Not necessarily. Nintendo does DLC very differently in a consumer friendly manner. I don't see them ever doing crap like this.
Separation between Church and State means that you get to hold whatever "religious" belief you want in private
Nope. It doesn't. If the state required citizens to abondon their religious beliefs in public then that would be a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Have you read the constitution? It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
you don't get to impose those religious views (or values) on others.
I agree with you. Nobody has the right to impose on the owners of Hobby Lobby their religious views.
Not even people who just happen to be in a position of financial dependence to you.
Like my kids? Yes. I have the right to raise them as I see fit.
What people call "freedom" here is the freedom to impose your arbitrary views (here "religion") onto others (employees) by cavilling over what they consider "appropriate" medical care.
What this ruling does is empower employers to meddle in what medical care their employers can spend their medical benefits, and that's wrong.
It sure doesn't. Nobody is getting fired for buying supplemental insurance, buying their own contraception, etc... Just as you wouldn't want to be forced to buy your employees Bibles, the owners of Hobby Lobby do not want to buy what they consider abortion pills. It's that simple.
The separation between church and state held the provision that e.g. employers couldn't use their power to meddle in the (privileged) docter-patient relationship, and that protection has just been lifted.
No it didn't. Nobody is meddling.
The question of whether Hobby-Lobby employees can make do in other ways is irrelevant.
Translation from Internet Atheist to English: Irrelevant - "You had a really great point and I can't argue with it."
I think they shouldn't have to have to circumnavigate this particular obstacle in the first place.
Then work somewhere else. I don't agree with everything my employer does, but I choose to work there anyway.
I get the distinct impression that people fail to see how dangerous it is to lift this protection because it's touted as "Christian". For better or worse, Hindu, Muslim, Satanist, and Scientologist "religions" just got the same rights.
Good for them. I support religious freedoms.
Your analogy about the "Hindu refusing to buy me [...]" is beside the point I think, because that's a case of an employer refusing you discretionary spending. Medical treatment is not discretionary, and although the employer ultimately foots the bill it's not something he would ordinarily have any say in (apart from this "religious" thing now). It's medical benefits, not some gift!
I don't think plan B is a medical treatment. It's elective. A baby is not a disease. I would argue that liposuction comes closer to a treatment.
What I'm calling for is a state in which nobody can construe their their religious "rights" in ways that allow them to impose their religious views on others.
Me too. Which is why I find it odd that you do want to impose your religious beliefs on business owners.
So you're saying that the Supreme Court legislates? I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. All the court said was that if you decide to earn money by opening a business, you don't lose your right to your religious beliefs. Nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby employees to not get the contraception that they want, they're just not fitting the bill for it. Perhaps employees can pay for controversial contraceptions with their $14/hour Hobby Lobby corporate minimum wage. Perhaps the employees can choose one of the 16 other forms of contraceptions that Hobby Lobby is willing to fit the bill for. I find it really weird that people on the left are upset because they can't force their values onto someone else.
I mean if I worked for a Hindu, I wouldn't be upset that he won't buy me McDonalds. And I could be wrong, but food is more important than sex. Perhaps I should be outraged if I can't buy pork sausages from "Hebrew National" because it's run by Jews. What you're calling for is for the State to demand that nobody has any religious rights outside of the church. And that is a horrifying thought.
Aw... Just ignore Kim Jong Un here. He's just mad that 'merica made it to the second round of the world cup and N. Korea didn't.
I don't understand your comment. Corporations are not states.
As a real programmer, I just echo punchcards into a file.
I own a couple of Prius vehicles and I've never noticed the delay. That sounds kinda scary if it ever did happen. I wonder if yours was defective.
Going 110 probably had a lot to do with not saving money. I drive at a relaxing 60 - 65 mph and I get great gas mileage.
Sounds like someone's a bit jealous.
Aw... you're just jealous because we have Google Fiber!
I take it you were one of those kids who would say, "Tomatoes are really fruits," right?
I think you mean MCI. KCI is the airport in Kon, Indonesia.
Nope. I meant to say KCI. Here in Kansas City, we call "Kansas City International" KCI airport. Nobody in Kansas City calls it MCI. Yes, I'm well aware that the official formal designation is MCI as I have flown out of KCI many times.
As far as I remember KCI has always had free Internet wifi. Combined with the fact that we have Google Fiber, it feels like the rest of America is some third world country.
So which one of my secondary sources that I listed didn't count? Here, I'll recopy and paste it for you:
those who believe Christianity is true (Kenneth Samples, Bill Craig, Hugh Ross, Clive Lewis, etc...) and those who do not believe Christianity is true (Lawrence Krauss, Bart Ehrman, Richard Dawkins, etc...)
I simply wrote that I weigh the evidence of those who came before me and decided for myself based on reasoning such evidence. If that is arrogant to humbly admit that I'm not a historian and thus I must lean on the evidence of others then so be it. The real problem you have is that I didn't come to your conclusion. Thus I seem arrogant to stick to what I have already researched. So you assume that the only way someone could believe in that the Gospels are true or primary sources is if they blindly follow something that they were told as a child since they didn't come to your conclusion. Is your definition of humility really that everyone thinks just like you? Could there ever be the possibility that someone could research something and come to a different answer than you?
Since you have trouble with wordplay and analogies, I'll just break what I said down into a list.
Me: Research based on others, understands limitations, admits topics are controversial
You: Knows all the answers, knows topics are settled