Boom!

[Adam]

[Gingersnap]

But, but. but............Hobby Lobby is defying a Federal law! Mozilla is just discriminating privately against employees who exercised their right to donate to political causes!

It's completely different! And even if it's worse, it doesn't matter since....since it's our idea!

Cue McCarthy-era montage.

I simply don't understand this at all. Marriage isn't a right. It's long past time for the State to get out of the marriage business.

[Adam]

But, but. but............Hobby Lobby is defying a Federal law! Mozilla is just discriminating privately against employees who exercised their right to donate to political causes!

It's completely different! And even if it's worse, it doesn't matter since....since it's our idea!

Cue McCarthy-era montage.

I simply don't understand this at all. Marriage isn't a right. It's long past time for the State to get out of the marriage business.

I've been writing something up on that for a couple of days. I'll try to finish up tonight and get it posted.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

But, but. but............Hobby Lobby is defying a Federal law! Mozilla is just discriminating privately against employees who exercised their right to donate to political causes!

It's completely different! And even if it's worse, it doesn't matter since....since it's our idea!

Cue McCarthy-era montage.

I simply don't understand this at all. Marriage isn't a right. It's long past time for the State to get out of the marriage business.

I agree that the government should get out of the marriage business. But as long as the government is IN the marriage business, it most assuredly is a right to have equal treatment under the law.

[Novaheart]

Not really clever, as it's a false equivalence. Hobby Lobby wants to be exempt from insurance standards behind their alleged religious views. Mozilla has a corporate police of nondiscrimination that is in keeping with state law and cultural norms.

Hobby Lobby wants to be exempt from insurance standards which require that a variety of therapies and medications be covered. As someone else pointed out, we wouldn't expect anyone to defend a Jehovah Witness company from demanding that their health insurance company not pay for blood transfusions or organ transplants.

Eich made a deliberate act to deprive gay Californians of equality under state marriage laws. He was not fired nor was he forced to resign. If he was, then he's being very quiet about that so obviously it's not upsetting him that much.

As my mother in known to say, "It may not be fair to be made an example of, but that's the way it is."

[Novaheart]

But, but. but............Hobby Lobby is defying a Federal law! Mozilla is just discriminating privately against employees who exercised their right to donate to political causes!

It's completely different! And even if it's worse, it doesn't matter since....since it's our idea!

Cue McCarthy-era montage.

I simply don't understand this at all. Marriage isn't a right. It's long past time for the State to get out of the marriage business.

Proposition 8 was not a political cause, it was (and the courts have verified this) a deliberate attempt to subvert the Constitution and the civil rights of American citizens in California.

And yes, if he had donated to Gun Control Inc. I would consider it just as bad and support private action against him.

The message needs to get out there: you can't work against the Constitution without consequences, even if Congress and the Ninth Circuit have a history of it.

[Novaheart]

Marriage isn't a right.

Equality before the law is a right.

It's long past time for the State to get out of the marriage business.

It won't matter if it does. Our laws forbid discrimination on familial status and increasingly on the basis of sexual orientation (in addition to the boiler plate). If government stops issuing marriage licenses, and various laws stop favoring married persons (talk about cutting off your nose to spite you family values face) but there are nongovernmental benefits selectively bestowed (other than buy one pew get one free) then there will still be legal recourse against people who discriminate against gay couples. It's simply the way it works.

[Gingersnap]

I agree that the government should get out of the marriage business. But as long as the government is IN the marriage business, it most assuredly is a right to have equal treatment under the law.

But the government isn't doing this. Private people are deciding that other private people can't be employed AND exercise rights.

If people have no right to donate to political causes, let's set that out in law. If people do have that right, then let's make judicially certain they can exercise that right without fear of backlash from employers.

So, which is it? Do we believe that individuals can be politically active without penalty so long as they follow the current regulations or do we believe that some political speech/action within the current regulations is subject to discrimination without penalty?

How is this different from refusing to employ Jews or refusing to employ felons or refusing to employ conscious-bound Muslims? If it is, why?

[Adam]

Not really clever, as it's a false equivalence. Hobby Lobby wants to be exempt from insurance standards behind their alleged religious views. Mozilla has a corporate police of nondiscrimination that is in keeping with state law and cultural norms.

Nope. Sorry. You don't get to have it both ways. The argument against Hobby Lobby (and the rest of the United States) is that corporations may not have moral views because corporations are not people. Can't have it both ways: if Hobby Lobby cannot (under the law) hold moral views, then neither can Mozilla. It's one or the other: either a corporate entity can hold moral views, or it can't (and therefore doesn't).

Hobby Lobby wants to be exempt from insurance standards which require that a variety of therapies and medications be covered. As someone else pointed out, we wouldn't expect anyone to defend a Jehovah Witness company from demanding that their health insurance company not pay for blood transfusions or organ transplants.

Sure we would, and they should have absolutely every right to do so. Don't like Jehovah Widgetcorp's policies or health plan? Don't work for Jehovah Widgetcorp. See how easy that is?

Eich made a deliberate act to deprive gay Californians of equality under state marriage laws.

And, once again, there are a whole lot of people who would readily say that you have acted, in word or in deed, to deprive illegals of their equality under the law.

He was not fired nor was he forced to resign. If he was, then he's being very quiet about that so obviously it's not upsetting him that much.

What spectacular horseshit. You're just flat-out lying if you continue to claim that nonsense.

[Adam]

Equality before the law is a right.

No, it isn't. That's an outright falsehood.

[scott]

Not really clever, as it's a false equivalence. Hobby Lobby wants to be exempt from insurance standards behind their alleged religious views. Mozilla has a corporate police of nondiscrimination that is in keeping with state law and cultural norms.

Hobby Lobby wants to be exempt from insurance standards which require that a variety of therapies and medications be covered. As someone else pointed out, we wouldn't expect anyone to defend a Jehovah Witness company from demanding that their health insurance company not pay for blood transfusions or organ transplants.

Eich made a deliberate act to deprive gay Californians of equality under state marriage laws. He was not fired nor was he forced to resign. If he was, then he's being very quiet about that so obviously it's not upsetting him that much.

As my mother in known to say, "It may not be fair to be made an example of, but that's the way it is."

Eich had the same position on Gay Marriage in 2008 as the Obama Campaign.

Hobby Lobby wants a specific carve out that is consistent with religious freedom.

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, but it shows the blatant double standard.

[scott]

Proposition 8 was not a political cause, it was (and the courts have verified this) a deliberate attempt to subvert the Constitution and the civil rights of American citizens in California.

And yes, if he had donated to Gun Control Inc. I would consider it just as bad and support private action against him.

The message needs to get out there: you can't work against the Constitution without consequences, even if Congress and the Ninth Circuit have a history of it.

I'm tempted to hire someone I've known for a long time and then fire them because they are a big time abortion proponent, particularly in the black neighborhoods. She's a very rich white girl who has been cut off until she's 50 so she's overeductated and has no skills, but she is angry and determined.

So how about i pretend that I don't know about her eugenicist views and fire her for publicity? Is that legal and okay?

[Gingersnap]

Proposition 8 was not a political cause, it was (and the courts have verified this) a deliberate attempt to subvert the Constitution and the civil rights of American citizens in California.

And yes, if he had donated to Gun Control Inc. I would consider it just as bad and support private action against him.

The message needs to get out there: you can't work against the Constitution without consequences, even if Congress and the Ninth Circuit have a history of it.

The Constitution doesn't say jack about marriage. Marriage is not a right. It's a contract for secular people and a sacrament or covenant for religious people.

I would never in a million years retaliate against someone who gave money to an anti-Second Amendment cause. The idea is so contrary to to liberty that it can barely be discussed. To take away someone's employment because they engaged in political action (lawfully) is repulsive.

[scott]

No, it isn't. That's an outright falsehood.

I've got to disagree with you there, it is.

It's not implemented equally, but the right to have equality under the law is a right. It's up to the prevailing precedent as to a specific case of whether one falls under the clause.

It's not perfect, but it's the law and the foundation for our nation.

[Adam]

The Constitution doesn't say jack about marriage. Marriage is not a right. It's a contract for secular people and a sacrament or covenant for religious people.

I would never in a million years retaliate against someone who gave money to an anti-Second Amendment cause. The idea is so contrary to to liberty that it can barely be discussed. To take away someone's employment because they engaged in political action (lawfully) is repulsive.

I'll disagree here. Marriage is a right. The problem here is that entirely too many people, intentionally or not, conflate "right" with "entitlement."

Owning and carrying guns is your right. Indeed, it's enumerated. That doesn't entitle you to a gun; you have to get your own.

Taking it a step away from there:

Owning and riding a bicycle is your right. It's not enumerated, but you most definitely have a right to own and ride a bicycle anywhere that you choose that isn't private property (I'd prefer you not ride a bicycle in my living room, for example). You're not entitled to a bicycle, but you certainly have the right to one if you can pay for it or else make it yourself somehow.

What the gay mafia have wanted, from the very start, is not "equal rights," it's "special rights for gay people." Always has been, always will be. Not that it's anything new: Black people want special rights, women want special rights, Croatians want special rights ... the list is never-ending. What's actually important is to never, ever grant any huckster group myself as a hostage for the sake of this shit; I'll only do so for the sake of pointing out that I won't betray the United States.