tshile Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I think you misunderstood. I mean they should not DO it.. not necessarily that they should not have the power. They should not step in, and they should stick to their tenet of non intervention and personal responsibility. The congress should not change the law the people voted on. Changing the structure is not what i'm on about at all. Hope that helps make more sense out of my ramblings. ~Bang Yeah, I realized that when Burgold chimed in on where the line should be drawn. I had originally read it as - congress shouldn't have power over DC, which is why I started down the road I went It's no problem, I despise this type of politicking as much as everyone else in the thread seems to. I hate legislating morals, and I really hate backdoor abuses of powers to push agendas like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 lol,, after i saw that, i can definitely see how you could have read it that way.It sounded more clear in my head, i assure you. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Bang obviously feels passionately about what has happened to the GOP and he makes good points here. It’s hard to imagine any free thinking person would not support a law that stops employers from firing someone because they take birth control. I support a businessowners right to fire anyone they want for any reason not protected by law. I don't think a person choosing to take birth control shares the same protection as a black man, or gay man, or Jewish woman, etc. I should be able to fire an employee if I don't like them, their personality, the cologne they wear, the music they listen to, and yes, the choices they make in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I tend to agree, but i believe that birth control falls under the realm of "none of your business". Providing healthcare, if this is part of the employment package .. then what a person does with it is their own concern, so long as it's not illegal or can get the company in trouble in any way, or detract from their ability to do their job, or those around them doing their jobs. but i see no problem with firing a salesperson because they got a spider tattoo on their neck for example.. , or refusing to dress in a manner consistent with the profession, or a person who drinks too much in his own time but comes to work hungover. etc. There's thousands of valid reasons that should not be protected just because people want to practice individualism. By the by,, since I'm ranting about our current crop of conservatives, Kilmer is the one on the board who i think gets true conservatism. I align with what you're thinking a lot more than i post about it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 I appreciate that. I accept that I don't always follow what true conservatism should be. And fully admit Im a complete hypocrite on some things. The underlying issue here (is the use of birth control something that can or cannot be discriminated against) to me is messy as hell. I think it's too convenient to make that about "womens choices", and probably too simplistic to make it what I want it to be. The reality though, is what the committee did is meaningless. And naïve on their part. Perception matters. So why take a vote on an issue you know will pass, only to never reach the floor or get vetoed? 10 years ago those voting could go back to 5000 dollar dinners and talk about how they voted for this in front of an audience of like minded people. Now though? It gets spun into twittersphere and eventually allows the Rachel Maddows of the world to say the GOP is preventing women from using birth control. Just put me in charge for a month. This **** would stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 I appreciate that. I accept that I don't always follow what true conservatism should be. And fully admit Im a complete hypocrite on some things. The underlying issue here (is the use of birth control something that can or cannot be discriminated against) to me is messy as hell. It's messy only because of the way people talk about it. I find if you start doing some role reversal people who normally would support a certain type of discrimination all the sudden realize how terrible it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Kilmer, Admiring the way you can try to make it look like the problem with 20 Republican Congressmen knowingly voting for something that is wrong (but their base will like it, because their base is wrong), is that The Liberal Conspiracy will spin it into looking wrong. Those 20 votes aren't something that will become wrong, after somebody spins it. They were wrong the instant they were cast. (And spinning it was the motive for casting them.) ---------- To me, that's the GOP's big problem, for the last few decades. They're wrong. On pretty much every single issue, now days. But they've created this fantastic parallel reality machine, to indoctrinate people (and themselves). And they are firmly convinced that all we need to do is to package being wrong, or to hide the fact that we're wrong, long enough to gain power. They don;t need to hide the fact that they're the Party that favors legalizing discrimination. They need to stop being the Party that favors legalizing discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 (in a city in which they are ALL TEMPORARY CITIZENS) . If we could come closer to making the temporary part accurate, I think we'd be better off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Here's the real kick in the teeth with the "American Christian Persecution" banner carriers. They see every time that they are not allowed to force employees to abide by their religious leanings that they then are being persecuted for their faith. Now, switch the shoes around for a minute and just imagine what would happen if a Muslim business owner began to force employees to abide by Muslim practices or else be fired then we'd see a whole new level of crap hitting the fan. And I guaran-damn-tee you that not one of these blowhards on the Right would be using the Hobby Lobby argument to defend the Muslim business owner. This is the hypocrisy on the Right, it isn't about liberty and freedom, it's about liberty and freedom for a select group the rest be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 potty mouth preacher, i've now seen it all. lol j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 I think a Muslim business owner can fire or refuse to hire a person for any reason they want. Just like a Christian business owner. Both, of course, have to abide by existing discrimination laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 (The article is about voting to not allow an anti-discrimination law).(Although, admittedly, what sounds like a really stupid one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 potty mouth preacher, i've now seen it all. lol j/k I think if the pastor says damn, they're channeling their inner Jonathan Edwards along with a fire and brimstone preacher from somewhere in Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 I think a Muslim business owner can fire or refuse to hire a person for any reason they want. Just like a Christian business owner. Both, of course, have to abide by existing discrimination laws. Right...and what do you think would be the consequences of such actions against a Christian in today's social climate? For instance, what would be Fox News' headline about it, or Ted Cruz's sound bite, would Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham applaud the right of the Muslim shop owner or decry the unjust persecution of Christians in America by those seeking to force sharia law into American (read Christian) culture? BTW, I'm not a pastor anymore, haven't been for about two years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Right...and what do you think would be the consequences of such actions against a Christian in today's social climate? For instance, what would be Fox News' headline about it, or Ted Cruz's sound bite, would Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham applaud the right of the Muslim shop owner or decry the unjust persecution of Christians in America by those seeking to force sharia law into American (read Christian) culture? BTW, I'm not a pastor anymore, haven't been for about two years now. Probably similar to the knee jerk faux outrage displayed here. Neither help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.