Ricketts Family Annoyance Thread

[Internet Apex]

It used to be a free country.

Thanks a lot, Obama.

Thanks for nuttin', jerk.

(||)

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

It used to be a free country.

Thanks a lot, Obama.

Thanks for nuttin', jerk.

(||)

No, Chuck.

[Quality Start Machine]

It used to be a free country.

Thanks a lot, Obama.

Thanks for nuttin', jerk.

(||)

No, Chuck.

Too big for nuttin' after jerkin'?

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

It used to be a free country.

Thanks a lot, Obama.

Thanks for nuttin', jerk.

(||)

No, Chuck.

Too big for nuttin' after jerkin'?

No, Chork.

[Gilgamesh]

1. A poorly-written law means you expand government's power over expression?
2. If someone from the government contacts my place of business and asks me to do/not to do something, I'd be on the phones with my attorneys.
3. Fair, but when an employee (or a student) chooses to work for an institution that is tied with one particular faith or another, is it unreasonable for them (especially victims like a 34-year-old law student) to consider: "If I choose place A, I'd have to understand that benefits, etc., are constrained by its faith; thus, place B might be a better place for me."

1.  What you call a poorly-written law, I call a bipartisan law that was the product of nearly 25 years of Congressional work designed to regulate campaign finance rather than curtail speech.  Your position presupposes that money, in this sense, equals speech, which I (and many others) find to be a preposterous ideas because it prefigures that one could have "more" speech by virtue of having "more" money.  To analogize, it would be akin to permitting a person to use an exceedingly large megaphone on a street corner to get his message out, which, under traditional first amendment jurisprudence, the State can regulate, seeing as it's a mechanism of speech, rather than a content-based restriction.  Nevertheless, it need not take a new law to change the campaign finance scheme, rather a couple of vacancies on the Court and a sympathetic president.
2.  I'd hope you'd be on the phone with your attorney, but I hope said attorney would take the time to delineate between prior restraint and a "hey, it'd help if you took this down, but we won't prosecute you if you don't"-type admonishment.
3.  I have no problem with a religious organization or employer mandating specific provisions or discriminatory policies in their workforces, provided that the nature of the work performed by the organization is spiritual in nature and the policies sought by said organization have a bona fide occupational relationship to that work.  Put another way, I don't want the government mandating that Catholic Churces perform gay marriages, even if the government legalizes it writ large, because it speaks to the ecclesiastical nature of their work.  Conversely, if a religious organization performs work of a largely secular nature, i.e. providing social services and assistance, that religious organization should play by the secular rules.

[Saul Goodman]

Fuck it's silent in here.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

2.  I'd hope you'd be on the phone with your attorney, but I hope said attorney would take the time to delineate between prior restraint and a "hey, it'd help if you took this down, but we won't prosecute you if you don't"-type admonishment.

Excuse me, sir. Could you please keep your voices down? This is a family restaurant.

[Gilgamesh]

2.  I'd hope you'd be on the phone with your attorney, but I hope said attorney would take the time to delineate between prior restraint and a "hey, it'd help if you took this down, but we won't prosecute you if you don't"-type admonishment.

Excuse me, sir. Could you please keep your voices down? This is a family restaurant.

[morpheus]

Fuck it's silent in here.

I see what you did there, and I approve.

[SKO]

1. A poorly-written law means you expand government's power over expression?
2. If someone from the government contacts my place of business and asks me to do/not to do something, I'd be on the phones with my attorneys.
3. Fair, but when an employee (or a student) chooses to work for an institution that is tied with one particular faith or another, is it unreasonable for them (especially victims like a 34-year-old law student) to consider: "If I choose place A, I'd have to understand that benefits, etc., are constrained by its faith; thus, place B might be a better place for me."

1.  What you call a poorly-written law, I call a bipartisan law that was the product of nearly 25 years of Congressional work designed to regulate campaign finance rather than curtail speech.  Your position presupposes that money, in this sense, equals speech, which I (and many others) find to be a preposterous ideas because it prefigures that one could have "more" speech by virtue of having "more" money.  To analogize, it would be akin to permitting a person to use an exceedingly large megaphone on a street corner to get his message out, which, under traditional first amendment jurisprudence, the State can regulate, seeing as it's a mechanism of speech, rather than a content-based restriction.  Nevertheless, it need not take a new law to change the campaign finance scheme, rather a couple of vacancies on the Court and a sympathetic president.
2.  I'd hope you'd be on the phone with your attorney, but I hope said attorney would take the time to delineate between prior restraint and a "hey, it'd help if you took this down, but we won't prosecute you if you don't"-type admonishment.
3.  I have no problem with a religious organization or employer mandating specific provisions or discriminatory policies in their workforces, provided that the nature of the work performed by the organization is spiritual in nature and the policies sought by said organization have a bona fide occupational relationship to that work.  Put another way, I don't want the government mandating that Catholic Churces perform gay marriages, even if the government legalizes it writ large, because it speaks to the ecclesiastical nature of their work.  Conversely, if a religious organization performs work of a largely secular nature, i.e. providing social services and assistance, that religious organization should play by the secular rules.

I can't say I agree with number 3. You can't say the church should play by secular rules because they're "doing things of a secular nature" in providing social services or medical services. They do that because that follows the "good works" standpoint of their religion, and they've been doing it for hundreds of years, back when those were considered to be largely religious occupations. I don't think you can just say "well, that's a secular thing now so you have to change your way of doing things."

[R-V]

1. A poorly-written law means you expand government's power over expression?
2. If someone from the government contacts my place of business and asks me to do/not to do something, I'd be on the phones with my attorneys.
3. Fair, but when an employee (or a student) chooses to work for an institution that is tied with one particular faith or another, is it unreasonable for them (especially victims like a 34-year-old law student) to consider: "If I choose place A, I'd have to understand that benefits, etc., are constrained by its faith; thus, place B might be a better place for me."

1.  What you call a poorly-written law, I call a bipartisan law that was the product of nearly 25 years of Congressional work designed to regulate campaign finance rather than curtail speech.  Your position presupposes that money, in this sense, equals speech, which I (and many others) find to be a preposterous ideas because it prefigures that one could have "more" speech by virtue of having "more" money.  To analogize, it would be akin to permitting a person to use an exceedingly large megaphone on a street corner to get his message out, which, under traditional first amendment jurisprudence, the State can regulate, seeing as it's a mechanism of speech, rather than a content-based restriction.  Nevertheless, it need not take a new law to change the campaign finance scheme, rather a couple of vacancies on the Court and a sympathetic president.
2.  I'd hope you'd be on the phone with your attorney, but I hope said attorney would take the time to delineate between prior restraint and a "hey, it'd help if you took this down, but we won't prosecute you if you don't"-type admonishment.
3.  I have no problem with a religious organization or employer mandating specific provisions or discriminatory policies in their workforces, provided that the nature of the work performed by the organization is spiritual in nature and the policies sought by said organization have a bona fide occupational relationship to that work.  Put another way, I don't want the government mandating that Catholic Churces perform gay marriages, even if the government legalizes it writ large, because it speaks to the ecclesiastical nature of their work.  Conversely, if a religious organization performs work of a largely secular nature, i.e. providing social services and assistance, that religious organization should play by the secular rules.

I can't say I agree with number 3. You can't say the church should play by secular rules because they're "doing things of a secular nature" in providing social services or medical services. They do that because that follows the "good works" standpoint of their religion, and they've been doing it for hundreds of years, back when those were considered to be largely religious occupations. I don't think you can just say "well, that's a secular thing now so you have to change your way of doing things."

This is completely outside the confines of this argument, which is a legal/constitutional one and interesting, but just from a common sense perspective, why is birth control a controversial issue? It's 2012 for Atheismo's sake. Does anyone but the Pope give a shit if a woman takes birth control pills? If so, why?

[SKO]

1. A poorly-written law means you expand government's power over expression?
2. If someone from the government contacts my place of business and asks me to do/not to do something, I'd be on the phones with my attorneys.
3. Fair, but when an employee (or a student) chooses to work for an institution that is tied with one particular faith or another, is it unreasonable for them (especially victims like a 34-year-old law student) to consider: "If I choose place A, I'd have to understand that benefits, etc., are constrained by its faith; thus, place B might be a better place for me."

1.  What you call a poorly-written law, I call a bipartisan law that was the product of nearly 25 years of Congressional work designed to regulate campaign finance rather than curtail speech.  Your position presupposes that money, in this sense, equals speech, which I (and many others) find to be a preposterous ideas because it prefigures that one could have "more" speech by virtue of having "more" money.  To analogize, it would be akin to permitting a person to use an exceedingly large megaphone on a street corner to get his message out, which, under traditional first amendment jurisprudence, the State can regulate, seeing as it's a mechanism of speech, rather than a content-based restriction.  Nevertheless, it need not take a new law to change the campaign finance scheme, rather a couple of vacancies on the Court and a sympathetic president.
2.  I'd hope you'd be on the phone with your attorney, but I hope said attorney would take the time to delineate between prior restraint and a "hey, it'd help if you took this down, but we won't prosecute you if you don't"-type admonishment.
3.  I have no problem with a religious organization or employer mandating specific provisions or discriminatory policies in their workforces, provided that the nature of the work performed by the organization is spiritual in nature and the policies sought by said organization have a bona fide occupational relationship to that work.  Put another way, I don't want the government mandating that Catholic Churces perform gay marriages, even if the government legalizes it writ large, because it speaks to the ecclesiastical nature of their work.  Conversely, if a religious organization performs work of a largely secular nature, i.e. providing social services and assistance, that religious organization should play by the secular rules.

I can't say I agree with number 3. You can't say the church should play by secular rules because they're "doing things of a secular nature" in providing social services or medical services. They do that because that follows the "good works" standpoint of their religion, and they've been doing it for hundreds of years, back when those were considered to be largely religious occupations. I don't think you can just say "well, that's a secular thing now so you have to change your way of doing things."

This is completely outside the confines of this argument, which is a legal/constitutional one and interesting, but just from a common sense perspective, why is birth control a controversial issue? It's 2012 for Atheismo's sake. Does anyone but the Pope give a shit if a woman takes birth control pills? If so, why?

Most Catholics use birth control. Vatican II basically said "decide for yourself" in terms of using it, but the Catholic Church with a capital C still balks at paying for it, and I  personally don't think they should have to. People who want to work for the Catholic Church in any format should accept that there are some ground rules. There are other hospitals and groups you can work for otherwise. If people still want to work for Catholic hospitals and organizations because they pay better or whatever the reason is, I think you can probably accept the burden of paying for your own birth control. I think the biggest issue is that the Catholic Church, probably because of its long history, looks bigger (and paranoid-er) picture and thinks this is a slippery slope to the government slowly chipping away at organized religion.

[CT III]

Most Catholics use birth control. Vatican II basically said "decide for yourself" in terms of using it, but the Catholic Church with a capital C still balks at paying for it, and I  personally don't think they should have to. People who want to work for the Catholic Church in any format should accept that there are some ground rules. There are other hospitals and groups you can work for otherwise. If people still want to work for Catholic hospitals and organizations because they pay better or whatever the reason is, I think you can probably accept the burden of paying for your own birth control. I think the biggest issue is that the Catholic Church, probably because of its long history, looks bigger (and paranoid-er) picture and thinks this is a slippery slope to the government slowly chipping away at organized religion.

Well, the other issue is that birth control pills can be prescribed to women for reasons other than shameful, childless sex.

Also, I'd be curious to know if the same plan that excludes women's birth control would cover a Viagra prescription, and if so, would the man in question have to provide his marriage license in order to get coverage?

[Brownie]

1. A poorly-written law means you expand government's power over expression?
2. If someone from the government contacts my place of business and asks me to do/not to do something, I'd be on the phones with my attorneys.
3. Fair, but when an employee (or a student) chooses to work for an institution that is tied with one particular faith or another, is it unreasonable for them (especially victims like a 34-year-old law student) to consider: "If I choose place A, I'd have to understand that benefits, etc., are constrained by its faith; thus, place B might be a better place for me."

1.  What you call a poorly-written law, I call a bipartisan law that was the product of nearly 25 years of Congressional work designed to regulate campaign finance rather than curtail speech.  Your position presupposes that money, in this sense, equals speech, which I (and many others) find to be a preposterous ideas because it prefigures that one could have "more" speech by virtue of having "more" money.  To analogize, it would be akin to permitting a person to use an exceedingly large megaphone on a street corner to get his message out, which, under traditional first amendment jurisprudence, the State can regulate, seeing as it's a mechanism of speech, rather than a content-based restriction.  Nevertheless, it need not take a new law to change the campaign finance scheme, rather a couple of vacancies on the Court and a sympathetic president.

No. That's not the analogy. You can turn off the TV, you can ignore billboard messages, you can tune out print and Internet ads. (Hell, you can fuck your candidate's opponent by clicking on his PPC ads often.) The law, as written, regulated the mentioning of a candidate in a federal election. It would affect the freedom of the press (many owned by corporate interests) and the freedom of speech.

Also, while we're on the subject, can we all just agree that "unions" and "corporations" are people? They're not controlled by some non-being. They're controlled by membership and shareholders, respectively, so when a union spends on an issue ad, it's collectively pooling resources to give its membership a louder voice. When it's a voluntary arrangement, it's a beautiful thing.

2.  I'd hope you'd be on the phone with your attorney, but I hope said attorney would take the time to delineate between prior restraint and a "hey, it'd help if you took this down, but we won't prosecute you if you don't"-type admonishment.

"Sure, just comply with us. If you don't we won't prosecute you, but we can't promise that an audit/surprise building inspection/etc. happens."

[Brownie]

Most Catholics use birth control. Vatican II basically said "decide for yourself" in terms of using it, but the Catholic Church with a capital C still balks at paying for it, and I  personally don't think they should have to. People who want to work for the Catholic Church in any format should accept that there are some ground rules. There are other hospitals and groups you can work for otherwise. If people still want to work for Catholic hospitals and organizations because they pay better or whatever the reason is, I think you can probably accept the burden of paying for your own birth control. I think the biggest issue is that the Catholic Church, probably because of its long history, looks bigger (and paranoid-er) picture and thinks this is a slippery slope to the government slowly chipping away at organized religion.

Well, the other issue is that birth control pills can be prescribed to women for reasons other than shameful, childless sex.

Also, I'd be curious to know if the same plan that excludes women's birth control would cover a Viagra prescription, and if so, would the man in question have to provide his marriage license in order to get coverage?

CT, I don't think anyone here would argue with the use of bc for shameful, non-procreative sex, let alone medicinal uses. The problem I have is this: the employer-employee relationship is a voluntary arrangement. If you want to work for me, you will have to decide if it's worth the tradeoff of looking at my stupid face everyday. If it's not worth it, take your talents somewhere that you don't have to. If I want to be competitive, I remedy it in some way as your superskills are elsewhere, helping someone else make money. If Sandra Fluke wants to go to Georgetown Law, she should consider that it has been a Jesuit institution for hundreds of years. If G-town was the only law school she could go to (ha ha), she should consider another profession if $9 b.c. pills being subsidized are that important.