Originally posted by Kepler
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Collapse
X
-
-
Unanimous ruling says Electors have to choose whoever the state selected"I went over the facts in my head, and admired how much uglier the situation had just become. Over the years I've learned that ignorance is more than just bliss. It's freaking orgasmic ecstasy".- Harry Dresden, Blood Rites
Western Michigan Bronco Hockey- 2012 Mason Cup Champions
Comment
-
Originally posted by bronconick View PostUnanimous ruling says Electors have to choose whoever the state selectedNorth Dakota
National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
Not exactly. It is my understanding that the ruling says that states can punish Electors for not going with the state's vote.
The Colorado case involved the replacement of a faithless elector, and was decided per curiam, adopting the Washington decision in full. (Sotomayor was recused, hence the separate opinion).Last edited by unofan; 07-06-2020, 07:25 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by unofan View PostReligious employers won big today. They get to discriminate and they get to control employee's healthcare.
Cornell '04, Stanford '06
KDR
Rover Frenchy, Classic! Great post.
iwh30 I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the man
gregg729 I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence."
Ritt18 you are the perfect representation of your alma mater.
Miss Thundercat That's it, you win.
TBA#2 I want to kill you and dance in your blood.
DisplacedCornellian Hahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.
Test to see if I can add this.
Comment
-
Stop clutching at pearls..."It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
-aparch
"Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
-INCH
Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
-ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007
Comment
-
Originally posted by unofan View PostReligious employers won big today. They get to discriminate and they get to control employee's healthcare.**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Comment
-
Originally posted by unofan View PostReligious employers won big today. They get to discriminate and they get to control employee's healthcare.
But the decision today is, imho, the right one. If we are going to allow a religious school to fire an employee based upon them going against accepted creed, why should it matter if that employee is called a "minister" or not? It's the beliefs promulgated by the school that we are supposedly protecting by allowing this discrimination. What difference does the title of the person advancing (or countering) those beliefs make?That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
Comment
-
If this is limited to churches or private schools which receive zero government funding then ok fine let them simmer in their bigotries.
But if it applies to Hobby Lobby or some company that happens to have wackjob owners then, no, it would be as wrong as denying entry to blacks because "that's our freedumb!"
I think a good argument could be made, however, that a church or school that receives a religious tax exemption is receiving government aid and so cannot discriminate. Let us see how many of these phobes and misogynists hold to their "principles" when it costs them their sweet, sweet tax dodge. I assume most of them will suddenly have a purely coincidental message from the gods telling them to love one another.
Hate dies hard. These creeps have been with us for so long they have burrowed into our laws and tax codes. But we will root them out, slowly, just as we banished their less sophisticated predecessors in hatred.
Last edited by Kepler; 07-08-2020, 01:34 PM.Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
- 1 like
Comment
-
This is why health care tied to employment sucks balls, but we all knew that."I went over the facts in my head, and admired how much uglier the situation had just become. Over the years I've learned that ignorance is more than just bliss. It's freaking orgasmic ecstasy".- Harry Dresden, Blood Rites
Western Michigan Bronco Hockey- 2012 Mason Cup Champions
Comment
-
Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
I understand there can be a legitimate debate in society about whether religious schools should have the ability to discriminate against employees for apparently teaching or acting against creed. I go back and forth on that, but in the end I'm probably ok with religious institutions having that luxury. It's why I'd never work for a church or religious school.
But the decision today is, imho, the right one. If we are going to allow a religious school to fire an employee based upon them going against accepted creed, why should it matter if that employee is called a "minister" or not? It's the beliefs promulgated by the school that we are supposedly protecting by allowing this discrimination. What difference does the title of the person advancing (or countering) those beliefs make?
Are you really going to argue that the receptionist answering the phones for the principal is a minister?
The general rule should be no discrimination unless absolutely necessary, not "go ahead and discriminate as much as you want if you're religious." The limits were there as a way to accommodate the churches so that they couldn't be forced to hire woman priests, not so that they could fire the black cafeteria worker. Now the exception has swallowed the rule.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kepler View PostBut if it applies to Hobby Lobby or some company that happens to have wackjob owners then, no, it would be as wrong as denying entry to blacks because "that's our freedumb!"
Comment
Comment