me, and I know now why people so easily acquiesce to things that they normally would not acquiesce to. It's intimidation (bully/mob) tactics and a real threat of violence and harm. This is where we are now. It looks so out-of-proportion (absolute blind rage because they can't force religious people to provide them free contraception), but at base it's because how dare someone imply that their lifestyle choices might be wrong (and that some would refuse to be complicit, by buying them their supplies for their sex life). That is why the Church is so hated. Not because she has any real power (like the government does), but because she dares to say "no", and she dares to proclaim, as always, that sin exists, and we will not participate. That voice must be silenced.

    It's a war of principalities and powers, and the players don't even realize it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leila
      EWTN victory, too. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/30/ewtn-wins-big-pro-life-victory-against-hhs-mandate-on-heels-of-hobby-lobby-decision/

      Delete
  3. Hobby Lobby rocks. Shop there all the time. I just redid a guest bathroom with finishing touches using their awesome unframed prints (66% off- beat that) that I put into their gorgeous over-sized frames (50% off) with their mats. Looks like my own spa now. Thanks again, HobLob!

    I will continue to shop there and will enjoy every creative minute of it. Here's to liberty.

    "lost people whose rage and hatred run so very deep in their souls."

    I would say there's a few other words that rank pretty high, too - "brilliance" would not be one of them. Trash chirping is the soup du jour on the internet. Abysmal. Redundant. Stale. There's no angle there, and nothing to fear.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Amen, Nubby!! The devil makes a lot of noise, but in the end he's powerless. It's all smoke and mirrors in the end. And I agree, Hobby Lobby rocks!!

    And for those who might need the question asked again... What is so wrong with women's bodies?

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2014/02/what-is-so-wrong-with-womens-bodies.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brandon Vogt gets it right:

    An important victory for First Amendment freedoms! However, despite their fair ruling, the Supreme Court still failed to avoid misunderstandings like this:

    "The owners of three closely held for-profit corporations have sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception."

    The belief that life human life begins at conception is not a specifically Christian belief, nor a religious one. It's rooted in embryological consensus and philosophical reflection, neither of which depend on faith. I'm surprised the otherwise intelligent Court missed this basic fact.

    Just as shocking is this statement by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in the minority opinion:

    "[Contraceptive coverage] furthers compelling interests in public health and women's well being."

    I'm curious how contraceptive pills or devices--meaning those whose primary intention is to prevent conception from occurring and not merely as an unintended side effect--achieve either end. This coverage doesn't further a compelling health interest. It's healthy to have babies! In fact, the government *depends* on mothers having babies. A healthy society propagates itself.

    And I don't see how contraceptive coverage helps "women's well being." A women is well when her body functions normally. Pregnancy is not a disease! Contraception disrupts a normally-functioning process as its goal. It's the only "medicine" that has such an effect.

    Regardless, this decision is not about whether contraception furthers a public interest or contributes to women's well being. The question is whether business owners should be *forced* to provide contraception under penalty of exorbitant fines. Even if you thought contraception was beneficial to society, it doesn't follow that people should be forced to pay for it in violation of their consciences.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I actually had a Facebook friend complain today that it's becoming harder and harder to be a woman today. I just do not understand how the pill can define womanhood!

    ReplyDelete
  7. How is it becoming harder? When I used contraception, it was copious and no problems with access. Same thing today. The only difference is they want to force people to provide it to them for free. It's insane.

    And really... have they seen the actual hardships that women face around the world? Oh, my....

    ReplyDelete
  8. "harder and harder to be a woman today" -- Whhaaa?
    Harder to be a woman today? She means with all the access to education, sports, and career? Yep. Harder. Sure.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Leila, thank you for being such a clear voice of reason. I posted an article on the decision with the simple comment "Yay!" on facebook, and now I'm in an argument with at least 3 people in the comments. Facebook arguments just stress me out so much it makes me want to stop posting anything but baby pictures.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gina, I just can't even begin to understand how we got to this "Twilight Zone" point? When did subsidizing someone' sex life take precedent over religious liberty? America was actually founded on religious liberty and limited government. But now, that is supposed to take a backseat to paying out for someone else's contraception? And let's be honest... if a women is having sex with a man who is such a cad that he cannot even pay for her contraception (assuming we all think that is noble; let's pretend), then what the hell is she having sex with him for? And why would I subsidize it?

    UGH.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I might have to do what a seminarian friend started doing -- whenever he posts something controversial, he asks people to not comment but talk to him in private if they want to have a conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Honestly, I think you should engage them. There are always other people reading, not commenting, and they may be swayed by logic, even if the vocal ones are not. It's all about planting those seeds, and I always assume that the ones who might "see the light" are not the loud ones, but the lurkers....

    ReplyDelete
  13. Leila, I thought you would never put that baby girl down and blog again. I see it took a Supreme Court ruling to do the trick. : )
    Actually, I was surprised by the ruling. Yay!

    And feel free to blog about the new baby and the wedding.

    Have a good evening.



    ReplyDelete
  14. What is driving me nuts is all the Facebook comments trying to state the Supreme Court is saying women aren't people.

    Excuse me! I didn't realize I was such a delicate, little flower which needed the big ol' government to tell my employer to provide me with these magic pills and shots so I can make sure I don't have any babies. Because, of course, I am COMPLETELY incapable of buying my own birth control or making the decision to not have sex because CLEARLY I am a moron because I have a uterus. Thank goodness someone is there to help me out.

    Really???? I am so sorry but if you can't manage your birth control without getting it for free you ain't a woman. You are a girl. Wait until you grow up before you have sex.

    (I don't agree with BC but even if I did I would be offended by the idea that someone not paying for it makes me less of a woman.)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kat, exactly. That's the part I don't understand. Why aren't women INSULTED that someone else has to pay to facilitate their sex lives? I said before, when I used contraception, it would never have occurred to me that someone else should have to violate their conscience to make sure I got it gratis. What the heck is wrong with everyone? Are we this immature and have we forgotten why this nation was founded, and now all we want are handouts or else? And I am disgusted that the Democrat Party would be using this issue as a way to divide the country with the most sickening rhetoric. But I've come to expect it. "War on women"? They don't have Clue One. And to foment that hate, well it's evil.

    Lena, no worries! I am going to do a lot more posting about the wedding and the baby, ha ha!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Helpful to keep in mind: the Hobby Lobby decision isn't a situation where rights have been taken away from women or from anybody.

    The Hobby Lobby decision came about because of an attempt to *remove* an employer's rights. The supreme court decided that it was an illegitimate attempt.

    Some great points from friends on Facebook. From Joey Prever, aka Steve Gershom:

    Helpful to keep in mind: the Hobby Lobby decision isn't a situation where rights have been taken away from women or from anybody.

    The Hobby Lobby decision came about because of an attempt to *remove* an employer's rights. The supreme court decided that it was an illegitimate attempt.

    Put another way, the Hobby Lobby decision came about because of an attempt to *create* a new right. The supreme court decided that the rights already in place (viz. rights of religious freedom) trumped the rights that those in power were trying to create (viz. rights to free contraception).

    ReplyDelete
  17. And from Joe Heschmeyer, attorney-turned-seminarian, the best piece out there analyzing the whole thing:

    http://catholicdefense.blogspot.ca/2014/06/4-things-you-probably-have-wrong-about.html

    25 people have already shared this just from my posting it on my fb, and that's a lot...it's good. Check it out, and post it on your facebooks and blogs to shed some light for your friends and family.

    ReplyDelete
  18. One more. It's short, but so worth the read. Hobby Lobby already lavishes contraception on its employees and will continue to. The left is losing its mind over nothing but lies, and lots of them (what is new?)...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381637/hobby-lobby-actually-lavishes-contraception-coverage-its-employees-deroy-murdock

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks for last points Leila. That really nails it. The disproportionate response is sad but very predictable these days. Anything that even remotely approaches the holy sacrament of sex is met with grinding and gnashing. Just weird. It's like arguing with a drunk college freshman.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Here are a couple topics of discussion that I was hoping could be addressed:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

    http://dailybuzzlive.com/hobby-lobby-still-covers-vasectomies-viagra/

    ReplyDelete
  21. citizensunited, here is how one of my Facebook friends put it:

    "I'm pretty sure it's the employees investing through their retirement funds, not the company itself. And I believe the pharmaceutical companies are bundled in with a lot of other investments and things are being bought and sold regularly. I'm sure someone who knows investment language better could explain how it works and really has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby the parent corporation."

    And yes, Hobby Lobby is very much a supplier of contraception and sterilization. The only thing they were objecting to was four drugs/devices that cause or may cause early abortions. But they provide 16 types of contraception to their employees, which is why all the foaming at the mouth by the left wing is just so outrageously illogical and ridiculous. It's just plain bizarre. Why do we enjoy being ignorant?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "the Hobby Lobby decision isn't a situation where rights have been taken away from women or from anybody."

    This is why I lol'ed for real reading those hilariously stupid comments linked. All the hate coming from people without a single solitary clue as to the reasoning behind the ruling, even - lolz. National Logic Champs 2014.

    Equally as hilarious are the people "arguing" that we shouldn't support Hobby Lobby because they import. Can you see my eyes crossing? Don't even get me started...

    ReplyDelete
  23. correct me if I'm wrong, but the decision allows them to do away with all forms of contraception via insurance. So it is irrelevant what forms Hobby Lobby took issue with and now allows, for the first time, corporations the ability to opt out due to "firmly held religious beliefs"

    Just making sure I understood the ruling.

    If I do understand correctly then it makes sense to me why some people are disturbed by this.

    I personally don't engage this kind of thing on facebook from either side.

    If you think only the liberals are rude and insulting then you clearly are not reading what I am reading. The conservative, and the religious are just as often insulting and rude.

    It'd be great if we could converse without any of us being that way wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Alan- This is the "first time" a corp can "opt out" because it was the "first time" they were forced to comply with a law they morally objected to. Before now, HL didn't have to say "Mother, may I?" to the court to make this decision.

    And yes, Alan, arguably they can opt out of all of the contraception if they can support that it goes against their religious beliefs. Funny, how the first amendment actually means something.

    You don't like religion? Too bad. The first amendment protects our right to the free exercise of our religion and the highest court in the land has shown that the free exercise extends into the public sphere and can include business decisions.

    It is very important to note----this doesn't mean HL can fire someone who used birth control. That would be illegal. Any woman working for HL can still use BC they just can't expect their employer to pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I don't mean to sound aggressive. It is just very important people understand that HL didn't gain any new power or freedom here. All HL gained was the ability to continue with a business decision it has already made.

    Think about that for a moment. HL has spent years and a lot of money (lawyers aren't cheap) to merely get the court to say "Yes, you have the right to make that decision."

    How many people could it have hired or how many raises could it have given if it didn't have to waste time on this stupid lawsuit? How much business did the bad PR cost the company for a decision that was ALREADY in place?

    The only reason this circus ever started was because the government abused its power.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kat, thank you for explaining that so clearly and eloquently.

    Alan, I am not talking about "rude" or "insulting". I am talking about raging, hateful, frightening, threatening and mob-like tactics of intimidation. I think a lot of people on both sides of the issue are rude and insulting. But the raging from the pit of hell? It's a very scary thing, and I've been on the receiving end simply for saying things like "a bride implies a groom" or "men and women are different" or "gay people cannot consummate a marriage", etc. The RAGE that comes is not something that can be explained. It's a violent rage, and it's honestly not of this world. Most people back down in the face of it, out of real fear.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Leila, the rage of which you speak comes from evil. People with that kind of rage know they are wrong and thus cannot defend their beliefs with truth. Force must make up for truth. I was told recently by a 20-30 something woman that I was "twisted" because I said rectums were not made for sex. She was pi**ed off with the rage of delusion. Natural law and nature's intended purpose trump feelings and are unbiased towards any faith.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "If I do understand correctly then it makes sense to me why some people are disturbed by this." -alan

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Leila
    More baby pictures, please!!

    "That is why the Church is so hated. Not because she has any real power (like the government does)"

    I disagree with this. Millions of people don't use birth control because of the church. When people obey an institution regarding the most intimate details of their lives, I think that institution has a lot of power. The influence of the Catholic church reaches much further than any single government.

    "I am talking about raging, hateful, frightening, threatening and mob-like tactics of intimidation"

    Please don't be misled in thinking only the left indulges in such tactics. Nothing could be further than the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I have wonderful baby pictures coming soon! :) Thanks, Johanne!

    Millions of people don't use birth control because of the church. When people obey an institution regarding the most intimate details of their lives, I think that institution has a lot of power.

    I was born and raised Catholic. Until I became a fully practicing Catholic at age 27, I had never heard of a Catholic not using birth control. In fact, I went to a Catholic college, knew tons of Catholic people, of all ages, and I'd never heard of any Catholic obeying the "powerful" Church. So, this makes me just shake my head. The Church proposes, not imposes. If only Catholics did follow the teachings of Christ, lol! I wish! But anyway, it just strikes me as odd and funny when people claim this "power" over people. I guess in the same way that the Church says, "Don't commit adultery", there is a morality of sexuality. When a Catholic obeys the Church by remaining faithful to his or her spouse, does that also constitute the Church having of lot of power "regarding the most intimate details of their lives"? Or is the Church just repeating the constant moral law, as she always has? Take it or leave it.... every Catholic has the choice. We don't jail and execute as some other religions do. We do exactly... nothing, if someone wants to live contrary to the moral law.

    The influence of the Catholic church reaches much further than any single government.

    How so? I agree that the Church was able to help triumph over communism in Poland and other places in Europe in the past decades, and we are definitely the entity that feeds, educates, clothes, and heals more people than any other entity in the world, but that doesn't make all those folks convert, or become faithful Catholics.

    Please don't be misled in thinking only the left indulges in such tactics.

    I am speaking of my experiences. The vile nature of what has been said to me, with no provocation, actually shocked my conscience. They weren't just arguing a point with zeal, they were spewing the most vulgar words, about things that should never be spoken, in the most filthy, evil way. This has happened to me regularly. If I told you what one particular "opponent" did to me, and how there are things out in cyberspace about me that are so crude and evil (and libelous), you would be shocked. I have thought many times of exposing what was done to me (and others whom I know), but I don't want to bring people to this group's website. I think it would simply provide this twisted and sad man and his followers with more glee. I have even thought of legal action, but it would not be worth the time or effort, and in the end, his filth would be spread. I just don't get the hatred, the viciousness, the filth talk, and the outright lies (with no compunction about it).

    Honestly, show me where this is routinely done by Catholics and I will be happy to denounce them. I have not seen it. If you are going to refer to the WBC folks, that is a group of a couple dozen weirdos that everyone disavows. The people who spew their vileness that I'm talking about are all over the darned place.

    Sorry, it's a sore subject. I am still shaken by what has been said and done to me, and I am not even someone "big" on the front lines. No wonder most people I know who are for traditional morals and marriage will not speak out even in the mildest way. It is terrifying for them to even speak the least words on the subject, as the fury of hell comes out against them the moment they do. Trust me on this.

    ReplyDelete
  31. PS: That is why I appreciate people like you, Johanne, and yes, Alan, and Frank and Michelle and even Gwen and other opponents of the Church. You do not spew hatred of the kind I encounter on Facebook and in other comboxes of all manner of blogs and news sites. I like our little bubble. :)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi Leila
    I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't mean that Catholics specifically are hateful and I didn't mean that the left doesn't do what you say. I mean that some people on the right are vehemently evil and hateful towards more liberal folks. When you say "I am speaking of my experiences" I am not denying your experience. I am just saying that many folks on the left routinely experience the same thing.

    I think if you hung out on Buddhist blogs you would find almost none of what you're talking about. Whereas Christian fundamentalists (different than Catholics) throw it around liberally.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I understand your point, I really do. But I when I see those on the left calling (openly) for violence and burning and raping and murder and such.... merely because someone holds a different opinion than they do, it is frightening. And yet it's common. I wonder if one truly would find evangelicals or fundamentalists calling for people to be raped, burned and murdered? If the rage I see on the left (my friends on fb are reporting consistently -- most of whom do not know each other -- that their friends and relatives on the left are having irrational, hate-filled tirades and "frothing at the mouth" because of the court decision that does nothing to block access to any contraception, but only keeps the status quo (based on a Clinton law), ruling in favor of a company that provides 16 out of 20 kinds of contraception and sterilization and will continue to do so. It's utterly irrational. But it's not just a few people here or there, it's a lot of people everywhere, going nuts. I'm telling you, this is a phenomenon that is frightening people into silence and acquiescence (as it's designed to do, I guess).

    It's eerie. But then again, we Catholics can understand that it's a battle of principalities and powers, and it's otherworldly in nature. I'm not even sure if the players understand why they are filled with such rage. But from a spiritual perspective, it's clear. And I must harken back to the avenging conscience. To assuage the sinful conscience, the person MUST have society agree that the sin is good. Even the slightest reminder of the natural law/moral law must be silenced. It is unacceptable to speak in terms of a moral law regarding human sexuality anymore.

    I'm sure there are individual Christians who call for the rape and murder and burning of people and businesses and with the foulest of language, but I really don't see it myself and I doubt that it's routine. I could be wrong. Maybe it's common and expected, as it is on the left?

    ReplyDelete
  34. "When people obey an institution regarding the most intimate details of their lives, I think that institution has a lot of power. The influence of the Catholic church reaches much further than any single government."

    Johanne,
    There is a fallacious line of thought in your statement.
    The Church does not compel anyone via force or penalty, to follow Her teachings. Baptized Catholics are invited to follow the Church for the good of their immortal soul. They are not penalized monetarily or otherwise, if they choose not to follow the teachings. The Church dispenses grace through the sacraments; it doesn't forcibly arm bar anyone into following anything. I've never been coerced from the pulpit or via Confession to "follow x, or else". I've been forgiven through the priest, and invited to follow with the grace given, but in no way was I pressured to change via force.

    Your comment also implies that the Church is man-made. Catholics understand (hopefully) that the Church is a divine institution, passing along what Christ initially instituted. The Church is not a judiciary on morality.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Kat,
    Yeah that was kind of unnecessarily aggressive.

    No it's not the first time a corp has been forced to obey a law they are morally opposed to. There are many companies that have gotten into trouble for their treatment of homosexuals in both hiring and firing.


    "You don't like religion? Too bad." Umm what?

    " The first amendment protects our right to the free exercise of our religion and the highest court in the land has shown that the free exercise extends into the public sphere and can include business decisions"

    And with this you of course understand that it gives me the freedom to not be forced to follow your religious beliefs? Not in regards to this issue, but in general. I cannot be forced to follow your religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "I cannot be forced to follow your religious beliefs."

    This is neither here nor there. You don't have to follow our religion, obviously. But you can sure purchase your own contraception and not force your employer to violate his conscience in doing so.

    This was the point of Kat's explanation. It's not about forcing anyone to believe in Jesus. It's about purchasing your own contraceptives, alan.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Girl from NY:
    "Leila, the rage of which you speak comes from evil. People with that kind of rage know they are wrong and thus cannot defend their beliefs with truth."

    This is part of what I am talking about. See I see a rage in this. It's subtle, but I see it.

    Kat we disagree on what truths are, and sometimes the rage comes from being sick and tired of being forced down. I assure you they don't think they are wrong.

    "Force must make up for truth."

    Sometimes we need to be forced to see others truths as valid.

    "I was told recently by a 20-30 something woman that I was "twisted" because I said rectums were not made for sex."

    She was wrong to say this to you. You are wrong to tell her rectums were not made for sex.

    " She was pi**ed off with the rage of delusion."

    No doubt you may get pi**ed off at me for saying what I am saying.

    "Natural law and nature's intended purpose trump feelings and are unbiased towards any faith."

    Natural law aint a thing. Yes you cannot get pregnant via anal sex. But if you think anal sex doesn't occur in the natural world then again you would be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Leila, as Johanne mentioned the rage is present on both sides. And yes even from catholics.
    Trust that I have been on the receiving end of that rage many many times.
    Thanks for including me in the appreciated column. I knew that you did. I know I tire you sometimes because you don't see what I see, but my intent is always to be respectful.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Nubby I will enter into this debate with you with the full knowledge that we don't do well together. But you asked me direct questions so I'll give it another try (and I'll hope it doesn't go the way we normally do.)

    ""If I do understand correctly then it makes sense to me why some people are disturbed by this." -alan

    Why?"

    Because they feel as though something is being taken away from them (and in some instances they may well be correct). A right or privilege that they had before that they no longer have.

    When one takes a job one should be free from their employers religious beliefs, especially in cases where it is not a religious business (ie hobby lobby, unless again I am mistaken. We don't have hobby lobby's here that I am aware of)

    Women who use or want to use contraception think it should be paid for via insurance, just like many medicines that others receive.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Nubby part 2:

    "I cannot be forced to follow your religious beliefs."

    This is neither here nor there. You don't have to follow our religion, obviously."

    See you say this, but ultimately you don't really mean it. You would love the laws of the land to follow your religious beliefs.

    "But you can sure purchase your own contraception and not force your employer to violate his conscience in doing so"

    Finally something we agree on. Yes I can buy my own contraceptives. But I don't need a prescription to get a condom now do I?

    "This was the point of Kat's explanation. It's not about forcing anyone to believe in Jesus. It's about purchasing your own contraceptives, alan."

    If you think this is a true statement then you are being somewhat naïve.
    The main question now is what's next? This opens a door.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Women who use or want to use contraception think it should be paid for via insurance, just like many medicines that others receive."

    1) Contraception cannot be compared to medicine. Contraception isn't about "saving lives" like actual, you know, medicine. It's about sex. The comparison is illogical.
    2) Contraception is cheap over the counter. Contraception is accessible everywhere, for free even, at local health departments. There's nothing being' taken away from anyone, alan. This is the irrelevant nonsense spewing forth from the rage machine that is social media.
    3) Hobby Lobby employees are not forced to become believers in Christ. They won't even be fired for using contraception, HL still offers some forms. This was a specific case against certain forms of contraception.

    "See you say this, but ultimately you don't really mean it. You would love the laws of the land to follow your religious beliefs. "

    1) My heart's desire, alan, is that I won't be forced to purchase something by force that violates my conscious. Whether or not everyone in America becomes Catholic or follows Catholic teaching is neither here nor there.
    2) Question: Why do you project onto people what you assume they're thinking, feeling, or wanting? You say you don't like when that happens to you, and yet, here you've done that exact thing.

    "If you think this is a true statement then you are being somewhat naïve.
    The main question now is what's next? This opens a door.
    "

    So, let me understand this inference from A to B. You believe that the Court ruling that HL is exempt from providing certain contraceptives to it's employees, is equivalent to the Court granting permission for closely-held corporations to now ... indoctrinate employees or proselytize with the government's blessing? There is nothing compelling the government in this direction, alan. The opposite avenue is actually what's on the radar.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Nubby

    1. No its not illogical. All medicines don't save lives. Some do, some make life better, some help us get over sicknesses more quickly.

    2. Not true, something may well be taken away from people.

    3. They can't be fired yet. But might this ruling open it up to that? It's a slippery slope.(I believe that's a statement I see often here)

    "Question: Why do you project onto people what you assume they're thinking, feeling, or wanting? You say you don't like when that happens to you, and yet, here you've done that exact thing."

    I don't believe I am projecting anything here. Think what we have debated before. Think how you want the laws to be (or at least how you've led me to believe you want them to be). Think where your reasons for those laws to be that way come from. I'm not projecting a thing.

    And was the ruling for just some contraceptives or all contraceptives? Again my understanding was that it is for all contraceptives. If I'm wrong please correct me.

    We see what we see, believe what we believe, read into others writings what we read into them.

    I'm not certain how you inferred what you wrote from what I said. In my opinion corporations do not have religious belief's. The owners can indeed have them, but corporations cannot. (again it's my opinion). As this is my opinion I don't think any corporation or business should be allowed to opt out of laws due to that. That is, in a way, forcing the corporations or business OWNERS religious beliefs on all of their employees to a certain degree.
    I hope that cleared it up for you.

    Now two examples of why I generally don't discuss with you:


    "The comparison is illogical."
    "This is the irrelevant nonsense spewing forth from the rage machine that is social media."

    You don't see the logic, that does not mean it's illogical.
    Irrelevant nonsense? Rage machine? C'mon, your an adult. Discuss without the hyperbole or lets just not discuss.

    "

    ReplyDelete
  43. * conscience

    And, alan, you say, "Natural law ain't a thing". The whole of philosophical and judicial history of this country (and the world) would disagree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "I don't believe I am projecting anything here. Think what we have debated before. Think how you want the laws to be (or at least how you've led me to believe you want them to be). Think where your reasons for those laws to be that way come from. I'm not projecting a thing. "

    If you want to know what I think, ask me directly, alan. Don't assume. I'll tell you clearly. I don't believe the government should mandate that all American citizens become Catholic. Does that put to bed your projections, now?

    ReplyDelete
  45. You're right. Let's not discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  46. LOL Nubby.

    Fair enough on many points.

    Many don't agree with natural law, it isn't natural and it isn't law. Many also used to think the world was flat. And that evolution never happened. So?

    I don't have to ask you directly. You've explained many many times your religious convictions and why certain things should not be allowed.

    And you are missing a point, I guess maybe I wasn't clear.
    I'll assume you are being genuine when you say you don't believe the government should mandate all American citizens become catholic. But you sure as heck wouldn't mind if many (if not all) laws in America were born of catholic beliefs. I have no qualms about making that statement based on my experiences here with you.

    And finally, you're right, I'm right, lets not discuss.

    Now you have a fabulous 4th of July.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I don't think any corporation or business should be allowed to opt out of laws due to that."

    It wasn't a law, it was a mandate.
    It wasn't voted upon by a judiciary, it was given by a committee.
    Have you looked at how the ruling defines corporation?
    Have you read the reasoning behind the decision? Read what the justices had to say about the ruling?
    This was an unjust imposition that was incorrect on its face. The Court was not compelled to find otherwise.
    And your idea that 'law of the land' (even though the case came against a component of the mandate) is always correct shows me that you aren't critically analyzing what makes a law just or unjust.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Nubby, wait, are we discussing or not? Or do you just need to have the last word?

    All corporations should follow same rules. That better?

    Please don't determine what I am or am not critically analyzing.

    You in the beginning asked me why they could rightfully be upset. You at no point have asked what my opinion on the ruling was. You've assumed I am against the ruling.

    So now who's guilty of projecting?

    Now are we continuing or are we done?

    ReplyDelete
  49. "All corporations should follow same rules. That better?"

    1) How is Hobby Lobby defined as a corporation, alan?
    2) How would it be possible, let alone efficient, if every corporation was held to the "same rules" (whatever that entails)?
    3) What would be the reasoning that certain exemptions would never be allowed for certain components of a certain law (or less, a mandate)?

    ReplyDelete
  50. 1. "Hobby Lobby is owned and operated by David and Barbara Green and their three children. There are now about 600 stores with about 30,000 employees. Hobby Lobby is organized as a for-profit corporation under Oklahoma law."

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/hobby-lobby-ruling-begs-question-what-does-closely-held-mean-1404154577

    2. Huh? How should corporations be treated differently from each other? Should one be allowed to discriminate while others cannot? Should they not all have to follow the same rules and mandates (not withstanding that obviously different industries will have different rules)?

    3. Huh again? I'm not sure what you are asking here.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Alan, you said you saw rage in this statement from GFNY:

    "Leila, the rage of which you speak comes from evil. People with that kind of rage know they are wrong and thus cannot defend their beliefs with truth."

    If you see rage in this, then you have never encountered actual rage. Let's use words correctly. "Rage" means something, and this statement is not that.

    As for anal sex happening in the natural world.... that has nothing to do with natural law (we've talked about that). Theft and lying and even "cutting" are very common in the world, so you could say that they are "natural" (by your application), but they violate the natural law (which means the universal moral law, which we've explained many times).

    As for the mandate not being constitutional.... It has not "taken away" anything at all from anyone. Let me repeat: The ruling has not taken away anything from anyone. It has left the status quo in place. I repeat: It has left the status quo in place. The only imposition was coming from the Obama administration. They made the first move, to force a family-owned company's hand. If they had never done that, no suits would have been filed, and no trumped-up "war on women" would have even entered anyone's consciousness. Good gracious, Hobby Lobby already supplies and will continue to supply copious contraception and sterilization to its employees. They pay higher than the minimum wage, treat their people very well, and now, because they refused to fund early abortions, the tolerant libs are calling for their stores to be burned to the ground.

    You gotta love the irony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To clarify even further: "Natural law" and "things that people feel an inclination to do" are VERY different concepts. Please don't confuse them. And don't confuse "natural law" with "laws of nature", either. Two very different things. It's important to understand our terms so that we can communicate.

      Delete
  52. alanl64, I did not say that anal sex did not occur in the natural world. It does. (It might also be the most pleasurable act out there, but I wouldn't know.) What I meant was that it entails a use of body parts not intended by nature. You, and all those who support marriage other than 1M + 1W, must completely dismiss the complementarity and purpose of that particular coupling and its ability (barring the anomaly of infertility in reproductive years) to transmit and continue human existence, to establish a false "equality." I've gone further on this point in a previous post (I think it was one here, if not a post on another blog); I don't have the time now to expand on it, nor do I wish to continue to derail Leila's point of this particular post. I don't think you were actively part of that particular conversation nor do I know whether you were reading quietly on the sidelines, but I made the points to M. Albinoni in a very, very, long thread about birth control (I think that's the one). My point is, there is indeed a natural order to our world, alanl64. That order is there and affects all of us, regardless of faith or lack thereof. I could walk away from my faith, from any faith, and see it as clearly as my atheist, anti-theist acquaintance (no fan of Christianity or Catholicism), but who is also passionately against marriage for anything other than 1 man + 1 woman for the same reason, does. When we deviate from natural order to satisfy our personal whims, there are consequences including disease and such. Nature bats last.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I'm unfurling a wider logical point, alan. Your definition illustrates it. Hobby Lobby is closely held. It's not massive, nor multi-industrial, and cannot be held to the same constructs. But you want to ignore that and lump all corps together. Makes no sense.

    By your logic, which is, "all corps should be held to the same law", we should incorporate unions, public and private, so that all fall under the "same rules".

    You say certain exemptions are never allowed. That makes no sense logically, nor lawfully, as the recent ruling illustrates.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Leila,
    rage can be quiet or it can be vocal.
    she is stating an opinion as fact. I see that as a quiet rage.

    I can assure you I have seen rage so many times in my life. Would you not consider the Uganda law to kill homosexuals rage? Or Nigeria to jail them for life? Is that not the rage by which you speak?
    Have you ever read some of the comments on facebook from the anti gay folks? It's ugly. Very very ugly.
    But rage can also be subtle and underlying. So yeah I see rage from some of the commenters here. On both sides. It's subtle, but it's there.

    Yes we've talked about natural law. So you know how I feel about that. We've discussed that there is very little that is actually universal moral law. So anal sex may not be against natural law. But to Girl from NY it is. To me it may not be. Is it not true that much of what we homosexuals call sex can be incorporated into foreplay in your world as long as the climax is in the vagina? Sorry trying to make a point without being graphic.

    In the context that it was mandated to be included and now it's not, yes people are losing something. Really they are.

    That's great that Hobby Lobby offers all that. I've no problem with Hobby Lobby. I probably would not shop at their stores knowing how religious they are (and of course assuming, which is always dangerous, but I like to err on the side of caution, that they too would be anti homosexual) I would stay away. Like I have from Chic Fil A for years, long before any hoped for boycott by my people.

    But this line is what I am trying to avoid in our discussions "the tolerant libs are calling for their stores to be burned to the ground."
    A. I'll assume you are using the word tolerant in a sarcastic or snarky way.
    B. Yes some may, but you are painting all with a wide brush. That's wrong. Very wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  55. One more quick comment with regard to progressive rage: The insanity and depravity that hit Stacy Trasancos for one of her blog posts a couple years ago (I know you remember that one, Leila) is a perfect example.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Lets ask this question, in part due to the fact that I have seen the phrase "slippery slope" several times here.
    Do you see this ruling leading the way to allowing closely held corporations to not hire or fire openly gay persons? Or persons of other religions? Will they be allowed to have a say in unmarried persons living together? All because it's against their strongly held religious beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
  57. "That's great that Hobby Lobby offers all that. I've no problem with Hobby Lobby. I probably would not shop at their stores knowing how religious they are ".

    Wowwww. What a bigoted statement. You stay away expressly b/c the owners are Christian? For no other reason? Even though the Court (which is your highest standard) has ruled in their favor? Odd reasoning. I can assume that you'd apply the same logic to me, should I invite you to my place for drinks? You'd stay away b/c you know how religious I am? That is highly offensive, alan.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Girl from NY
    I agree there were some very ugly comments made towards Stacy, and this homosexual with left leanings will tell you it was wrong and it was ugly.

    But I'll also tell you what Stacy wrote was ugly and wrong as well, and there was a subtle rage to it.
    I mean c'mon she was upset because two women touched at a park. Two guys were looking at each other lovingly at a public pool. And she felt these people didn't deserve the right to be there, to do this, because she didn't want to explain to her children that different people love differently.
    Yeah the rage was ugly, and it was undeserved, on both sides.

    FYI, you can blame that blog post for bringing me here.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Do you see this ruling leading the way to allowing closely held corporations to not hire or fire openly gay persons? Or persons of other religions? Will they be allowed to have a say in unmarried persons living together? All because it's against their strongly held religious beliefs?"

    This ruling will only set a precedence for similar cases with similar complaints. You can't logically start throwing in every possible would-be scenario and ask the court to be compelled to answer those variables when there is no case before them to weigh or judge.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Nubby,
    I can see why you would find that bigoted. Perhaps it is a little. But lets take Chic Fil A. I was right. They gave money to antigay causes. Why would I in good conscience give them my money knowing they would give it to causes against me?
    So no not bigoted. I just get to choose who gets my money.
    I have many religious friends. I've been to their weddings in churches, catholic churches even. I go to their houses for dinner. They come to mine. They welcome me and my husband. They ask me how my husband is.
    If we were friends and you invited me over would you feel compelled to tell me I am living a life of sin? Would you ask me how my husband was?

    I've been told here I don't have a husband, that I'm not married. Would you expect me to walk into someone's house who would say things like that to me?

    p.s., I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't think there is a human alive that is not bigoted in some area or another. But I'm not as defined by dictionary.com utterly intolerant of anyone's creed, belief or opinion.
    So you can now commence to end with being offended.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Nubby are you the logic police? You seem to keep telling me what I can and cannot logically do. Because you don't see the logic does not mean it is not there.

    Logically, allowing corporations exceptions due to firmly held religious beliefs opens the door to allow other exemptions due to firmly held religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  62. You wanna know the irony of ironies about that comment? It's not like, should you walk into a Hobby Lobby store, they would have any knowledge of your lifestyle. And should they know, it's not like they will be ready with an attack of some sort, should you patronize their shop. On the contrary, being Christian, they are called to charity. You deny them, merely because of their religion, which is apparently very repugnant to you, because that was the express reason you gave for avoiding their store.

    Do you feel the same toward other businesses headed by owners of other faiths? Why just blast the Christian ones?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Logic is either there or it isn't, alan. It's pretty straight forward thinking. Why does it bug you?

    ReplyDelete
  64. "So you can now commence to end with being offended."

    Great apology, man.

    ReplyDelete
  65. but Nubby I'm glad you bring that up, because now I know I will never ever see here again the folks who'll say in regards to gay marriage anything about marrying a sister, dog, building, etc, because it isn't logical to bring them up based just on gay marriage being allowed.
    Phew, what a relief.

    ReplyDelete
  66. That logic follows, alan. Where do you see the disconnect?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Nubby.....I don't know what to say to you.

    Given the choice of giving my hard earned money to a company that may turn around and give that money to anti gay causes, well yeah I'll avoid them. Of any religion. I'm sorry if that offends you. I'm not sure why it should.

    Ever been shopping and heard someone call you or your husband a faggot? An employee of the store? Should I stay and give that store my money or should I go to another store?

    But you are correct, logic is there or it's not. You good lady seem to miss the logic in others statements. A lot. I'm not offended though, I assume it's not intentional.

    Finally, I've nothing to apologize for.

    But now if you'd answer a question I thought I had already asked you.
    Should I come to your house would you feel that you had to tell me I was living a life of sin? Would you, or really have you ever, ask how my husband was? Not calling him by name, but would you ever say, hey alan, how is your husband? I hear your husband just came back from Africa where he was teaching medicine. Would you wish my husband a safe trip to Haita to help there?
    I'm just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Nubby, the logic also follows that if corporations can not offer certain health benefits other corporations are mandated to offer because of firmly held religious beliefs that next they will want the right to fire openly gay individuals because they go against their firmly held religious beliefs.
    Where is the disconnect for you?

    Golly this is fun. Logic games.

    ReplyDelete
  69. alan- by all means, I would be decent to you. Would you ask me about my religion, about my God? Would you ask how my hour went at Adoration or how that novena is going that I've been praying? Would you ask me about my recent purchase from Hobby Lobby - a beautiful large painting, say - without feeling disgust?

    And your example of corp law is again skewed. The ruling was NOT about medicine. It was about contraceptives. This has zero to do with any possibility of "firing gay individuals", alan. There are anti discriminatory laws that protect people. It has zero relation to contraception. How much clearer does it need be?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Again, super apology, bro. I had more respect for you than that.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "she is stating an opinion as fact. I see that as a quiet rage."

    Right here is where you lost me, Alan. Once again, we cannot even connect to have a logical conversation. We don't even speak the same language.

    And since your first statement ("she's stating opinion as fact") is an example of stating your opinion as fact, does that mean you are enraged?

    God bless, Alan.


    ReplyDelete
  72. But heck, you know me, maybe I'll come back later and try again....

    ReplyDelete
  73. Nubby, I would not ask how your religion was, or about your god. I was raised catholic, I understand your god. I'd ask how your life was. I'd ask about your family. I wouldn't care where YOU got YOUR art work from. I've told friends who love Chic Fil A to go get a sandwich there. I just won't give them my money. Sorry. Would you give your money to someone who wants to invalidate a part of your life?

    The ruling was a religious exemption. It opens the doors for other religious exemptions. How much clearer for you does this need to be?

    FYI you may be surprised to know that it is perfectly legal to fire homosexuals in some states.

    Nubby, I'm sorry that you are offended. I truly don't understand why though. I decide who gets my money.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Let me help you out. I was offended because I see this as hate speech:

    "I probably would not shop at their stores knowing how religious they are "

    What if you were forced to shop there by the government? Just curious. Would law of land be just, in that case?

    ReplyDelete
  75. And that's actually fine with me, alan. Since we were apparently having a script-exchange (ie., who needs to ask what about which aspect of their life, with the right degree of compassion all around) I was giving you my parameters, too.

    I actually would never expect a friend to have to bend for my life. K? That was the point. Perhaps just enjoying people, and loving them, is enough. Not holding them to a script.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Ok Nubby, lets try this.

    If you knew a store was anti catholic would you shop there?

    We as consumers are given the opportunity to spend our money how we see fit. I think it's been pointed out to me that all major religions are against homosexuality. So if I know a business is owned by a religious owner why would I go there?

    Did you go to Chic Fil A appreciation day? If yes then why?

    We've not discussed whether or not I thought the insurance mandate was just. You seem to be assuming I think it was. I'll let you keep thinking that.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Nubby I agree on the friend thing. I've been told here (not by you, I honestly forget who though) that as catholics your are called to minister (I know that's the wrong word, but I can't think of the right word, I think baptist might call it witness) to me about my sins. I just can't abide by that. I don't need to be told by people that I am living a sinning life, because I don't see it that way. And I would not have a friend who did that to me. But I can be friends with all sorts of people. It's all about respect.

    I apologize if I ever implied that I don't respect you, or in truth value your opinions. I understand where you are coming from, I understand what you are saying. I see your lines of thinking. I just don't agree with them. I don't think they are illogical just because I don't agree with them. I honestly feel I am not afforded that by many here. I think you fail to see that what I am saying has a logic because you are lost in the not agreeing with me.
    Hope that makes sense.


    ReplyDelete
  78. Alan:

    How would you feel if the government told you you had to provide money so we could send some young children to Reparative Therapy? Wouldn't you feel that was unjust? Wouldn't you move heaven and earth to not pay for that? Not only to not pay for it but to make sure your name is not associated with such practice?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Sure, but your being gay doesn't have anything to do with the Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby. The ruling was in regards to contraception, not anything to do with gay lifestyle.

    I've patronized a certain Christian book store, where the owner sneered at anything Catholic. I thought it was a riot asking her for specifically Catholic items, holy cards and such... What do I care if she's anti Catholic? She wasn't openly attacking me. I was able to find several items that were perfect, and so I supported their small business with my purchase. Hopefully my charity in that small act planted a seed that Catholics are worthy of sneer.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I agree with Alan here. How many Catholic avoid giving money to businesses that support Planned Parenthood?

    We all vote with our feet.

    ReplyDelete
  81. * aren't worthy of sneer. Sneer-worthy. whatever

    ReplyDelete
  82. alan- on the friend thing- if we hung out casually, the topic of God/religion/sin may or may not come up. If there's an appointed time for that discussion, then fine. But I wouldn't read you the riot act. I would enjoy your company. I'd pick your brain and you'd pick mine. It's all good. It's normal on my end, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Oh well Leila, maybe some day you will understand me. Or want to. I'm still unsure which it is.

    Facts are facts, opinions are opinions, far too often folks get them confused. And in their rage they insist facts are opinions. I think I'm the only one I've see here state that most of this is just my opinion. Some day others will, or at least a guy can hope.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Kat I would do what I could against reparative therapy.
    To date not one person has asked if I agree with the original mandate or not. I think you are all assuming I did.

    And thanks for understanding. You have no idea how happy it makes me that finally something I said made sense to someone here :o)

    ReplyDelete
  85. Nubby, I understand that the ruling was for contraception. The ruling was also allowing a religious exemption to a federal mandate based on firmly held religious beliefs.
    Why am I to assume that some businesses will not ask for further exemptions to mandates and laws based on firmly held religious beliefs.

    In other words not every corporation can exempt themselves from providing contraception. Only those that have strongly held religious beliefs.

    Do you honestly think the ruling is about contraception and not religious beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if you think it is about contraception why didn't Leila title it so?
      I though I read something about a small victory for religious freedom in blog title. I could be wrong though.

      Delete
  86. Do you agree with the mandate? If you don't, why don't you agree with the court's opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Well, to be fair there is no way to argue "we don't agree with the law so we shouldn't have to comply" You have to argue the mandated violated HL's right somehow. The only way to do that would be through freedom of religion.

    I agree with you Alan, I would have been better to leave contraception (something that is known to be a hot topic) up to the companies to determine but the Feds didn't see it that way.

    Now I don't think anyone is going to get fired over the use of contraception. A.) The PR backlash alone would be brand suicide. B.) Firing someone over using contraception could be considered firing someone over their family status which is a protected class.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Thanks Kat,
    I didn't ever agree with the mandate. I don't think the government should mandate what insurances or offered by companies.
    Personally I think insurance should be offered by the government at prices similar to what one would pay through companies, although I don't wish to debate this as the opinion is still in it's infancy.

    My problem with the ruling is that it's based on treating a corporation like it's a person. I contend that corporations do not have religious beliefs.
    And as I have said to Nubby, it opens a door for corporations to ask for other exemptions due to their firmly held religious beliefs.
    Seems logical to me that now corporations will be looking for other exemptions, and that concerns me.

    ReplyDelete
  89. How is this going to impact the gays? That's a very big question.

    You might want to go get mad at your sisters for picking this fight. They made your fight a lot harder.

    ReplyDelete
  90. alan- I said the ruling had to do with contraception not the gay lifestyle. Of course the ruling unties a certain component of the mandate from HL b/c of the religious aspect.

    Why are you obfuscating what your angle is on the ruling? Just be blunt. It sounds like you do not agree based on
    1) You think all corps should be tied to the same rules (which would not include religious exemptions, if you had your way)
    2) You openly stated you won't shop there b/c of the owner's Christian beliefs.
    3) You openly stated that this ruling perhaps "opens the door" for anti gay policy/laws.

    One is obviously led to believe that you don't agree with the ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Well it is really the owners who have the religious beliefs. Like you said, Hobby Lobby is a family owned business. So it makes sense the owners are going to want their values to be a part of that company.

    Now the business I work for is also an LLC. But we are owned by Credit Unions (who are owned by their members) If we tried to say our company should get a religious exemption we'll get laughed out of court and rightly so.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Sorry Nubby I had to look up your big word.

    I said the ruling had to do with religious exemptions. Great we've made that clear.

    I've stated explicitly that all corporations should follow the same rules/laws/mandates.
    I have said I probably would not shop there due to their strong religious beliefs.
    I do think this could lead to other religious exemptions for corporations. I think many of them could be bad.

    I guess I owe you an apology, I didn't mean you never asked if I agreed with the ruling, I meant that you didn't ask how I felt about the original mandate. I apologize if I was less than clear about that.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Kat, your all my sisters. There is only one human family. Despite our differences we are all the same in the soft squishy middle.

    Currently it doesn't affect the gays. But as I said, it's not a far stretch to me from this to companies asking for more religious exemptions. After all this is about them not wanting to spend their monies on certain birth control methods. Why is it a far stretch to then be able to tell their employees that they can't live in sin, or they can't be married to a same sex person, or they must go to church, etc. as long as they are paying them. To me that's as logical as those opposed to gay marriage being afraid of someone wanting to marry their dog.

    And yes, a privately held company can follow what ever religious beliefs they want. They cannot expect me to buy from them if I find that their religion may be bigoted towards my life.

    ReplyDelete
  94. "Facts are facts, opinions are opinions, far too often folks get them confused. And in their rage they insist facts are opinions. I think I'm the only one I've see here state that most of this is just my opinion. Some day others will, or at least a guy can hope."

    The problem, though, is that often when a fact is presented, you label it as opinion. Not everything can be opinion. Some things have to be fact. That's where were stop communicating. Like, if someone says that the anus/digestive system is biologically not a receptacle for the reproductive system, you say it's just an opinion. And then I have to stop, because it's biology, not opinion. Stuff like that.

    I am glad you were against the mandate.

    One last thought: I think we have a huge, massive, enormous breakdown in education in this nation. If you ask the average young person, they would not know the barest history of this nation. They will have no concept of the fact (fact) that this nation was founded on the hope of religious freedom, because the colonists had their religious liberty infringed by the governments in Europe. They were fleeing that. So, religious liberty (including how a family runs its business!) is paramount if we understand who we are. If not, then America has lost her soul (which is why we see it deteriorating all around us, and at an alarming rate).

    ReplyDelete
  95. Leila, you are right and wrong.

    "if someone says that the anus/digestive system is biologically not a receptacle for the reproductive system"

    I agree, this is a factual statement. I've never said it wasn't. So yes we have finally agreed for the second time that something is a fact. (previously I believe that we have agreed that marriage is not required biologically to create a baby)

    but Girl from NY wrote this "was told recently by a 20-30 something woman that I was "twisted" because I said rectums were not made for sex."

    Now that is not necessarily a fact, but rather is an opinion.

    So now lets ask, is it a fact that during sexual relations other orifices can be used prior to finishing in the vagina? Or is that just an opinion?

    Finally yes our nation was founded on religious liberty (among other freedoms). Another fact.

    Would you say religious liberty also allows us to have no religion, and to not be bound by the rules of others religions?

    ReplyDelete
  96. "Personally I think insurance should be offered by the government "

    Oh, my. Obamacare already is increasing taxes, increasing the nation's debt, and hiding exorbitant costs in tiny print (see: tax payer bailout of insurance companies!) Over 4.5 million Americans have lost their insurance since Obamacare started, I'm sure the numbers are even higher now. It's outrageous. The government cannot even break-even running the Post Office. They are doing even worse with Obamacare. It needs to go. The government cannot run this ship effectively nor prudently.

    "I contend that corporations do not have religious beliefs. "
    The corporation has a right to morally object, because it has to act (like a person has to act). You cannot splice that reality.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "and to not be bound by the rules of others religions?"

    Alan- who is compelling you to their religion? Who's forcing you to believe in Christ? Where do you draw this line of "argument"?

    By working for HL, you'd not be bound to belief in God. You'd merely just need to obtain a certain form of birth control. Huge difference.

    ReplyDelete
  98. * obtain a certain form of birth control on your own, if you wanted it.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Alan- who is compelling you to their religion? Who's forcing you to believe in Christ? Where do you draw this line of "argument"?

    Thank you, Nubby! My not paying for Sandra's birth control does not compel her to partake in the sacraments, nor does it even require her to be less of an anti-Catholic than she already is. ha ha. My not paying for something does nothing to affect anyone's freedom of not being religious. It simply means I won't pay for something. Simple.

    As for orifices.... The mouth is certainly able to be utilized to kiss and enjoy all parts of a lover's body. Kissing and tasting is part of what a mouth is designed to do. But a penis ejaculating sperm (life) into one's anus (death) is disordered on any level of measurement, secular or not. Same with releasing sperm into the other end of the digestive tract. The organ systems do not complete each other.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I have not read all of the comments (but the first few) yet, but I wanted to mention something.

    I am concerned with the assumption that someone who does not agree with the ruling is ragging. While I do not agree, I do not feel anger nor and I going into a rage. I just disagree calmly.

    I know this if of course known, but it seems to be the assumption that we are all hot-headed but us calm people exist as well! Just off to the side, very quietly.

    I say this because I worry at times that the angry are essentially ruining this moment for the rest of us because of course no one wants to listen to someone being angry, so there is no chance to actually discuss it without becoming defensive.

    So...just don't make assumptions :).

    ReplyDelete
  101. Hi Chelsea! I hope it is understood that I did not mean to imply (and certainly did not say) that all who backed the government mandate are hotheaded. Not at all!

    And Alan, this....

    "I was raised catholic, I understand your god."

    I've got to tell you, anytime I hear something prefaced with "I was raised Catholic..." I usually know that the rest of the statement will be inaccurate. I was raised Catholic, too, Alan, and I knew nothing about my faith until I started to actually practice it. I honestly do not believe that you understand the Trinity. If you did, you would not hold the things you do.

    And as far as talking about the slippery slopes of pedophilia and bestiality, etc... remember that slippery slopes don't come by keeping the status quo. They come when things are imposed or enacted incrementally. So, this ruling was not the start of any slippery slope, since it simply confirmed the status quo. Nothing was imposed, nothing changed. Thus, no need to worry that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. Now, if the mandate had been upheld, then there would have been a slippery slope to further restricting religious freedom in this land. Because an imposition would have been made.

    Hope that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I'm jumping in pretty late, but I just wanted to a interesting statement from earlier in the thread that really resonated.

    And I must harken back to the avenging conscience. To assuage the sinful conscience, the person MUST have society agree that the sin is good. Even the slightest reminder of the natural law/moral law must be silenced. It is unacceptable to speak in terms of a moral law regarding human sexuality anymore.

    Even though I often disagree with your beliefs about sexual morality, this really does seem accurate. It's strange that many people feel so very threatened by the mere suggestion that we're doing something immoral, but that is how we are wired. Sometimes we're scared of morality. Even those who wish to present themselves as disinterested third parties in moral matters tend to adopt an all-permissive attitude that is actually very particular moral code in and of itself. In this code (ironically), moral condemnation is the greatest sin, so that a conservative Christian who opposes certain expressions of sexuality is considered hateful by definition. I remember getting pretty uncomfortable when the SPLC added the Family Research Council to the same list of hate groups that also includes the KKK and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Chris, thank you for recognizing that. It's funny because really, the Catholic Church is so very hated for only one reason: Her stance on sexual morality. Not that she has any power to stop any individual from doing whatever he/she wants to do sexually. The only "power" is being that last, lone voice that says "no, that is wrong". And for that alone, she is reviled, hated, and must be silenced. She has no guns, no army, no power to fine, ruin, execute. Just a voice of consistent teaching on the subject, and apparently that must not be tolerated.

    Yep, it's uncomfortable that something like the FRC could be labeled a hate group. It should wake people up. I fear we are all too complacent, like the boiled frog.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I have read through every comment here & I kept seeing things that, were they worded differently, may have been better received/understood. So at the risk of being redundant:
    Status quo: Hobby Lobby employees have access to employer-provided health insurance. They probably have a range of plans to choose from with varying coverage, benefits, etc. None of these plans have ever covered the 4 types of "birth control" believed to abort an already fertilized egg. Any decision to use one of these non-covered devices is enitrely between the employee and her health care provider (and, hopefully, her parents, if she is under 18, although, not necessarily). Hobby Lobby has no right to know whether their employees have used any such form of contraception. They are entirely uninvolved in the decision and execution thereof.
    Government mandate: All employer-provided insurance plans must include coverage of all FDA approved forms of contraception at no cost to the employee or face detrimental fines (these are fines that would actually destroy the business, not fines like they hand out in the NBA or NFL). Hobby Lobby owners don't want to buy these products for their employees, not because they want to restrict their employees access (they already have access to them and are not attempting to change that) - although, in their hearts, I am sure they would prefer their employees not use them - they want to remain 'out of the loop,' so to speak.
    Law Suit: Hobby Lobby files a suit against the mandate, to be able to *retain* the ability to exclude themselves from areas of commerce which they morally oppose.
    Ruling: Maintain status quo - HL doesn't have to buy contraceptives for their employees. Their employees still have jobs (if they want them). They can still use Plan B when they get carried away on the fabric cutting table during the company Christmas party.....
    I think the thing to remember (and I am grateful to the earlier commentors for their perspective & clarity) is that this ruling was not over a suit between HL & employees suing to gain access to some previously inaccessible thing. It was between HL & a heavy-handed government. For all we know, none of HL's employees even care about contraception. HL just cares about not being fined because the gov't thinks everyone should be buying it.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Bri, that is an excellent summary!! Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  106. Nubby, You don't have to agree with my political stances.
    The government needs work. We all agree with that. A republican president will not fix it. It won't be fixed tomorrow, but we agree it needs fixing.

    A corporation is not a person. It has no religious beliefs, regardless of it's owners. I'm splicing no reality.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Nubby and Leila

    Please for once read what I wrote. You aren't doing that at all.

    "and to not be bound by the rules of others religions?"

    Did I say anything about being compelled to believe in christ? Talk about being way off base.

    But it's simple. You keep talking about religious freedom as if it only pertains to those who believe in god or a particular religion. It works and pertains to those that don't as well.

    So I am not saying you are trying to make me a catholic. I'm saying that the laws of the US should not be based on catholic beliefs, or any other religions beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Leila,

    So you admit that the other orifices can indeed be used in sexual encounters as long as the act is finished in the vagina? It's a simple question with a simple answer.
    If the answer is yes than the statement that the rectum cannot be used for sex is illogical.

    But bear in mind I understand the biology. I think most of us above third or fourth grade do.
    That doesn't make it disordered though.

    And sorry Leila, just because you didn't understand something doesn't mean we all don't. You've no idea my understanding of catholicism. None.

    One can understand and still disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  109. I think you are all missing the big picture of what exactly changed, but try as I might I can't get you to see it. Nor do I think you ever will.

    Yes in certain aspects things have not changed. For Hobby Lobby. But this really isn't just about Hobby Lobby now is it, as the ruling applied to all closely held corporations.

    If you think that corporations will not look for more exemptions due to their firmly held religious beliefs (and for HL i've no doubt they are firmly held, but for other corporations they will just be looking to use this as an excuse) then you are deluded.
    It's already started.

    ReplyDelete
  110. FYI Leila I don't hate the catholic church or any religion. Nobody I know does. Disgreeing with them is not hatred. It really isn't.

    You disagree with my marriage but I've never told you that is due to your hatred. Have I?

    ReplyDelete
  111. I had to laugh about a friend's choice to boycott HL after the supreme court decision. She happily shopped there before Monday's ruling...a lot! But now is boycotting and I just find it funny that she is boycotting even though she shopped there on an almost weekly occasion (she is very crafty) when HL offered the 16 types of BC and didn't offer the 4 abortion causing BC...exactly what HL offers and does not offer its employees now! Silly to me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you point this out to her?

      Delete
    2. I should have but it was a Facebook post and I don't dive into those. When it comes up when we are together (and it will because we are planning a baby shower together and I WILL be going to HL for things we'll need) I'll ask her for her reasoning though I don't plan to get far. At least she'll hear it outloud!

      Delete
  112. What does this even mean, as pertains to this whole entire Hobby Lobby decision or thread discussion, alan?

    "I'm saying that the laws of the US should not be based on catholic beliefs, or any other religions beliefs."

    Who in the world draws the conclusion that this decision drives
    1) "new Catholic laws" into the business sector
    2) a new anything?

    The decision merely says, "Buy your own x-type of contraception. I (corporation) am not bound to give it to you. Have a nice day, goodbye."
    Where are you drawing this inference?? It's maddening in the logic of the discourse here.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Well, alan, should a corp ask for an exemption or relief from a certain aspect of a mandate doesn't mean they'd get it, does it?

    Insulting people as deluded would be as insulting as if I said you sound paranoid, wouldn't it? Closely-held corps get relieved of an aspect of the mandate. You see this as a floodgate opening to ... discrimination?

    Would you rather corporations don't act, alan? Or maybe you'd rather they be punished for acting? You'd rather bundle every corporation to the same rules (which would never in a million years work- think multi-industrial and conglomerate size vs closely held- HUGE difference), and you'd expect none of them to ever legally contest or object to anything in a mandate? How exactly would free enterprise and free society work then, alan? Again. A corporation has a right to morally object because it acts, in the nature of its enterprise, as humans act. Correct?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Alan:

    You are right there is potential for abuse when using the religious exemption. But to be fair, there is a potential for abuse for almost every law on the books from tax laws to employment laws.

    I think part of the reason it isn't as big of a concern to use is we believe in a higher justice. We cannot know people's hearts in many cases. For example, I have a sister-in-law who is causing a lot strife in the family. She claims she's just a lost soul trying to do her best. Is she really or is she someone who is moving pieces around the chessboard for her own ends? We don't know and we may never know. So we trust in God's justice. I know that's unsatisfying to you but the law can't really provide the justice you are seeking.

    The law understands people will manipulate the system for their own ends and tries to prevent it. But it can never catch everyone. So it has to balance the need to prevent abuse with the need to allow citizens the freedom to make choices about their own lives.

    I am curious, what are our laws suppose to be based on? Most people would say morality. For Catholics (well for everyone, but for the sake of not having that argument lets limit it to Catholics) morality comes from God. So why shouldn't our laws be based in Catholicism?

    Now, I agree you shouldn't be forced to attend Mass, pray, or say you believe in Christ when you don't. But why can't our laws affirm the believe life begins at conception and to natural death? Just because a religion is attached to the idea doesn't make it wrong.

    I understand not everyone agrees with that but not everyone agrees murder is wrong in every case. So who gets to decide when something is self-defense, justified homicide, or just a termination of a clump of cells? Why is it so wrong for us to advocate for the protection of unborn life through our laws but it is right for you to advocate for same-sex marriage laws?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Every single law on the books (in every society) is someone's values "imposed" on others (secular values imposed on the religious, or "religious" values imposed on the secular, etc.). And the funny thing in this case is that nothing was imposed at all. That is why this is so ludicrous, as C pointed out. Nothing happened. Status quo affirmed. Life continues exactly as before the mandate for Hobby Lobby, when no one ever even thought that there was "denial of access" to anything at any time. It was not even a thought on anyone's mind until the left tried to score political points by trumping up a "war on women" that doesn't exist and never did. Shameful.

    ReplyDelete
  116. "And the funny thing in this case is that nothing was imposed at all."
    Ex.Act.Ly.

    And to be blunt, Alan is confused with the difference between a removal of a restriction vs. a positive law implemented.

    The HL decision removed a restriction of a mandate to allow freedom for that closely held corporation.

    Freedom, Alan. That's a good thing. Right? The Court was not compelled to find a reason to restrict, so it removed that aspect. Well played. And just.

    You are apparently imagining it to be - a "positive law"- which you are referencing when you bring up this extrapolation of laws regarding polygamy and the rest of it.

    You're talking about laws that impose, not a removal of an unjust restriction!

    ReplyDelete
  117. Alan, I have said (I think) that I don't consider you hateful (I hope you would be against putting florists out of business, fined, in jail, etc.) and I am glad you don't consider me hateful! :)

    ReplyDelete
  118. "If you think that corporations will not look for more exemptions due to their firmly held religious beliefs (and for HL i've no doubt they are firmly held, but for other corporations they will just be looking to use this as an excuse) then you are deluded.
    It's already started."

    Where and who? And on what subjects? Just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  119. It's about removing portions or aspects of the mandate which will allow greater freedom of choice for that corp. Has nothing to do with adding restrictions or eliminating choices.

    ReplyDelete
  120. ah Nubby, I think soon we shall be done, especially in light of your saying I am confused.

    But lets stop and look at one thing. The contraception mandate has not been removed. Certain corporations have been given an exemption.

    Again, the contraception mandate has not been removed. The contraception mandate has not been removed. Certain corporations have been given an exemption.

    These exemptions are based on firmly held religious beliefs of the owners of the corporation.

    Please don't minimalize this. Leila called this a small victory for religious freedom. So the ruling is much bigger than you are claiming. Not all corporations had the contraception mandate removed.

    Hopefully you and the others will finally see that this is not merely about contraception.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Kat,
    Are you ok with basing our laws on the Muslim religion?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Leila are you ok with companies not hiring someone because they are openly homosexual?
    Religious leaders are already asking for an exemption to the governments proposal of a LBGTQ protections.

    ReplyDelete
  123. "But lets stop and look at one thing. The contraception mandate has not been removed."

    Oh my gourd, whatareyoutalkingabout? The corp has been relieved of providing certain forms of contraceptives, Alan. When have I ever said otherwise?

    "These exemptions are based on firmly held religious beliefs of the owners of the corporation. " And it's still not a positive law! That you are claiming the HL decision suddenly has opened the gate for this enormous power to steamroll everyone and suddenly discriminate based on religious reasons is not even brushing reality! It's about a removal of a portion of a mandate , Alan. A mandate that was given by a committee, not a LAW. See?

    "Hopefully you and the others will finally see that this is not merely about contraception."

    NO KIDDING it's not "merely about contraception", Alan! It's been about justice. It's about removing that which never should never have been mandated to begin with. It's been about not forcing me (or any corp) to fund anyone's sex life "control".

    Neither is it about implementing possible future laws against gay workers, either. It's not about "birth control as medicine", either. It's not about "religious laws" being shoved on anyone, either.

    You still would rather see corporations, of any size or shape or infrastructure, be DISALLOWED from taking any legal action against any kind of mandate. That's not freedom. That's just bizarre logic to me.

    No recourse for closely held companies? No legal contest for something that is unjust within certain defined parameters? Bizarre.

    I'd be curious to see a real-time model function with your algorithm of, "all corps are to have the exact. same. laws. and may never contest a govt mandate under any circumstances", to see how that disaster unfolds. Yeech.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Nubby,
    Stop
    Look
    Read
    Comprehend.

    1. ruling did not remove the contraception mandate FOR ALL. So the contraception mandate has not been removed. Rather an exemption based on firmly held religious beliefs has been added.
    Again the contraception mandate is still part of Obamacare. It has not been removed, except in exemptions for firmly held religious beliefs. Do you not see that?
    It has not been removed for just Hobby Lobby. It has not been removed from Obamacare. An exemption for closely held corporations due to firmly held religious beliefs is now offered.

    Should you not understand this then I a. suggest that perhaps it is you that is why you are out of your gourd

    "You still would rather see corporations, of any size or shape or infrastructure, be DISALLOWED from taking any legal action against any kind of mandate. That's not freedom. That's just bizarre logic to me."

    can you point out where I said this?

    I fear we have again reached our end. Putting periods after each word is tremendously convincing.
    You think different corporation's should be held to different standards? Based on what? Should some be allowed to pollute? Discriminate?

    All companies should have to follow the laws of the land. Or mandates, or whatever you want to throw at me. Yes there will be differences based on type of corporation, location, business etc. But laws, yup they should all have to follow the laws, mandates etc.

    Should we be done?

    ReplyDelete
  125. "So the contraception mandate has not been removed. Rather an exemption based on firmly held religious beliefs has been added."

    1) Lol Question: How does one "add" an exemption? That's a negative. Not an addition. No NEW LAW HAS BEEN CREATED OR IMPLEMENTED.
    Gee, and how else do I validate to you that it is not *me* lacking comprehension skills here.

    2) Do I think corp's should be allowed to pollute and discriminate? Is "wtf" an appropriate acronym to insert here? Are you being for real, or just bored?

    3) Scroll up for the answer to your, "can you point where I said this". You said it way early on and you continued to suggest it. Why have you suddenly blanked out that you said it?

    4) Corporate law does hold varying standards, that's reality. So says the recent HL decision. Where's your disconnect?

    Nevermind. Check, please! Gotta go...

    ReplyDelete
  126. Since an example seems necessary, Alan:
    If my bank account has $1,000 and I begin to withdraw $200, but then change my mind, that's not adding anything. That's not "adding" any new amount to that account.

    This is analogous to the Sup Crt decision in the HL case.

    And if you think all corp's should be held to the exact "same rules", then be consistent in your logic and apply that same rule to individuals. The rich and the poor. Think on that.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Nubby, try this. 2oz clear tequila over a 3/4 full cup of ice (cubed not crushed). Add 2oz fresh squeezed grapefruit juice, 1 oz blood orange juice, squeeze of lime, small splash of grenadine. Repeat. Repeat again. Continue repeating until you feel the need for a government mandate to force your employer to provide free citrus as part of your mental health care. I'll be starting my campaign soon. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahahahaha! "Where's my drink, Uncle Sam?!" Booze on Thursdays, and beer every other M, W, F. Pay up, Mr. Corp.

      LOL Perfect! Where u been, brotha? ;)

      Delete
    2. My spell check finally gave up in protest of being overworked. Just jammed with life stuff. My wife actually pointed at our picture of the Sacred Heart and said " Peace, Don't be anxious, Hope and Love..... easy for you to say not having kids"
      and hey next time you're at that Christian book store ask for some suggestions on "Church Fathers". That's always a riot. When you finally leave in frustration ask if they know where you can buy a live chicken. Just to keep them thinking.
      Always watching the bubble!

      Delete
    3. hahahahahaha live chicken ... I'm so using that! And I'll add, asking with a blank faced, "What? No saint statues for sale to worship? Dang it all. Well, then can you point me to your nearest book on excessive, repetitious prayer?"

      I totally get your wife on that! I hear dat! lolz
      And that drink recipe sounds awesome ... I'm doing that...starting ...now?

      Delete
  128. I love the Nubby/Chris duo! Don't stay away, Chris! You two are comic relief in the comment box, ha ha.

    Alan, not every Catholic agrees, but my belief is that anal penetration by a penis is immoral (and certainly incredibly unhealthy and imprudent) whether by gay men or heterosexuals. But even if allowed (and that is very debatable), it is not the receptacle for sperm, and would only be a type of foreplay preceding consummation. There is no physical way for two men to consummate with each other. There is no conjugal union at all. It's all mutual masturbation and imitation. Remember, this is not only seen as disordered in Catholicism. There is no "gay marriage" in atheistic regimes for a reason (at the key word there is "reason"). We can know that certain acts are disordered through the light of human reason. Just because we strongly feel an inclination to do something (even if we feel it comes naturally) doesn't make it right. I hope we can at least agree on that basic principle. Feelings don't determine what is right.

    As for your knowing Catholicism, I'll let that one lie. The next time you misunderstand or misrepresent the Faith, I hope you will be willing to stand corrected. If you represent the Faith accurately, then I will concede that you are learned in doctrine, theology, morals, practice, etc.

    As for denying employment to a person who is attracted to the same sex? Never! I would never condone that. Now, should a Catholic school or a religious family who owns a business be forced to hire people who are acting in ways that contradict the Church's or business's mission or beliefs? No of course not. For example, if a teacher wants to teach at a Catholic school but is openly having an affair, or openly volunteering at Planned Parenthood, or openly fornicating, or openly living a gay lifestyle, or does drugs on the weekends, or get drunks with his teens, etc., then no.... those folks don't agree with the mission of the school and would have no place working there as a teacher (whose job is to promote and uphold the mission of the Church/school). I hope that makes sense.

    I would never agree with unjust discrimination against a person, but I would certainly be able to discriminate (justly) in hiring if someone's actions or lifestyle go against the mission of the company/entity. You agree with people having that kind of freedom in running their own businesses and organizations, correct?

    Speaking of freedom (which gets more tenuous every day it seems), I hope we all have a wonderful Fourth of July and remember what this nation was founded upon!!

    I love what John Adams had to say:

    "I am apt to believe that it [Independence Day] will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."

    Emphasis mine. God bless America!

    ReplyDelete
  129. Nubby, are you done or not? Inquiring minds want to know.
    Glad things are so simple for you.
    Sorry you fail to understand what I am saying.
    I'm done with you.....sorry you are just too tiring
    Have a good 4th and please don't take my ignoring you in the future to be offensive, but you just don't seem to read what I write.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Leila, clearly as you are in favor of discriminating against folks merely due to their sexuality ( sorry but it's completely irrelevant what ones sexuality is when selling hobby items, regardless of the owners religious belief) then you cannot be offended when I could care less if a baker loses their business because they refuse to sell a cake for a homosexual wedding.
    Sorry but on this you simply don't get to have it both ways.
    And for the love of Pete don't call this freedom.....it's anything but.

    And yes if I sit here and talk to you about church doctrine you can correct me, but I don't think I have ever done that.

    Freedom is not just for the religious........

    Have a great 4th

    ReplyDelete
  131. so Leila, as a gay business owner should I be allowed to fire a catholic?

    ReplyDelete
  132. That's swell of you to assume Leila is discriminating when she clearly designated that she is *not*.

    "Reverse bigotry" or reverse discrimination, that is what you hold, Alan. You ask if Leila is against hiring gay workers. You realize it's discrimination to hire someone strictly on that one variable alone, right?

    You have this bizarre reverse idea, Alan. You won't shop at HL strictly b/c they are religious, and you hammer they shouldn't have any rights to run their business with certain exemptions... based on ...? Your own bigotry? Wouldn't you be upset if someone swapped out that descriptor for another?

    You want to strip away ethics in the narrowest of examples, ie.,a Catholic school and who they hire. Makes no sense.

    Alan, you confuse equal opportunity to being the same as equal distribution. Everyone has equal opportunity in the broadest sense. When you start up the road of a particular ethical standard of a company or corp, you want to demand they they either (1) be forced to change their basic ethics or (2) you perhaps want them punished for not changing. Makes no sense. It's not freedom at all.

    You are using one variable (sexuality) that you shouldn't to define a person worthy of holding a job. You make it sound like being gay automatically means they are entitled to getting the job. And *that's* not discrimination, Alan? You really want an employer to hire you solely based on your sexual inclinations and not your job skills? You want that to be the driving force for getting people on a payroll??
    That's discrimination! You'd have to apply that to everyone, then, too!

    Women have fought against that biase forever and a day- to be recognized for our brains and to enter into male dominated workforce capacities, not b/c we look good in that outfit that hugs the curves.
    And you want to undo all that??! NO THANK YOU, Alan. I don't want to be hired based on my sexuality or my gender.

    ReplyDelete
  133. "so Leila, as a gay business owner should I be allowed to fire a catholic?"

    You gotta stop with the broad stroke examples here, and stop with applying some liberal bundled standards to each corp, to each ethical standard of a company, Alan. It doesn't work that way. In reality, there are freedoms. There are standards that vary.

    If he's a louse on the job and doesn't deliver on his roles and respobsibilites, that's when you let him go.

    If you fire him because he is Catholic when he is not working in a narrowly defined institution that require him to uphold strict UNCatholic ethics, that's a completely diff. reason and example. Where is the disconnect, Alan?

    ReplyDelete
  134. responsibilities - correct typos at will

    ReplyDelete
  135. Great discussion as always! Chris Sawaya, you always crack me up and I gotta try that drink recipe sometime soon!

    I just wanted to get clarification on one thing. Alan, if (somehow) the Christian/Catholic faith were to approve of homosexuality, then would you support Christian/Catholic-run businesses? From your comments, it doesn't seem like you're anti-Christian/Catholic, but that you boycott businesses that do not support homosexuality or contraceptives. So, it's not the religion that you are against, but that you want us to approve of your homosexuality.

    Also, Alan, please reread Leila's comment. She is NOT saying that employers should discriminate based on sexuality. She clearly stated that!! I would never agree with unjust discrimination against a person, but I would certainly be able to discriminate (justly) in hiring if someone's actions or lifestyle go against the mission of the company/entity.

    And HL still provides plenty of contraceptives through their health insurance, so even I have some personal qualms about shopping there myself. Yes, I am glad that they won their case, but as a Christian company, they should not provide any contraception. Briefly, Christ teaches that contraception is wrong because He wants us to trust Him and be open to new life every time we engage in sexual intercourse, thus no need for contraception. As I have said endless times, it is possible to abstain from sex, even for periods of time within marriage. I personally would appreciate a husband who can express his love for me in ways other than sexually.

    Sorry for such a long, rambly comment! I hope it made sense, at least! Have a wonderful, blessed 4th of July everyone! God bless the USA!

    ReplyDelete
  136. Margo,
    Yes, if Christian business approved of homosexuality I would shop there.
    It seems that you might understand my position on this (not agree with, but understand) so I appreciate that. I could not give my money to a company that I think might be working against my marriage. Just can't do it.

    "I would never agree with unjust discrimination against a person, but I would certainly be able to discriminate (justly) in hiring if someone's actions or lifestyle go against the mission of the company/entity."

    Sorry, however as soon as she added the but we went downhill. Because if you do not hire someone based on their sexuality alone, because it goes against the mission of the company/business then that IS discrimination. And if you can fire them for that reason it's discrimination. Hobby Lobby sells craft items from what I understand, so why on earth would they fire someone for being gay.....or not hire them for that.

    And you are correct, people can go a long time without sex. But you seem to be thinking that my marriage is only about sex. Do you honestly think the only way my husband and I express our love for each other is sexually?
    If you were to look at my marriage and that of any of your friends you probably would not see much of a difference beyond the fact that both my husband and I are men. If our relationship was only about sex then it would indeed be sad. But I can assure you it's not.

    Have a happy 4th, horrible weather here today but looking like if we escape any major damage it will be a gorgeous weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Alan, sorry, but where is Hobby Lobby even hinting that they would fire someone for being gay?

    Should a Catholic school be allowed to fire an openly gay teacher who disregards Church teaching and the mission of the school itself? Must a vegan institution hire the head of a slaughterhouse to do their work?

    Assuming you run a business where "gay-friendly" were part of your mission and aim, then of course I would not care one whit if you did not hire devout Catholics like me. Obviously. Why wouldn't I want you to have that freedom? This is America, and we love (or used to love) freedom.

    Blessings on this day!

    ReplyDelete
  138. Leila said in her post on 7/4 at 12:14am, in her paragraph starting, "As for denying employment..." largely what I said on another blog. Actions count, in terms of firing. I used to work for a major industry whose product I received for free, regularly. It was a product I wouldn't pay for if I didn't work in that industry. I no longer work in that industry and I don't buy that product. I think I have encouraged others to drop that product. Now, if my employers then heard that I thought their product was a ripoff and I wouldn't buy it, guess what? They'd have a right to fire me. I'd be hurting the mission/purpose of their business, particularly badly as someone on the inside.

    I'll admit, some Catholics would disagree with me here, but I would support hiring a homosexual in a Catholic school as long as s/he upheld Church doctrine and such was made clear in an employment contract. In fact, children NEED examples of homosexual Catholics leading chaste lifestyles according to the Church doctrine. (In fact, I said as much on a priest's blog, one read by faithful, and often traditional, Catholics.) In fact, children NEED examples of straight Catholics leading chaste lifestyles, according to Church doctrine. So the homosexual who publicly condones gay "marriage" or anything else that counters Church teaching (related or unrelated to sexuality) and the straight man/woman who are cohabiting or otherwise condoning anything that counters Church teaching, should lose their jobs because their behavior goes against the mission of the Catholic school to promote Catholic teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  139. GFNY's reference to chastity sparked my curiosity.

    In Alan's game of hypothetical, "Would you hire/Would you fire" scenarios, this sprang to mind:

    Would Alan hire a gay, chaste, devout Catholic man to work for him?
    Would he be hired expressly because he's gay (even though chaste)?
    Or would he never consider this man for the job, because of his repugnant Catholicism, despite his being gay?

    If hired, and it came to light that he was a chaste Catholic gay man, would he be fired expressly b/c of his Catholicism? Or kept on payroll, because he's gay? Quite a conundrum.

    This is why we don't hire or fire people based on their person. We hire or fire based on their skill and fitfulness toward the capacity of the job. This is the point that seems to constantly whiz by Alan in these discussions. To do otherwise would be quite a lawsuit.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Yes Girl from NY, you would deserve to be fired for bad mouthing the product of the company you work for. That is not a fair analogy to simply being gay.
    I've not got a problem with a church or religion school not hiring openly gay people.
    I have a problem if a company such as hobby lobby did not. I'd have a problem with that being legal (and currently I believe it is legal to fire someone just for being gay in several states) though.

    Peruse this article if you would, see they are asking that government contractor's be allowed to not hire gays etc. How many religious businesses (any by that I don't mean businesses owned by religious people, but rather business that are religious in nature) would actually be government contractors?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/religious-leaders-want-exemption-hiring-lgbt-peopl/

    And children NEED examples of happy contented openly gay homosexuals who are not chaste. Children NEED examples of happily married homosexuals, those with and without families.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Will somebody please explain the term "exempted" to Alan? And explain how that doesn't mean a new law has been created?
    Please. Anyone.

    And please explain that if he was told that he must hire orthodox straight Catholics and he didn't want to, that he could be asked to be relieved of that.

    And explain how that would be completely within his right to ask for, even though he may not be granted that? Please explain that to ask for something does not mean getting it.

    And ask Alan if he noticed the part in the article about an "executive order" from the president's staff. See how they didn't go through with it b/c they are quoted as seeing how it would hinder the common good and undermine religious freedom? See that bit part, there- that's pretty important.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Nubby, oh Nubby
    seems I got your panties in a bunch. Thanks, that makes me happy.
    You comprehension skills don't.
    This will be my last response to you of any kind. You are far too rude and raging for my tastes.
    Later gator.

    that is all.

    ReplyDelete
  143. "Panties in a bunch"? lol um no. I'm on my 2nd beer, poolside.
    You don't see the legal danger in trespassing against freedoms? And you keep ignoring valid points. Why, no idea.

    Can you remember back to the big stink at U of M and AA enrollment based on race? What is your opinion on that, Alan? Should I be admitted to U of M based on my academic achievements or based on a different aspect of my person?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Alan, my analogy did not include, "simply for being gay." No one should be hired or fired, "simply for being gay." Homosexuality is an aspect, not an action. Actions count. Actions are choices. If actions go against the purpose and mission of a business (not the personal whims of the employers), then yes, hiring and firing can be legitimately discriminatory. I support HL (or any other employer) offering whatever benefit it wishes to offer (or not offer) its employees, but as an arts and crafts business, IMO, it has no viable reason not to hire, and fire, homosexuals simply for their sexuality. Same for government contractors. I did cut and paste the link you supplied, but the article was gone. Strange, after only two days.

    "Simply being gay" does not demand that you co-habitate with or "marry" anyone, any more than my "simply being straight" demands that I have sex or get pregnant out of wedlock, have an abortion, and talk about abortion being a great choice. We don't have to do those things. If we lead/promote such choices that conflict with our employers' missions, yes, our employers have the right to fire us. We also can look for other employment where our lifestyle choices won't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  145. "And children NEED examples of happy contented openly gay homosexuals who are not chaste. Children NEED examples of happily married homosexuals, those with and without families."

    Oh my goodness, no. When I read those words, it's as if you had said, "Children NEED examples of happy, contented adulterous couples." Or, "Children NEED examples of happy, contented cohabitating couples."

    No, what children need is to have A MARRIED MOTHER AND A FATHER. They need to see happily married mother and fathers, and stable marriages between husbands and their wives. If the nations children are craving, needing one thing, it is this. Lord, please forgive us for not providing those examples for our children.

    And just for the record.... If I were to hire a doctor to do heart surgery, I'd hire the best cardiologist, wether gay or straight or whether he/she is an adulterer, or a fornicator, or a cheating, lying jerk. I want competence in my surgeon, my auto mechanic, my attorney, etc. I would not hesitate to hire an openly gay, competent worker. However, when the hire has something to with fulfilling a mission, I must have the FREEDOM to hire those who can help me fulfill my mission and my business or schools' mission. It really depends on what the situation is, Alan. And I have the right to have that freedom. You have that right as well. I would never require a vegan to hire a meat-advocate to run his shop, and and I would never require a gay man to hire a devout Catholic to run his LGBT organization, etc.

    That's just for the record.

    GFNY and Nubby, thanks for the great points. I always keep the lurkers in mind, so nice thanks for making the case so clearly.

    I hope you all had a great Fourth! God bless America.

    ReplyDelete
  146. I'm guessing the rage debate has gone wayside but I thought I would quickly throw this in: I think the word "rage" has been so loosely used by society that people honestly don't know what it means anymore. The type of rage you describe, Leila, is what I have been taught in school and life of what it means. I hardly ever use the word rage when describing a situation in case someone should misunderstand me. The type of rage Alan describes sounds the same as "road rage". I know when that term first came about, it was talking about people who would chase someone down the road or confront someone head-on. But I also hear it used simply when someone yells at someone in traffic. Or if someone gives someone else the finger. To me, that is not true rage. It is rude but to me it is simply anger, which is a normal every day emotion. To me, rage is so much more.

    Not everyone jumps straight into rage. I know that the topics that are discussed are sensitive topics and so I can understand why Alan might feel there is a subtle rage behind our comments. I have never seen rage behind anyone's comment--including Alan's. I have "seen" annoyance, impatience, and even some cockiness on both sides but never rage.

    I did look up what rage vs anger is and found a good article explaining the difference. Here is an excerpt:

    "It can also be seen that anger is considered to be healthy, whereas rage is not considered healthy. This means that a person who is angry will have the power to control the emotions. But a person having rage has no control of their emotions and it could be sometimes destructive.

    1.Anger is a feeling or emotion that a person has when being offended or when wronged. Rage can be considered to be an action in retaliation to the anger that a person has.
    2.Rage is an extreme expression of anger.
    3.In anger, there is no bloodshed but rage could lead to blood shed.
    4.Anger is considered to be healthy whereas rage is not considered healthy.
    5.A person who is angry will have the power to control the emotions. But a person having rage has no control of the emotions and it could be sometimes destructive.
    6.Unlike anger, rage is a complete blackout of the thoughts.
    7.Unlike anger, rage is an intricate mix of fear, desperation anger and panic."

    I have seen the type of rage that Leila talks about, though it has never been directed at me. When I see that sort of rage in the comments, I do NOT want to contribute in any way. I instantly feel afraid. The depth of rage I have seen from the left is the only time I have seen it there. I have seen anger among Christians and Catholics, I have heard unnecessariy comments used with sarcasm; I have seen hurt. I sometimes feel embarrassed that a person who is a Christian/Catholic acts in that way because it doesn't help the situation, only hinders. But never have I seen a Christian or Catholic unleash fury on someone the way the left does--and though I don't comment, I have read enough comboxes to see the difference.

    Again, not every person on the left reacts this way and no one here was trying to say that. No matter how hot the subject, both sides need to stay respectful in order to stay focused. Otherwise, they should leave the conversation to cool off.

    The link to the anger vs rage comment is here. http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-anger-and-rage/


    ReplyDelete
  147. Girl from NY,
    I think you seem to be understanding what I am saying. Thanks for that if you are, I don't get that much here.

    I'll leave it at that with us.
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  148. Leila, goodness yes, children need the examples of what I wrote.
    You respond with this:
    "Oh my goodness, no. When I read those words, it's as if you had said, "Children NEED examples of happy, contented adulterous couples." Or, "Children NEED examples of happy, contented cohabitating couples."

    Not the same. Not the same at all.

    To me you saying this is akin to me saying catholics and the westboro baptist church are exactly the same. Think about it. Don't react but rather actually think about it.

    off tho enjoy this beautiful day as yesterday was a washout. And thanks for including me on your comment about making great points.....oh wait.....never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Becky, look around enough and you'll see lots and lots of rage from the religious. Especially on the topic of homosexuality.
    If you think countries wanting to kill folks for being, or acting on their homosexuality isn't rage then I truly wonder what your definition is. And it's done in the name of god.

    You are right though, the rage, even the anger gets us nowhere. What would get us somewhere is if people really listened.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Honestly, those people who label themselves as Christian and even Catholic, to me, aren't truly Christian or Catholic. For instance, I used to be friends with some zealous pro-lifers who were constantly put in jail. The reason they were in jail? For surrounding an abortionists home and threatening to set it on fire. I was 16 at the time and didn't really understand fully what they were doing was wrong. Eventually, I did get it all figured out--how they were protesting unfortunately went way over the lines and I stopped any communication with them. It disappointed me that this is how they chose to protest. If these are the types of people you're talking about, I agree, they are out there.

    My main point was about the difference between anger and rage. I agree that anyone is susceptible to it if they let themselves get out of hand. It's fruitless when it gets to this degree and does a disservice to the subject you're defending.

    But again, anyone that truly is following the example of Christ would be incapable to fall into rage. I know on this point we may disagree but it's where I will stop and agree to disagree. :-) I hope you have a good day, Alan!

    ReplyDelete
  151. Becky, yes!! Thank you!! I have rarely if ever detected any rage from either side on this blog in over four years. Anger, rudeness, yes. But rage? No. However, I have seen and been the recipient of rage on other sites and on Facebook, and it is frightening. It is an "unleashed fury" that stems from darker places, and from the avenging conscience. It is what we have seen in the response to this Court decision which kept the status quo. Rage and unleashed fury.

    Alan, no, you don't understanding Catholicism well at all if you say that there is a difference between happy fornicators and happy adulterers and happy gay couples. all sexual immorality, all the misuse of human sexuality, is something we would NOT want modeled for our children, and the last thing they would "need" is for sexual immorality to be seen as a positive good. So, I stand by my statement. There are different types of sexual sin, but none of it is something that children "need" to see, even if the adults involved are happy. I hope you understand my point.

    God bless!

    ReplyDelete
  152. And Alan, you are a nice person, but why would I say that you made good points when I don't think you did make good points? If I thought you made good points, I wouldn't rebut them, correct?

    Anyway, I do hope you have a nice day since yesterday was a washout. Take care and enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  153. Becky,
    I agree with you about true Christians. Unfortunately much is said and done in the name of god (and Christianity) that is truly ungodly. So fear not, we agree on that.

    Leila,
    I understand that Catholicism see's them all as sins. As stated before I can understand without agreeing.

    As for me not making good points, I'll ask this question directly and hope for a short, direct answer.
    Should companies such as Hobby Lobby be able to fire an employee (and for the sake of arguments lets say it's an exemplary employee, shows up early, good worker, knows the business and does their job really well) simply because they are openly homosexual (and by openly homosexual lets say living what you like to call a homosexual lifestyle (which like raging true Christians doesn't exist) ?

    If you agree with me that they should not then I might expect some concessions on the I don't make good points front.

    Off to a party soon.....have a beautiful rest of the day.

    ReplyDelete
  154. "But again, anyone that truly is following the example of Christ would be incapable to fall into rage."

    Just an off-point:
    I respectfully disagree with the broadness of this statement.

    Christ-lovers and Christ-followers who have had a loved one ripped violently away from their life know rage. Christ-followers who've experienced massive trauma know rage. It's a rage against an injustice, but rage all the same. Believers rage at God, Himself, even, in the midst of deep emotional pain. It doesn't equate directly that these people aren't true followers.

    The litmus test for that is- do they keep trying to the best of their ability, no matter their natural temperament or propensity toward the sin of anger is?
    I suppose it was the broadness of the comment that doesn't sit accurately with me. I think what you meant was that Christians don't walk around looking for something or someone to rage at.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Yes, Nubby, you state it better than I did, thank you for clarifying!

    ReplyDelete
  156. If Alan is still around, I'd be interested in his take on this situation:

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/chase-bank-corporations-coerce-bully-christians

    Alan, don't you find question number 4 strange? What about gay people who prefer to keep their sexual orientation private? Do they then feel that they are not a member of the LGBT community? Or do they lie on the survey to protect their own privacy?

    Do you realize how threatening question number 5 is to Christians, and do you not see how strange it is that those last two questions would be anywhere near the concern of almost all employers? Why do we constantly have to be surrounded with this question? What if I am a VP at Chase and I am known to help promote any employee who does excellent work for Chase, with no concern whatsoever for the persons's sexual activity or religious beliefs? What if I as a VP am also a practicing Catholic, with animosity toward no one, who does not wish to "ally" with the LGBT community? If I myself am an excellent employee, why should I have to be subject to such a question, one whose truthful answer could seriously jeopardize my career? Why should my career have to suffer? And really, Alan, as a person who is not a member of the LGBT community, I would still want to write "none of your business" as the answer to number 4! Because it is none of their business and is a completely inappropriate workplace question.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Sharon, brilliant questions. And wow, talk about having all the power. I believe the LGBT advocates have the Fortune 500 companies (and the courts and the executive branch) by the... well, you know. And they are all very happy to silence Christians and Catholics (and even gay people who are NOT in favor of "gay marriage").

    Chase's "Just Be You", is not inclusive. It doesn't mean you. It doesn't mean me. If you are a Christian who believes what everyone believed just a few years ago about the truth of marriage? Well, they don't mean "you". You cannot "just be you". Crazy times we live in, no?

    ReplyDelete
  158. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/07/no-jpmorgan-chase-doesnt-have-an-lgbt-loyalty-t/199992

    which to believe?

    ReplyDelete
  159. From your link, Alan:

    "...there isn't a shred of evidence that Chase is using the internal survey for anything other than basic data collection"

    Basic data collection? What would that last question (#5) be collecting data about? What might be the reason? I'm interested.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Leila the company strives to be lgbqt inclusive. It might benefit them to know that if is a core value that it's employees share.

    Just a thought.

    That's if these questions were actually in the questionnaire.

    Can you explain how this question would single people out based on religion?

    ReplyDelete
  161. Interesting… I expected the article you linked to to have a denial from Chase, but it doesn't. It seems that Chase's only response, according to "right wing" sources, is that they don't discuss employee surveys outside of the company, but if the story about these survey questions is fake, I would think Chase could just say, "We don't ask employees about their sexual orientation." It would be simple enough to say. I find it interesting that Media Matters expresses no problem with the questions themselves, just with the source of the story.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Sharon, if the questionnaire didn't ask the questions there is no need to deny it or to even respond to it.

    If it did contain the questions then it was for their own purposes. Who are we to question? It's the companies business isn't it?

    Fyi I say that because I've been told that companies should have the right to run themselves however they see fit.

    ReplyDelete
  163. and I've a question that I would adore if Margo would answer if she is still lurking.

    You like to come and say that a person can live without sex. I think I've asked similar response questions to you many times with no answer. So if you would answer the following questions that would be outstanding. If not then ok as wel
    When you marry I assume you and your husband will be sexually active? If so why? Just for children or to physically show your love?

    You seem to be thinking that my marriage is only about sex (as you stated that "personally would appreciate a husband who can express his love for me in ways other than sexually.")

    Do you honestly think the only way my husband and I express our love for each other is sexually?

    ReplyDelete
  164. Alan, why would it benefit the company to ask if people are "allies" of LGBT? And, where does that leave Catholics? What would be the ultimate purpose of asking? To re-educate those who are believing Christians?

    And I will let Margo answer, but my goodness, this is where I get frustrated. We have answered the question soooooooooooo many times. No, marriage is not "only about sex". Let me repeat, so that it's super clear: Marriage is not only about sex. But sex is only for marriage. Marriage and sex and children are intrinsically linked. Sex is the difference between a marriage and a friendship. Without sex, there is only friendship. Sex has its proper context within marriage (because sex is ordered toward the procreation of children; this is biology). Things work best, and people and societies flourish, when we have this in right order.

    The thing about gay relationships is that there can be no sexual consummation. There is no way to consummate a marriage with only male genitals in play. Same with two women. It cannot physically happen. All there is is mutual masturbation and imitation. Without a consummation, a conjugal union, there cannot be marriage.

    So, 1) no, marriage is not only about sex
    and 2) two members of the same sex cannot consummate a marriage or have a conjugal union.

    Two different subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Leila, If you want to know why a company would ask those questions you would have to ask the company.

    "So, 1) no, marriage is not only about sex" True, or it should be anyway.

    "and 2) two members of the same sex cannot consummate a marriage or have a conjugal union." Not true. Consummation is not required for a marriage to be legal. Yes you can get an annulment due to it, however if two persons choose to marry and never have sex it is still a marriage.

    So again, the question to you and Margo is.....do you think the only way we show love in our marriage is by sexual interactions? It's simply a yes or no answer.

    Two different subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Ok, Alan, then what if a Christian company whose owner is known to support traditional marriage sent around such a survey? Any problem answering it? Wouldn't you think it was incredibly none of their business, and would you not feel threatened by such questions? Gosh, even in the case of Hobby Lobby it is not as if they have asked their employees how they feel about ANY kind of birth control!

    It is unfortunate that Chase is avoiding answering the question regarding their survey. It certainly would be better if they did. I don't know anyone who works for Chase or I would ask them myself.

    But theoretically, Alan, what do you think of those questions? Appropriate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (adding as a reply because I can't edit!) You said, without seriousness, that companies should be able to do whatever they want. Do you see the difference though? Hobby Lobby has not done anything like this to their employees, asking questions that a reasonable person could find concerning regarding their own career. In contrast, the Justice Department has stated that silence regarding LGBT issues "will be interpreted as disapproval." How about silence being interpreted as wanting to do your job?

      Delete
  167. "do you think the only way we show love in our marriage is by sexual interactions?"

    I'm saying that there is no marriage if conjugal union is impossible. Gay "marriage" is ontologically impossible. I know we have talked about this a hundred times before. There are many ways that two men can show deep love for each other, true. But because two men are not able to consummate (blame nature itself), then they are not able to be in a marital union, by default. We can call it marriage (just as we can call a dog a cat), but that will not make it so, no matter how many are convinced they should believe it. It is wonderful for two men to have a deep friendship, but they cannot, by the very fact of nature, have a marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  168. "Leila, If you want to know why a company would ask those questions you would have to ask the company."

    I'm asking you to speculate.

    ReplyDelete
  169. I'm saying that there is no marriage if conjugal union is impossible. Gay "marriage" is ontologically impossible. I know we have talked about this a hundred times before

    Hi Leila
    It's true that we've talked about this a hundred times before but there are questions I keep asking that you never seem to answer. I'll try again:

    You say that ss couples can't be married because they can't have conjugal union. However, they can get a marriage license. My sister and her partner have a piece of paper that says "Certificate of Marriage" that is issued by the state and is legally binding. If they can't be married, but they in fact do have a marriage license then it's a logical impossibility that they cant be married IF having a marriage license = being married. Please tell me that you follow this!!!

    So if having a marriage license does not equal "marriage"--then what does it mean? And why does it matter if ss couples have marriage licenses--since it doesn't mean they're married (as you describe it)?

    It's logical to say you believe gay couples shouldn't be married. I don't agree, but it's a logical argument. But arguing it;s impossible for them to do something ( get a marriage license) that they do in droves DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

    If you would argue that gay couples cannot be in a state of matrimony-a religious construct--that is also a valid point of view. However, the legal battles over gay "marriage" aren't about matrimony, they're about marriage licenses.

    There may be some religious gay couples who want to argue with the church about what constitutes matrimony--but that is a religious argument that is legally irrelevant.

    My own opinion is that churches should decide whom they want to allow to marry in their own church but that the justice of the peace should be available to anyone.

    What about couples who don't have sex? One of my friends has been married for seven years but she and her husband have never had sex. Are they married?

    If two people who just met get a marriage license from a drive-through chapel in Las Vegas are they in a state of matrimony?

    Thanks.

    We can call it marriage (just as we can call a dog a cat), but that will not make it so, no matter how many are convinced they should believe it.

    So if having a marriage license (which gay couples can actually do) does not equal marriage, what does it mean and what should we call it? And what does married mean?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess another way to pose the question is this: if marriage licenses were called something else--let's say "partner licenses" and they allowed the exact same legal rights as a marriage license, would it bother you if same sex couples (along with straight couples) got "partner licenses?" And whether or not a couple was "married" was up to their church?

      Delete
  170. Johanne, those are great questions. The short answer is that, yes, we are seeing the word "marriage" applied to something that is not marriage even in a weakened state. In the same way that the state declaring that a man is a woman (which may be "legally" stated, but is in no way actually true), the state is declaring that gay couples can "marry" when in fact, they cannot. The state can say that a lot of things are legally true (a man is a woman, a black person is not a full person, an unborn child is not a human being with human rights, etc.), but that are not actually or ontologically true. There is reality and then there is legal construct. Sometimes the law is in conformity with what is real, and sometimes (as in the case of gay "marriage", or Dred Scott, or declaring an actual man to be a legal "woman"), the law is not in conformity with what is objectively true or real.

    Now, of course, people have co-opted language forever, in order to advance agendas. That's one of the best ways to dehumanize people, for example. We start to mess with definitions and suddenly, a thing isn't called by its name anymore, or else something that is not a thing is called by a name that has nothing to do with its nature. Again, like a man being defined as a woman. Just because the law says that Jane is now Joe, does not make Jane into a man. The law is not magic. It cannot change ontological realities.

    Yes, I would use a different term for gay partnerships. "Civil union" is not objectionable to me at all. The application of it is, since even at the "civil union" stage, Catholic charities have been forced out of business. But at least we were not calling this type of pairing a "marriage" (no one, not even the most left-wing secularist, would have considered it "marriage" even in recent memory. This is brand spanking new as a concept.)

    And of course, civil unions were not enough to satisfy the activists. They needed the word "marriage" to force total acceptance, as if there were no difference.

    The word "Matrimony" is telling. I have a young gay friend who "married" his boyfriend and he called it "Matrimony". However, the root of the word "matrimony" is, of course, "mother", and there is nothing in the nature of "mother" in this man's relationship. I hope we can all agree that Matrimony does not imply in any way, shape or form, a gay sexual relationship. (In fact, I am too lazy to look up the etymology, but does the word "marriage" come from "Matrimony" in some way?)

    Thanks for the questions.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Hi Leila
    So you are saying that you don't disagree with gay couples having the same legal rights as other couples with marriage licenses but you think that the license given to gay couples should be called something else...is that right? The only difference you care about is having a different word? Because if that is true your beef is with the government and not the activists. the only avenue available to gay couples to get the legal rights is to obtain what the state calls a "marriage license."

    (and most "activists" are not happy with civil unions because they don't allow nearly the same amount of legal benefits that civil unions so -- although the right likes to say otherwise)

    Do you think couples that don't have sex, or couples who get "married" in a drive-through chapel but hardly know each other--are they "actually" married? And if they are, what does the word mean anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  172. Leila, you keep using the word true. I'm sorry but it's true that I am married.

    So perhaps we should get you religious folks matrimony licenses and the rest of us can get marriage licenses? How's that sound?

    Also the state (or government) has defined marriage since the beginning of marriage.

    As for speculating why the alleged questions were asked, I simply won't do that. As I won't speculate why Hobby Lobby has issue with only four of the forms of birth control and not all birth control.
    Plus I also kind of gave you a speculation as to why, but you seem to have missed it.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Leila, also if you would just speculate that I could be married to my husband, would you speculate that we would show our love in non sexual ways beyond mere deep friendship?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Sharon,
    Should I be embarrassed, ashamed or his my gayness?
    You think it's none of my companies business but they would have known long before this survey. See I list my husband as my emergency contact. He's the beneficiary of any insurance/retirement I have. So they already know. I am fairly certain it's the same with you heterosexuals.

    And why should JP Morgan discuss it? If it didn't happen there is no reason to deny it.

    And as for your statement "In contrast, the Justice Department has stated that silence regarding LGBT issues "will be interpreted as disapproval.", sorry I don't see that is a factual statement. Look at the links provided to see that this has been taken out of context.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/05/21/barber-lies-about-doj-pride-pamphlet/

    http://libertycounsel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/LGBT_tips_for_managers.pdf

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/05/23/2054111/family-groups-being-respectful-to-lgbt-coworkers-is-an-attack-on-freedom/

    As I don't work for Hobby Lobby I can neither confirm nor deny what they have or have not spoken to their employees about.

    ReplyDelete
  175. The Emperor's New Clothes

    Hans Christian Andersen, (1837). [Translated by D. L. Ashliman]

    Many years ago there lived an emperor who loved beautiful new clothes so much that he spent all his money on being finely dressed. His only interest was in going to the theater or in riding about in his carriage where he could show off his new clothes. He had a different costume for every hour of the day. Indeed, where it was said of other kings that they were at court, it could only be said of him that he was in his dressing room!

    One day two swindlers came to the emperor's city. They said that they were weavers, claiming that they knew how to make the finest cloth imaginable. Not only were the colors and the patterns extraordinarily beautiful, but in addition, this material had the amazing property that it was to be invisible to anyone who was incompetent or stupid.

    "It would be wonderful to have clothes made from that cloth," thought the emperor. "Then I would know which of my men are unfit for their positions, and I'd also be able to tell clever people from stupid ones." So he immediately gave the two swindlers a great sum of money to weave their cloth for him.

    They set up their looms and pretended to go to work, although there was nothing at all on the looms. They asked for the finest silk and the purest gold, all of which they hid away, continuing to work on the empty looms, often late into the night.

    "I would really like to know how they are coming with the cloth!" thought the emperor, but he was a bit uneasy when he recalled that anyone who was unfit for his position or stupid would not be able to see the material. Of course, he himself had nothing to fear, but still he decided to send someone else to see how the work was progressing.

    "I'll send my honest old minister to the weavers," thought the emperor. He's the best one to see how the material is coming. He is very sensible, and no one is more worthy of his position than he.

    So the good old minister went into the hall where the two swindlers sat working at their empty looms. "Goodness!" thought the old minister, opening his eyes wide. "I cannot see a thing!" But he did not say so.

    The two swindlers invited him to step closer, asking him if it wasn't a beautiful design and if the colors weren't magnificent. They pointed to the empty loom, and the poor old minister opened his eyes wider and wider. He still could see nothing, for nothing was there. "Gracious" he thought. "Is it possible that I am stupid? I have never thought so. Am I unfit for my position? No one must know this. No, it will never do for me to say that I was unable to see the material."

    "You aren't saying anything!" said one of the weavers.

    "Oh, it is magnificent! The very best!" said the old minister, peering through his glasses. "This pattern and these colors! Yes, I'll tell the emperor that I am very satisfied with it!"

    "That makes us happy!" said the two weavers, and they called the colors and the unusual pattern by name. The old minister listened closely so that he would be able say the same things when he reported back to the emperor, and that is exactly what he did.

    The swindlers now asked for more money, more silk, and more gold, all of which they hid away. Then they continued to weave away as before on the empty looms.

    The emperor sent other officials as well to observe the weavers' progress. They too were startled when they saw nothing, and they too reported back to him how wonderful the material was, advising him to have it made into clothes that he could wear in a grand procession. The entire city was alive in praise of the cloth. "Magnifique! Nysseligt! Excellent!" they said, in all languages. The emperor awarded the swindlers with medals of honor, bestowing on each of them the title Lord Weaver.

    ReplyDelete
  176. The swindlers stayed up the entire night before the procession was to take place, burning more than sixteen candles. Everyone could see that they were in a great rush to finish the emperor's new clothes. They pretended to take the material from the looms. They cut in the air with large scissors. They sewed with needles but without any thread. Finally they announced, "Behold! The clothes are finished!"

    The emperor came to them with his most distinguished cavaliers. The two swindlers raised their arms as though they were holding something and said, "Just look at these trousers! Here is the jacket! This is the cloak!" and so forth. "They are as light as spider webs! You might think that you didn't have a thing on, but that is the good thing about them."

    "Yes," said the cavaliers, but they couldn't see a thing, for nothing was there.

    "Would his imperial majesty, if it please his grace, kindly remove his clothes." said the swindlers. "Then we will fit you with the new ones, here in front of the large mirror."

    The emperor took off all his clothes, and the swindlers pretended to dress him, piece by piece, with the new ones that were to be fitted. They took hold of his waist and pretended to tie something about him. It was the train. Then the emperor turned and looked into the mirror.

    "Goodness, they suit you well! What a wonderful fit!" they all said. "What a pattern! What colors! Such luxurious clothes!"

    "The canopy to be carried above your majesty awaits outside," said the grandmaster of ceremonies.

    "Yes, I am ready!" said the emperor. "Don't they fit well?" He turned once again toward the mirror, because it had to appear as though he were admiring himself in all his glory.

    The chamberlains who were to carry the train held their hands just above the floor as if they were picking up the train. As they walked they pretended to hold the train high, for they could not let anyone notice that they could see nothing.

    The emperor walked beneath the beautiful canopy in the procession, and all the people in the street and in their windows said, "Goodness, the emperor's new clothes are incomparable! What a beautiful train on his jacket. What a perfect fit!" No one wanted it to be noticed that he could see nothing, for then it would be said that he was unfit for his position or that he was stupid. None of the emperor's clothes had ever before received such praise.

    "But he doesn't have anything on!" said a small child.

    "Good Lord, let us hear the voice of an innocent child!" said the father, and whispered to another what the child had said.

    "A small child said that he doesn't have anything on!"

    Finally everyone was saying, "He doesn't have anything on!"

    The emperor shuddered, for he knew that they were right, but he thought, "The procession must go on!" He carried himself even more proudly, and the chamberlains walked along behind carrying the train that wasn't there.

    ReplyDelete
  177. "As I won't speculate why Hobby Lobby has issue with only four of the forms of birth control and not all birth control."

    You don't need to speculate, Alan. HL stated why, very clearly, and had a lawsuit over it. They objected to paying for the forms of contraception that are clearly abortifacient.

    I'll be back in a bit to answer the rest! Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  178. Johanne, I am going to answer your questions, generally, in a blog post of their own. I need to spell it all out for future reference, so thank you for asking them!

    Alan, if the state declares that a black man is 2/3 of a white man, is it "true" that he is? And if the state declares that Jane (a biological female) is a man, does it then become true, really true, ontologically (I know you love that word, ha ha), that she is now suddenly an actual man because the law declared her so?

    ReplyDelete
  179. "Also the state (or government) has defined marriage since the beginning of marriage."

    No, Alan. Marriage is a pre-political institution.

    ReplyDelete
  180. If the article is true (re: survey questions):
    Is the survey optional? Is it anonymous?

    Internal surveys are usually used by large corporations to get a pulse for marketing, and throw numbers together that allow them to say, "Look, 8% of our employees are "x", or are supportive of "x" cause/community. Based on these percentages, we can target this and that, with this strategy/method, and use these numbers internally to back it."

    It's a business tactic for inclusive marketing and gaining the almighty dollar. They have to be "exclusive" in digging for info, in order that they can trumpet the "inclusiveness" of their products/company. It's the name of the game, in marketing.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Nubby, in my understanding, the surveys were not anonymous. The employees had to enter their employee IDs.

    ReplyDelete
  182. "...we would show our love in non sexual ways beyond mere deep friendship..."

    But non-sexual affection is the affection of friendship, Alan. Deep friendship can be quite deep and yet non-sexual. Love shown in non-sexual ways is not exclusive to romantic or married relationships, correct?

    ReplyDelete
  183. I'm reminded of my first overseas trip as a young (naïve) man. I returned with this fake Rolex watch which I'd bought for a song in Hong Kong. It even came with a "Certificate of Authenticity". Every time someone dared to insinuate I'd been had, I'd vehemently protest, "But I have a Certificate!" That was then. I was young. And tragically easy prey for the sharks and shysters of this world.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Lesson: A mere Certificate maketh neither a genuine watch nor a true marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Hi! I don't have time yet to reply to Alan's questions to me, but I am still following this discussion and will reply later today after I get off work. I'm excited to say that being in a serious relationship and discerning marriage has given me a newer insight and understanding of the virtue of chastity and just how challenging it can be. But, I'll explain more later, I promise :)

    ReplyDelete
  186. Francis, it saddens me that here in America, I believe we have stopped reading our children the fables and morality tales that we all used to know. We don't know the stories anymore. They have left our collective subconscience.

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!