bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:Again, it is not compensation for work! It is a benefit. Not COMPENSATION FOR WORK. You would pay taxes on it if it were.

And yes, prescription plans are usually part of MEDICAL INSURANCE PLANS. So yes, your employer is paying for most of your prescriptions.


I'm tired of beating my head bloody against the anti-religion elements here. I'm going to go watch (That's for adults, not children.).



Actually, where I work, so this is very limited scope, grain of salt, etc..., my boss always lumps our insurance in when we do our performance review. It's always, we pay you X, but when you add in your insurance we really pay you Y.

I always remind him I don't want his GDFN insurance because I'm already covered on my wife's family plan so can I just have Y as CASH. That never works out though.

Edit: recommendations?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:I'm tired of beating my head bloody against the anti-religion elements here. I'm going to go watch (That's for adults, not children.).



(That's for adults, not children.) is actually against my religion. And since I pay for part of the infrastructure that you use to get internet, I would like it not to be viewable using the internet of which I pay a part. I don't want my money going to your sinful behavior.

In seriousness, saying that we're anti-religion weakens any legitimacy your arguments have. We aren't arguing against religion or religious beliefs. I don't think any of us ever have in this entire thread once. Straw men need not apply.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee

(Please apologize. It's not nice to use that word.) post

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

ddeuddeg


quality posts: 29 Private Messages ddeuddeg
bhodilee wrote:(Please apologize. It's not nice to use that word.) post

I'm covered by my wife's insurance, too, but my employer pays me a stipend for not taking the insurance they offer. It would be the same if we decided to be covered by my employer, so we look at what's the best bottom line.
I'm sure there are co-insurance clauses that would prevent your collecting double, but have you looked into taking the insurance coverage offered by your employer to see if you might be able to sign up for the coverage even if you can't really use it. If so, you might be willing to negotiate from a stronger strategic position, and have him pay you a portion of what the premium would be.

"Always keep a bottle of Champagne in the fridge for special occasions. Sometimes the special occasion is that you've got a bottle of Champagne in the fridge". - Hester Browne


Ddeuddeg's Cheesecake Cookbook

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
ddeuddeg wrote:I'm covered by my wife's insurance, too, but my employer pays me a stipend for not taking the insurance they offer. It would be the same if we decided to be covered by my employer, so we look at what's the best bottom line.
I'm sure there are co-insurance clauses that would prevent your collecting double, but have you looked into taking the insurance coverage offered by your employer to see if you might be able to sign up for the coverage even if you can't really use it. If so, you might be willing to negotiate from a stronger strategic position, and have him pay you a portion of what the premium would be.



They pay 100% of my insurance, I have no choice in my coverage. Because they pay 100% of individual it's considered a condition of employment and they can force it on me if I want it or not. On the plus side, I don't have to pay a dime to go to the doctor, so when the inevitable heart attack nails me, it won't cost anything and I'll get AFLAC money. I'd rather just have the stipend though.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:Again, it is not compensation for work! It is a benefit. Not COMPENSATION FOR WORK. You would pay taxes on it if it were.

And yes, prescription plans are usually part of MEDICAL INSURANCE PLANS. So yes, your employer is paying for most of your prescriptions.


I'm tired of beating my head bloody against the anti-religion elements here. I'm going to go watch (That's for adults, not children.).



Well, I guess we just disagree. I think the portion the my employer pays for my health insurance is compensation for my work. I'm pretty sure if I stop working, they'll stop paying. Also pretty sure that when people complain about how government employees are overpaid, they include the insurance benefit as part of the equation.

Assuming that the portion my employer pays is not in exchange for labor, I also pay a portion in cash. Is that part at least mine?

Our disagreement about who has ownership of this benefit/compensation has nothing to do with being anti-religion. I think it's mine, earned by my labor and paid for in cash by me. You think it's theirs. I'm not sure what you think of the cash portion that I pay.

I feel like I'm already paying for insurance, so "pay for it yourself" is insulting. Again, this is more about the form of the arguments against covering contraception than the issue itself.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
bhodilee wrote:They pay 100% of my insurance, I have no choice in my coverage. Because they pay 100% of individual it's considered a condition of employment and they can force it on me if I want it or not. On the plus side, I don't have to pay a dime to go to the doctor, so when the inevitable heart attack nails me, it won't cost anything and I'll get AFLAC money. I'd rather just have the stipend though.



My husband got a stipend from his last job since he was already covered on my insurance. It was a pitifully small amount of money though, I can only imagine it was a fraction of what they would actually have paid if he'd taken the insurance.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
MarkDaSpark wrote:Again, it is not compensation for work! It is a benefit. Not COMPENSATION FOR WORK.


This is utter nonsense and you know it. Tell that to the employers who just in the last 5-10 years have started pointing out employees' so-called "total compensation package," explicitly calling out the cost of benefits as part of the compensation they receive. If benefits aren't compensation for work performed, then that must mean I can stop working and keep my benefits, right?

I'm tired of beating my head bloody against the anti-religion elements here.


Now you're just trolling. If people don't agree with your opinion on a legal matter, we're anti-religion? Good grief.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

Sample total compensation package statement representative of those used by numerous employers:

Total Compensation Package PDF

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
MarkDaSpark wrote:If you bothered paying attention, I had said they were quotes from PetiteSirah, on the same subject, so obviously they were to someone else.


Irrelevant. You quoted them as part of this discussion; it's reasonable to respond to the content of what you quoted.

Even the Jehovah's Witnesses have said they will allow their insurance to cover blood transfusions for their employees, so it's moot.


You have got to be deliberately misreading or misinterpreting what I've written to respond in this way.

It doesn't matter what the Jehovah's witnesses say. You're missing the point entirely. Anybody can make a claim of a religious objection to any particular medical procedure, but according to the court, only those religious objections related to contraception merit protection. If this were truly about religious freedom, then the court would have protected all religious objections. You keep claiming to be on the side of "religious freedom" in these discussions, but your arguments strongly suggest otherwise.

Blood transfusions have been proven to be beneficial to everyone's health, which is why they would be excluded.


Tell that to Arthur Ashe's family. Or Isaac Asimov's.

So it isn't "promoting" one religion over another.


This is what I mean by deliberately misreading things. I made it clear that I was talking about promoting (or protecting) one religious belief over another. It is not (and should never be) the job of government to pick and choose which religious beliefs have any kind of merit (legal or otherwise) and which don't.

(Unless you think the Taliban is a good model for us.)

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
moondigger wrote:(Unless you think the Taliban is a good model for us.)



Well, their beliefs are sincerely held.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

I've been avoiding reading much about the Hobby Lobby decision, even here, in an effort to come at it without any preconceived ideas. If I have the time over the next few days, I plan to actually read the opinions (majority and dissenting) and see what they really say and don't say. I'm sure the result will be different from both the right wing and left wing press analyses. I do confess that I'm no lawyer and might get lost in the lingo, but I'll report here what I find.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
coynedj wrote:I've been avoiding reading much about the Hobby Lobby decision, even here, in an effort to come at it without any preconceived ideas. If I have the time over the next few days, I plan to actually read the opinions (majority and dissenting) and see what they really say and don't say. I'm sure the result will be different from both the right wing and left wing press analyses. I do confess that I'm no lawyer and might get lost in the lingo, but I'll report here what I find.



I think I understand the bit about the least restrictive means. I think I even understand how they arrived at the conclusion that Hobby Lobby can have religious beliefs (although I don't agree with it). I don't understand how they justify limiting this to contraceptives and specifically calling out other treatments such as blood transfusions. They don't explain, why not? Why can't employers limit coverage for blood transfusions (or whichever other things) based on sincerely held religious beliefs? Whichever least restrictive means that could be used to offer coverage for contraceptives could also be used to offer coverage for transfusions. Keep going that way and maybe we'll arrive at single payer.

All I can come up with is that the justices are prioritizing beliefs that happen to coincide with their own. They wouldn't do that? Oh yes they would. Liberals and conservatives alike have their agendas.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

When I said I’d read the Hobby Lobby opinions and report back, little did I know what a project it would be. You lawyers out there - please feel free to amplify or correct my summary of the legal ins and outs here, if I got something wrong.

I’m going to split this into a few posts, to avoid “huge block of text” syndrome.

First, let’s set the stage. One very interesting thing I found was that there are no direct Constitutional arguments being made in this case. It is based instead on three laws, though some previous Supreme Court decisions involving Constitutional issues play a crucial part as well. Except for the Smith case noted below, almost all prior Supreme Court cases are referred to as “precedent”, to avoid piling case names where they really don’t add to the conversation. Chronologically, the laws and major case are:

The Dictionary Act, which I never knew even existed. This Act, passed in 1926, provides the meanings of words used in Congressional laws.

Oregon v Smith, decided by the Supreme Court in 1990 with the majority opinion written by Antonin Scalia. In this case, two men were fired after their employment drug tests showed the use of peyote, a legally banned drug. They were denied unemployment insurance payments by the State of Oregon and sued, saying that the use of peyote was part of a Native American religious ceremony and thus they could not be punished by the state for what they claimed was the free exercise of religion. They lost the case, with Scalia writing that “neutral, generally applicable laws may be applied to religious practices even when not supported by a compelling governmental interest”. Instead, a “legitimate governmental interest” was sufficient, even if it imposed a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. This approach overturned the previous practice which required a “compelling” interest - the substitution of “compelling” with “legitimate” is very important here.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which was passed in the wake of this decision. It states that government can not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless there was a compelling governmental interest (there’s that term, back in use) and the means used was the least restrictive means of pursuing that interest.

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). Parts of RFRA were overturned in Supreme Court decisions involving local zoning and prisoners, and this Act was passed to deal with those challenges. This Act, in part, said that RFRA should “be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution”. These protections were extended to religious practices “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief”.

So, given that two of the three Acts were in response to Supreme Court decisions, it seems obvious that Congress can nullify the Hobby Lobby decision as well, by repealing or amending the Dictionary Act, RFRA and/or RLUIPA. Given our current Congress, I’d give that little chance of happening. The requirement that insurance plans cover the birth control methods at the center of this decision does not qualify as an amendment, since this is a regulation rather than legislation - the ACA (Obamacare) delegated that decision to a governmental agency, rather than requiring it directly.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Products sued to overturn the regulations regarding four birth control methods. They professed that it was their sincerely held religious belief that life begins at conception, and since these four methods (of 20 covered by the regulations) could result in the failure of a fertilized egg to implant in the uterus, that is the same as murder. These four methods are referred to as “abortifacients”.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj


Now, on to the opinions in the case. Since the dissenting opinion is largely in response to the majority opinion, I will generally give the majority arguments first, followed by the dissenting arguments.

This decision essentially centers on four questions:
1 - It is long established that “persons” are protected in the free exercise of religion. Does a for-profit corporation qualify as a “person”?
2 - Does the coverage requirement “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion?
3 - Is the requirement in the furtherance of a “compelling government interest”?
4 - If so, is the requirement the “least restrictive means” of furthering this interest?

Taking the questions one at a time:

Does a for-profit corporation qualify as a “person”?

The government case was that for-profit corporations pursue profit, not religion. The owners could not sue because the act of incorporation separates the owners from the company, and the regulations apply only to the corporations, not to the owners. Of the four lower court decisions prior to these cases reaching the Supreme Court, three took the approach that while the requirement may be contrary to the religion of the owners, it does not violate the free exercise of their religion, only the practices of a non-person corporation. Since the owners were persons and the corporations not, there was no free exercise claim. The regulations provide exemptions for religious non-profits which exist to further religious values, rather than make money, and these exemptions extend to them as religious organizations, not as “persons”.

The Dictionary Act defines “persons” as including “corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals”. The majority opinion states that “no known understanding of the term “person” includes some but not all corporations”, and thus the exception for religious corporations is a useless distinction. So, for-profit corporations are “persons”. The dissenting opinion notes that the extending of protections to religious corporations not extended to for-profit corporations has a long history of case law behind it, citing several Supreme Court decisions.

The majority opinion also stated that corporations pursue more than profit, including in some cases the exercise of religion. The “purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporations, including shareholders, officers, and employees”, and Congress intended in their passing of RFRA that corporations have these rights. The language in RFRA and RLUIPA does not limit the religious rights involved, so those rights are therefore not limited by the statutes.

Please note that this argument does not limit the definition of “persons” to include only closely-held corporations. The opinion states that it is “unlikely” that a widely-held corporation would “often assert RFRA claims”, and “numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring”. So, the opinion leaves open the possibility of, say, General Electric making the same claim as Hobby Lobby, but says it probably won’t happen. Also, the corporation’s “beliefs” need not be unanimous on the part of the owners; they only need follow state laws in asserting them. Proxy votes may occur in the near future. Maybe Wal Mart?

The dissenting opinion, of course, dissents. Included in the very first sentence of the Dictionary Act is the phrase “unless the context indicates otherwise”. There being no prior case law stating that for-profit corporations could exercise free exercise of religion, which is a “characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities”, the context of RFRA and RLUIPA, in which for-profit corporations were not mentioned in the debate or text, follows that precedent and excludes them. In fact, in the concurring opinion in the Citizens United case it was stated that such corporations “have no conscience, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires”, which certainly sounds like a statement that they cannot hold religious beliefs.

The majority opinion, noting that sole proprietors can exercise religion through their business activities and are out to make a profit, asked why if “a sole proprietorship that seeks to make a profit may assert a free exercise claim, [Hobby Lobby and Conestoga] can’t ... do the same?”. This splits the term “for-profit corporation” into two parts, and addresses the first part. If for-profit corporations cannot claim free exercise rights, it must be either because they are for-profit or because they are corporations, and this argues that it can’t be because of the profit motive. The fact that non-profit religious corporations are excluded from the requirement proves that it also can’t be because of incorporation.

The dissenting opinion noted that in the case of a sole proprietorship, the business and the owner are “one and the same”, but a corporation exists to separate the owner(s) from the business. Noting that incorporation prevents an owner from being liable for the obligations of the corporation, it asks why the separation should apply “only when it serves the interest of those who control the corporation”. It also noted that the extension of protections to religious non-profit corporations that are not extended to for-profit corporations has a long case law history as noted above, and the debates on and texts of RFRA and RLUIPA provide absolutely no evidence that either was meant to overturn that practice. The majority decision states that the texts (not referring to the legislative history) give no reason to believe they did not mean to do so.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
coynedj wrote:When I said I’d read the Hobby Lobby opinions and report back...



It all basically comes down to the court making the decision that that the RFRA's use of the term person includes Corporations.

All other laws using person should now equally apply to corporations no matter how obviously stupid and inapplicable they seem. (Since nothing is more stupid than 'religious freedom' for things without souls...)

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

Part 3.

Does the coverage requirement “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion?

The majority decision says that the exercise of religion includes “business practices compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine”, and the types of things covered by the insurance plan offered to employees constitutes a “business practice”. The fact that the owners and corporation do not make the decision to use any of the four abortifacients is immaterial; the decision essentially states that enabling is as bad as doing, and the coverage enables murder (please note that the word “murder” is not used in the opinions, but is clearly implied in the complaints of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga). I noticed that the classification of the four methods as causing abortion (thus murder) is defined as being “according to their religious beliefs”, not by any scientific or legal analysis.

If a company’s owners decided to follow their beliefs and defy the requirement, the fines would qualify as a “substantial burden” even beyond the free exercise burden, so that’s not an “out”.

Employees are included in the list of persons whose rights are protected by corporate personhood, as noted above, but the opinion states that the decision has no impact on employees - the use of the four methods is not prevented, just their inclusion in the insurance plan. The effect of this on employees is “precisely zero”, which I’m sure many people disagree with, the dissenting opinion included. That opinion noted a precedent that “accommodations to religious beliefs or observances” “must not significantly impinge on the interests of third parties”, and that “an accommodation must be measured so that it does not override other significant interests”. The majority opinion does not address this argument.

The dissenting opinion also notes that the original draft of RFRA just said “burden” - the word “significant” was added so that the law would apply to only certain burdens. While the majority opinion essentially leaves the definition of “significant” to the owners (in this case), the dissenters believe that declaring something significant does not make it so; the burden is not significant since the company does not itself buy or provide the four methods, and the decision of whether to use them is up to the employee, who can apply her own religious beliefs without infringing on the owners’ free exercise.

The “substantial burden” language, along with the “compelling interest” and “least restrictive means” language, stems from RFRA and RLUIPA. RFRA was in reaction to the Smith case, and RLUIPA was an attempt to “fix” RFRA after further Supreme Court cases. The majority opinion states that these Acts were not enacted solely to bring about a return to pre-Smith practices, but went beyond that purpose to the extension of further religious protections including the right of for-profit corporations to free exercise of religion. The dissenting opinion cites the texts and debates on the acts (such as RFRA’s purpose being “only to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith” and not to “unsettle other areas of the law”) in disagreeing, rather strongly, with this assertion.

Is the requirement in the furtherance of a “compelling government interest”?

The majority opinion did not deal with this question, assuming that it in fact did.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

Part last.

Is the requirement the “least restrictive means” of furthering this interest?

The majority opinion stated that it was not, offering two less restrictive means. In the first, the government could step in and pay for additional insurance coverage providing for the use of the four methods. In the second, the government could give to for-profit corporations the same exclusion privilege that non-profit religious corporations were given. The opinion explicitly refused to rule on whether such an action would even be legal, however.

In fact, the day after the decision the Court issued a preliminary injunction in another case stating that the procedures used to trigger that exclusion (filling out a form) may be considered a restriction of the free exercise of religion, since by filling out the form the insurance companies are required to provide the coverage, leading to the same end result of full coverage. If this argument holds up under full Supreme Court review, the argument that this case hung on whether the government could require the corporation to pay for the coverage is negated. No matter who pays for it, the fact of its existence is a restriction of religious freedom.

The “least restrictive means” language is required by RLUIPA, which dealt with religious buildings (hence the “Land Use” part of its title) and prisoners (hence the “Institutionalized Persons” part). But the majority decision said there was “no reason to believe” that Congress did not mean to extend the RFRA/RLUIPA protections to for-profit corporations as well. The dissenting opinion disagreed, with the same argument as noted above. It also noted that accepting “make the government pay” as a less-restrictive means would open an awful lot of items to “least restrictive” claims, leaving the taxpayers on the hook for quite a few corporate decisions.

I noticed that the majority opinion never referenced the debate on RFRA or RLUIPA in their arguments for what was intended by Congress - it states on multiple occasions that their analysis is based only on the text of the Acts. The dissenting opinion refers many times to the debate and legislative history.

For example, in the debate over ACA, an amendment that would have “enabled any employer or insurance provider to deny coverage based on its asserted religious beliefs or moral convictions” was rejected, which certainly suggests that Congress did not aim to allow such decisions. I have already noted that the majority opinion said that there was no reason to believe that Congress did not intend the extensions of the religious protections to for-profit corporations (based on the text of RFRA and RLUIPA), but the dissenting opinion reported that for-profit corporations were never even mentioned in debate.

So - is this a narrow decision, or a sweeping, radical one? I’ve already noted the fact that the arguments made here could also be used by any corporation, closely held or not. From the Dictionary Act definition, I guess that would also apply to any association, firm, or society, the definitions of which could lead to lots of legal cases in the future. I also see no reason why the definition of corporations as “persons” is exclusive to religious freedom claims; might corporations claim other rights as “persons”? It looks like the answer is “yes”.

Another question is, is this opinion limited only to the four birth control methods at issue in these specific cases? Could other “business practices” fall under the same logic? While the majority opinion states that this decision does not apply to such things as blood transfusions or vaccinations, it pointedly does not say that future decisions could apply the same logic and conclude that they suffer the same fate as the four abortifacients. Restrictions of such practices “may be supported by different interests” and “may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them”, but also might not. The only type of claim explicitly rejected is racial discrimination as a “religious freedom”. Again, I’m sure that this will lead to many more legal cases. The fact that the majority opinion made an argument and then quickly says “but it doesn’t apply to anything else” (not an actual quote) leads me to think that the majority was aware that it was opening a door wisely left closed, but that’s just my opinion.

In the end, I think that the decision is poor, starting with the inclusion of for-profit corporations in the definition of “persons”. Once that is conceded, the application of the “substantial burden”, “compelling interest” and “least restrictive method” rules is a forgone conclusion, given the laws as they stand. Again, these laws can be changed at any time - this is not a decision based on the Constitution but on whether regulations can violate laws. Those laws may deserve repeal - I confess that I haven’t read them in their entirety. But for the time being the majority interpretation of those laws is the law of the land.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

Whew!

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
coynedj wrote:I’ve already noted the fact that the arguments made here could also be used by any corporation, closely held or not. From the Dictionary Act definition, I guess that would also apply to any association, firm, or society, the definitions of which could lead to lots of legal cases in the future. I also see no reason why the definition of corporations as “persons” is exclusive to religious freedom claims; might corporations claim other rights as “persons”? It looks like the answer is “yes”.



Basically what I was saying- they removed any test for how reasonable extending such protections to corporations is.

(When you incorporate you cause the business to become it's own thing, distinct from you. Mostly this is done so that you are protected from liability. That concept has now been extended so far past reason that a company can have an inviolable religion and "free speech rights" which vastly trump those intended for actual human beings in the Constitution... If you want to wield your company like a big personal penis extension, don't incorporate.)

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

From one contentious topic to another. I just can’t stop myself.

It seems that some open carry advocates have made a point of walking into Target stores with Big Nasty Guns, and there are folks who aren’t too happy about it, including Target management. This of course comes after the same happened at Chipotle and a few other chain restaurants, where a number of the other customers felt uncomfortable about this. Some open carry groups decided to back off a bit, but others obviously have not.

That got me wondering about the folks who want the right to carry their weapons wherever they dang well please. Maybe I’m mistaken, but from what I’ve seen they’re mostly…… white. In fact, from what I’ve seen they all are, though I haven’t checked for photos of every incident. Would these folks cheer for a group of young black males who brought AR-15’s into the local coffee shop in rural Arizona or Georgia? Or maybe to a Tea Party rally? How about if the gun-toters were (or at least looked like) Muslim citizens of middle eastern origin?

For some odd reason, I doubt they would be enthusiastically congratulated for exercising their Constitutional rights.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
coynedj wrote:From one contentious topic to another. I just can’t stop myself.

It seems that some open carry advocates have made a point of walking into Target stores with Big Nasty Guns, and there are folks who aren’t too happy about it, including Target management. This of course comes after the same happened at Chipotle and a few other chain restaurants, where a number of the other customers felt uncomfortable about this. Some open carry groups decided to back off a bit, but others obviously have not.

That got me wondering about the folks who want the right to carry their weapons wherever they dang well please. Maybe I’m mistaken, but from what I’ve seen they’re mostly…… white. In fact, from what I’ve seen they all are, though I haven’t checked for photos of every incident. Would these folks cheer for a group of young black males who brought AR-15’s into the local coffee shop in rural Arizona or Georgia? Or maybe to a Tea Party rally? How about if the gun-toters were (or at least looked like) Muslim citizens of middle eastern origin?

For some odd reason, I doubt they would be enthusiastically congratulated for exercising their Constitutional rights.



Uh huh. Riiggghtt.



Perhaps one shouldn't get their information from the lamestream media, which bends the facts to match their propaganda.

And yes, I include Fox News as well.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
MarkDaSpark wrote:Uh huh. Riiggghtt.



Perhaps one shouldn't get their information from the lamestream media, which bends the facts to match their propaganda.

And yes, I include Fox News as well.



My comment was regarding open-carry folks who go en masse to restaurants and Target stores in order to make a point. I never assumed that everyone who engages in open carry was white.

Maybe I'm still wrong - I admitted I was working on incomplete information - but that photo does not address what I talked about.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
coynedj wrote:My comment was regarding open-carry folks who go en masse to restaurants and Target stores in order to make a point. I never assumed that everyone who engages in open carry was white.

Maybe I'm still wrong - I admitted I was working on incomplete information - but that photo does not address what I talked about.



Because your point is false. You're still basing everything on the lamestream media.

Most Open Carry are regarding handguns, not AR-15's. It's only a fringe few who want to do that, but the LSM insists on highlighting them.

There are instances when you might need to open carry an AR-15 in the wilderness or an area that has wild animals (such as going on a wilderness hike with your son). But most Open Carry enthusiasts aren't going to carry an AR-15 into stores.

And from what I understand, most young minority males already conceal carry handguns anyway (illegally) to protect themselves.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
MarkDaSpark wrote:Because your point is false. You're still basing everything on the lamestream media.

Most Open Carry are regarding handguns, not AR-15's. It's only a fringe few who want to do that, but the LSM insists on highlighting them.

There are instances when you might need to open carry an AR-15 in the wilderness or an area that has wild animals (such as going on a wilderness hike with your son). But most Open Carry enthusiasts aren't going to carry an AR-15 into stores.

And from what I understand, most young minority males already conceal carry handguns anyway (illegally) to protect themselves.



I guess we're talking past each other. My point was about the fringe few, not the majority.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

klezman


quality posts: 121 Private Messages klezman
coynedj wrote:I guess we're talking past each other. My point was about the fringe few, not the majority.



Yes, it seems like Sparky totally missed your point. I thought it was an interesting question, actually. I have no data, but I do have suspicions...

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:Yes, it seems like Sparky totally missed your point. I thought it was an interesting question, actually. I have no data, but I do have suspicions...



No that's exactly the point. There is no proof, only racist comments by progressive liberals.

I was ignoring it, because it's like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

There is no right answer, because there is no answer.


And he contradicted himself ... is it "en masse" or the "fringe few"?

I haven't been to any gun shows, but I bet they will be normal distribution.

Edit: And again, you can't base anything off the LSM. They aren't going to show anything but White Males with AR-15's!

Michigan open carry ... only 1 AR-15, and it looks like a person of color is carrying it.


And I believe this is the actual picture that MSNBC claimed was a white man with an assault rifle at a Tea Party rally (their video neatly cropped off his upper body):



And from the side:



White?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

You continue to argue against an assertion that all open carry people are white. I never made any such assertion. If you would re-read my post, you'll see that I limited the point to those people going to Target stores and chain restaurants while heavily armed, in order to make the point that the law now allows them to do so.

And "en masse", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means "in a group". The "fringe few" can go places "en masse" without any contradiction being involved.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
coynedj wrote:You continue to argue against an assertion that all open carry people are white. I never made any such assertion. If you would re-read my post, you'll see that I limited the point to those people going to Target stores and chain restaurants while heavily armed, in order to make the point that the law now allows them to do so.

And "en masse", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means "in a group". The "fringe few" can go places "en masse" without any contradiction being involved.


Coynedj,

I think minorities would be worried that they would be shot by the police...

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

Seems a bit ironic calling out progressive liberals for making racist comments.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:Seems a bit ironic calling out progressive liberals for making racist comments.



Why? Because they like to think they're not racists?

At least when it comes to gun control they often don't realize just what huge asses they make out of themselves (eg see every rant ever about gun control in response to white kids getting shot).

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
coynedj wrote:You continue to argue against an assertion that all open carry people are white. I never made any such assertion. If you would re-read my post, you'll see that I limited the point to those people going to Target stores and chain restaurants while heavily armed, in order to make the point that the law now allows them to do so.

And "en masse", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means "in a group". The "fringe few" can go places "en masse" without any contradiction being involved.



Really?

coynedj wrote:From one contentious topic to another. I just can’t stop myself.

It seems that some open carry advocates have made a point of walking into Target stores with Big Nasty Guns, and there are folks who aren’t too happy about it, including Target management. This of course comes after the same happened at Chipotle and a few other chain restaurants, where a number of the other customers felt uncomfortable about this. Some open carry groups decided to back off a bit, but others obviously have not.

That got me wondering about the folks who want the right to carry their weapons wherever they dang well please. Maybe I’m mistaken, but from what I’ve seen they’re mostly…… white. In fact, from what I’ve seen they all are, though I haven’t checked for photos of every incident. Would these folks cheer for a group of young black males who brought AR-15’s into the local coffee shop in rural Arizona or Georgia? Or maybe to a Tea Party rally? How about if the gun-toters were (or at least looked like) Muslim citizens of middle eastern origin?

For some odd reason, I doubt they would be enthusiastically congratulated for exercising their Constitutional rights.



You would be wrong. on the latter.

And while you did qualify the "all white" in your initial statement, you then went and stated you hadn't seen anyone but white people. Proving my point about the LSM. You made a supposition on false facts. And then continued to base everything on those false facts, even when confronted by additional information (see the Michigan carry picture. Only 1 of the 3 in the picture looks white.)

Instead of falling into the progressives' false theories, use your mind and investigate.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:Why? Because they like to think they're not racists?

At least when it comes to gun control they often don't realize just what huge asses they make out of themselves (eg see every rant ever about gun control in response to white kids getting shot).



No. Because Sparky made what could easily be interpreted as a racist comment right before this.

There are racist liberals all over the place. I was just suggesting that those in glass houses shouldn't shoot their guns inside.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:No. Because Sparky made what could easily be interpreted as a racist comment right before this.

There are racist liberals all over the place. I was just suggesting that those in glass houses shouldn't shoot their guns inside.



Huh???

Because anytime someone conservative says something, it's automatically racist? All I was trying to point out is that the progressive POV is that anyone against their POV is automatically racist. Which is racist in and of itself!


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee

I hate white people.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
bhodilee wrote:I hate white people.



Don't you hate everyone?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Google pictures of "open carry demonstration."

The vast majority of these folks appear to be white. This doesn't mean that only white people can be dumbasses. I do believe (and this is my own unsubstantiated opinion) that an open carry demonstration by people of color would be viewed differently. You see the white people, maybe you just think they're (Everybody has something they're good at.)s. Open carry demonstration with a group of black people, Once More for Grandma gangs and violence, oh my.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote: Google pictures of "open carry demonstration."

The vast majority of these folks appear to be white. This doesn't mean that only white people can be dumbasses. I do believe (and this is my own unsubstantiated opinion) that an open carry demonstration by people of color would be viewed differently. You see the white people, maybe you just think they're (Everybody has something they're good at.)s. Open carry demonstration with a group of black people, Once More for Grandma gangs and violence, oh my.



Gee, could it be because there are few Open Carry States? Because if you try it in Illinois, you'd be arrested for open carry?

And perhaps you need to look again at those pictures with an open mind. I see plenty of non-white people involved. I also see a lot of women involved. So it's not just "white males".


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:Gee, could it be because there are few Open Carry States? Because if you try it in Illinois, you'd be arrested for open carry?

And perhaps you need to look again at those pictures with an open mind. I see plenty of non-white people involved. I also see a lot of women involved. So it's not just "white males".



I have an open mind, I guess I'm just not invested enough in this issue to go through all the photos. They looked like mostly white to me. Why does it matter, again? I've lost track.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:I have an open mind, I guess I'm just not invested enough in this issue to go through all the photos. They looked like mostly white to me. Why does it matter, again? I've lost track.



Because one should fight false stereotypes.


But on to more important issues ...

ADL's Global Survey of Anti-Semitism


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.