You And Yours

[connermt]

Christainity says we have 'free will'. Christianity says each person is responsible for their own actions, in regards to one's eternal life heaven/hell.
If both of these concepts are true, why do so many people feel the need to 'butt' into another person's business?
If a person wants to smoke pot in their own home, why do some christians care?
A person wants to go to a stip club, why the need for christians take pictures of them and put on social media to 'shame them'? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /13738537/
What's the point here, christians? You don't like the club, don't go to/support it. How does taking their pictures 'save their souls'?
Don't like gay marriage? Don't 'be gay' and/or get married to a gay person. How does not allowing gay marriage to be legal 'save their souls'?
Don't believe in evolution, don't teach it in your churches. How does trying to sneak in ID as 'science' in public schools 'save the souls' of the students?
The list is almost endless.

While it's not about one's 'rights' to protest or not, it's about 'winning souls for jesus!'
How do these activities bring more lost sinners to god?
How does shaming a pot smoker, alcohol drinker, strip club patron, preventing man made rights from a gay person (etc) win these people's souls?

Surely forbidding churches from teaching their beliefs at church would be worth a fight in the US, the vast majority of these things happen independent of church and church activities. Yet, some christians seem to think it's their 'job' to 'butt into' the lives of people, who have no interest in going to, looking at or participating in, a church or church activity.

What's the 'christian logic' here? How does interferring with one's personal life benefit the cause to win souls to god?

[Zzyzx]

.

.

..though nobody sues unless he thinks that he'll win in court

That is not correct. There can be many reasons to sue even if one knows that the likelihood of success is very small (i.e. does not think he will win).

In my opinion, anybody who does is beneath contempt.

Whether or not you find a person who brings suit without "thinking he will win in court" is contemptible, such suits DO occur – rendering your statement incorrect.

People who sue when they know very well they won't win are only doing so to harrass unjustly, blackmail (if you give me a $2500 settlement, I won't sue you for a million bucks; and people, especially businesses, will hand over the money because it's cheaper to pay than to fight the lawsuit;

Do you equate "know very well they won't win" and "[does not] think he will win?"

Are you changing terms?

A "low probability lawsuit" may be brought against tobacco companies, for example, if people think there is some chance (small though it may be) that the court will decide that the companies are responsible for certain effects caused by use of their product.

it's extortion and an epidemic in California), People who sue when they KNOW they don't have a chance to win should be heavily penalized. People who threaten to sue when they know it's a frivolous lawsuit and are only after a short settlement....

Humans are that way, aren't they – often seeking maximum return for minimum effort (sometimes legally). Some states seem to have more than their share of opportunists (though others have different problems – cite Michigan for example).

Well, it's a legal 'protection racket." I can think of no honorable reason to sue when one has no expectation of winning. It's a waste of time, money, and resources that are needed for people who are seeking justice for questions that can be settled in a court of law.

Again this is a shift in the claim. Originally you said "nobody sues unless he thinks that he'll win in court." When that was shown to be incorrect, it was shifted to "beneath contempt" and "protection racket."

................................hmnn. Do you think I expressed my opinion of this sort of thing strongly enough, or should I add something?

Since you ask, adding a bit of knowledge of and experience with the law might help avoid spreading or reinforcing common misconceptions regarding civil law and about going to jail for unpaid judgments.

To make a point:

If I own property, personal or real property (not acknowledging that I do) one would "play hell" trying to demonstrate that the entity on deeds or titles is in any way connected to me. I have no wages to attach (and have not had for thirty-five years). My income sources are NOT attachable under Arkansas law, and I keep bank accounts drawn down to a few hundred or thousand dollars. My state has no debtor prison laws.

Now what is the real value of a million dollar judgment against me? Answer = zero.

(the government) and the judgment enforced (by the government).

That is not correct. The court ("government") does NOT enforce judgments – only allows the plaintive to execute the judgment.

Under color of legal authority. Try NOT paying a judgement and see what happens to you. Legally.

What, exactly, do you imagine government doing if one does not pay a judgment?

In reality, the government (court) does NOTHING to collect a judgment. Collection is the responsibility of a claimant who is awarded a judgment.

If a person upon whom a judgment is rendered owns no "attachable assets" the judgment is worthless and cannot be enforced. For instance, a judgment may allow:

1) A lien against owned property, especially real estate – IF the defendant owns such property in their own personal name and IF the judgment holder can discover their ownership. However, real estate or other property that is owned by a trust, corporation, or other parties is generally not attachable except through very laborious and demanding process.

2) Attachment of bank accounts (or other discovered sources of funds); however, there is no assurance that there is any money in bank accounts or other sources of funds – even if they can be discovered.

3) Garnishment of wages; however, that applies ONLY when the losing party has wages, and ONLY in some states and with certain limitations. Laws vary greatly between states in this regard.

The above is a simplification serving only to demonstrate that a person or entity can be "judgment execution proof" (there is nothing to attach).

The greatest fear of most people is that the will go to jail if they don't pay a judgment or lien – which is irrational (consult an attorney if in doubt).

The second greatest fear is that their credit rating will be affected. To this I respond, "Your credit rating is an inducement to incur debt. It may be wiser to remain debt-free and to pay 'cash on the barrel-head' for what you purchase" rather than paying interest to purchase what you cannot afford to pay for up-front."

People often have great fear of the infamous collection agencies. Those who are in the know often laugh at such agencies (and people who fear them). "See you in court" usually ends any threats.

That means if one wins a suit and is awarded a judgment of $1 million dollars they have a paper from the court that says the person owes them a million dollars. it is THEIR business to collect the money – not the court's. Depending on the court and various state laws they may be empowered to put a lien on real estate owned by the defendant, attach bank accounts, garnishee wages, etc. BUT the court does not do those things for them.

No, the court gives permission for the law enforcement arm of the government to enforce its rulings.

This is a common misconception -- that law enforcement arm will enforce court judgment.

What IS this? The courts ARE part of the government...we have separation of powers for a reason, and that reason is a checks and balances system. The courts are there to, mostly, put brakes on the legislative and administrative branches, and to try criminal cases. The administrative branch enforces the rulings of the court...but both are branches of GOVERNMENT. Once you enter the court system, you are dealing with all three: legislative, for the laws you are using to base your case on; the courts, to judge whether you are right, or your opponent is, and administration, which will enforce the ruling.

In the case of civil suits, that means that if the loser does not pay the fines, and you can't (by using government agencies to, say, garnishee wages or attach liens) recover them, then jail time may well be an issue.

Lawsuits are a matter for civil court, not criminal court. Jail time is a feature of criminal court. People are not imprisoned for failure to pay a judgment (with rare exception as a last resort in cases such as "deadbeat parents" who refuse to pay child support even though they have the means to do so).

And do not tell me that a verdict by the court means that what the court found is therefore 'right and good,' and thus constitutional and nobody should have any complaints.

Only the very naive would maintain such thing.

I am not an attorney but experience has taught me this much (which is accurate to the best of my knowledge – but subject to correction by those truly versed in law).

Ah, but it is amazing how often I am treated to the 'but its legal and the courts decided THIS" as if that settled the morality as well as the legality of something,

Who is defending the morality of all court decisions?

I think it all depends upon whose ox is being gored, right?

Perhaps it is more a case of what one thinks personally about an issue and how much or little they know of the law and the courts.

[dianaiad]

.

.

..though nobody sues unless he thinks that he'll win in court

That is not correct. There can be many reasons to sue even if one knows that the likelihood of success is very small (i.e. does not think he will win).

In my opinion, anybody who does is beneath contempt.

Whether or not you find a person who brings suit without "thinking he will win in court" is contemptible, such suits DO occur – rendering your statement incorrect.

People who sue when they know very well they won't win are only doing so to harrass unjustly, blackmail (if you give me a $2500 settlement, I won't sue you for a million bucks; and people, especially businesses, will hand over the money because it's cheaper to pay than to fight the lawsuit;

Do you equate "know very well they won't win" and "[does not] think he will win?"

Are you changing terms?

A "low probability lawsuit" may be brought against tobacco companies, for example, if people think there is some chance (small though it may be) that the court will decide that the companies are responsible for certain effects caused by use of their product.

it's extortion and an epidemic in California), People who sue when they KNOW they don't have a chance to win should be heavily penalized. People who threaten to sue when they know it's a frivolous lawsuit and are only after a short settlement....

Humans are that way, aren't they – often seeking maximum return for minimum effort (sometimes legally). Some states seem to have more than their share of opportunists (though others have different problems – cite Michigan for example).

Well, it's a legal 'protection racket." I can think of no honorable reason to sue when one has no expectation of winning. It's a waste of time, money, and resources that are needed for people who are seeking justice for questions that can be settled in a court of law.

Again this is a shift in the claim. Originally you said "nobody sues unless he thinks that he'll win in court." When that was shown to be incorrect, it was shifted to "beneath contempt" and "protection racket."

You might accuse me of clarifying terms in a single post, but not 'shifting.' After all, all these statements by me were in a single post. In other words, no statement was made in response to having a previous one 'shown incorrect."

................................hmnn. Do you think I expressed my opinion of this sort of thing strongly enough, or should I add something?

Since you ask, adding a bit of knowledge of and experience with the law might help avoid spreading or reinforcing common misconceptions regarding civil law and about going to jail for unpaid judgments.

To make a point:

If I own property, personal or real property (not acknowledging that I do) one would "play hell" trying to demonstrate that the entity on deeds or titles is in any way connected to me. I have no wages to attach (and have not had for thirty-five years). My income sources are NOT attachable under Arkansas law, and I keep bank accounts drawn down to a few hundred or thousand dollars. My state has no debtor prison laws.

Now what is the real value of a million dollar judgment against me? Answer = zero.

And those who were not as legally astute as you? Businesses which can be identified, and assets which have not been cleverly disguised? (not that I in any way criticize you for doing so, mind you, if indeed you have).

I am quite aware of the term 'judgement proof." I was, for a very long time. No longer, because I do own a home and have identifiable income (social security and a small pension). Nobody's going to get a million out of me, though.

Even with those assets, I can always declare bankruptcy and get out of it that way, but declaring bankruptcy is a VERY expensive and life changing thing to do. It puts a crimp in one's life for quite a long time.

(the government) and the judgment enforced (by the government).

That is not correct. The court ("government") does NOT enforce judgments – only allows the plaintive to execute the judgment.

Under color of legal authority. Try NOT paying a judgement and see what happens to you. Legally.

What, exactly, do you imagine government doing if one does not pay a judgment?

In reality, the government (court) does NOTHING to collect a judgment. Collection is the responsibility of a claimant who is awarded a judgment.

.....and the claimant shows up to the defendant's back with a (whisper this one) court order and the bank garnishees wages. Or he shows up with a (again in a whisper) court order and puts a lien on the property.

Violating a court order has some pretty serious consequences.

If a person upon whom a judgment is rendered owns no "attachable assets" the judgment is worthless and cannot be enforced. For instance, a judgment may allow:

1) A lien against owned property, especially real estate – IF the defendant owns such property in their own personal name and IF the judgment holder can discover their ownership. However, real estate or other property that is owned by a trust, corporation, or other parties is generally not attachable except through very laborious and demanding process.

2) Attachment of bank accounts (or other discovered sources of funds); however, there is no assurance that there is any money in bank accounts or other sources of funds – even if they can be discovered.

3) Garnishment of wages; however, that applies ONLY when the losing party has wages, and ONLY in some states and with certain limitations. Laws vary greatly between states in this regard.

All the above is true, and only serves to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the defendant to get a job, acquire property or make any money. As soon as his new employer finds out that he has to garnishee wages...oops...and just TRY to get a security clearance if you have a judgement against you.

Even if you end up not having to pay the actual money, your life will become considerably limited...and government agencies and government court systems are the folks who do it.

The above is a simplification serving only to demonstrate that a person or entity can be "judgment execution proof" (there is nothing to attach).

The greatest fear of most people is that the will go to jail if they don't pay a judgment or lien – which is irrational (consult an attorney if in doubt).

No jail time...unless someone does something really stupid. However, what would YOU call someone who can't get a job, can't buy a home, can't earn money, and can't acquire assets without the government grabbing it?

You are only 'judgement proof' until you actually get some money. Then you aren't, any more. That judgement doesn't just go away...not for a decade or more.

The second greatest fear is that their credit rating will be affected. To this I respond, "Your credit rating is an inducement to incur debt. It may be wiser to remain debt-free and to pay 'cash on the barrel-head' for what you purchase" rather than paying interest to purchase what you cannot afford to pay for up-front."

So....you aren't arguing that their credit rating won't either suffer, just that it's a good thing if it does?

Ever try to rent a house, an apartment, or BUY a car or house without a decent credit rating? OK, so you don't need to buy a house...but people usually like to have roofs over their heads. You need a decent credit rating to RENT.

Or...to work for the government. That pesky security clearance stuff again.

People often have great fear of the infamous collection agencies. Those who are in the know often laugh at such agencies (and people who fear them). "See you in court" usually ends any threats.

Usually...and thank you. Collection agencies are among the worst culprits of the type I was vilifying; they threaten to sue so that you will pay them rather than get sued.

I once had a collection agency call me and tell me that if I didn't give them a check over the phone....for my DAUGHTER'S bill...that they would have a process server with a subpoena at my front door in a half hour. This guy was a real trip, actually.....

That was fun. I got his number and the name of his company, told him where to stuff it, told him that his call was being recorded (it wasn't, darn it) and that he could send his process server to my lawyer's office. (I didn't have one). Funny...nobody showed up at my door.

That means if one wins a suit and is awarded a judgment of $1 million dollars they have a paper from the court that says the person owes them a million dollars. it is THEIR business to collect the money – not the court's. Depending on the court and various state laws they may be empowered to put a lien on real estate owned by the defendant, attach bank accounts, garnishee wages, etc. BUT the court does not do those things for them.

No, they simply issue the court orders, which, when presented to banks and employers, gets the wages garnisheed, the accounts seized, and so on. If the plaintiff has to take that piece of paper to the bank himself, it makes no difference: the bank knows that if it does not obey the court order, IT will be penalized.

No, the court gives permission for the law enforcement arm of the government to enforce its rulings.

This is a common misconception -- that law enforcement arm will enforce court judgment.

It absolutely will, especially if the court order involves an injunction of some sort.

What IS this? The courts ARE part of the government...we have separation of powers for a reason, and that reason is a checks and balances system. The courts are there to, mostly, put brakes on the legislative and administrative branches, and to try criminal cases. The administrative branch enforces the rulings of the court...but both are branches of GOVERNMENT. Once you enter the court system, you are dealing with all three: legislative, for the laws you are using to base your case on; the courts, to judge whether you are right, or your opponent is, and administration, which will enforce the ruling.

In the case of civil suits, that means that if the loser does not pay the fines, and you can't (by using government agencies to, say, garnishee wages or attach liens) recover them, then jail time may well be an issue.

Lawsuits are a matter for civil court, not criminal court. Jail time is a feature of criminal court. People are not imprisoned for failure to pay a judgment (with rare exception as a last resort in cases such as "deadbeat parents" who refuse to pay child support even though they have the means to do so).

Jail time is an issue for 'dead beat dads" even if they DON'T have the assets.

However, and this was sloppy of me...I was thinking of breaking injunctions rather than financial payments when I talked about 'jail time.' Thank you for reminding me about the 'dead beat parent' thing.

And do not tell me that a verdict by the court means that what the court found is therefore 'right and good,' and thus constitutional and nobody should have any complaints.

Only the very naive would maintain such thing.

I am not an attorney but experience has taught me this much (which is accurate to the best of my knowledge – but subject to correction by those truly versed in law).

Ah, but it is amazing how often I am treated to the 'but its legal and the courts decided THIS" as if that settled the morality as well as the legality of something,

Who is defending the morality of all court decisions?

That depends ENTIRELY upon whether someone agrees with that decision, Zzyzx.

I think it all depends upon whose ox is being gored, right?

Perhaps it is more a case of what one thinks personally about an issue and how much or little they know of the law and the courts.

Yeah, that's what I said. Sorta.

[Zzyzx]

.

If I own property, personal or real property (not acknowledging that I do) one would "play hell" trying to demonstrate that the entity on deeds or titles is in any way connected to me. I have no wages to attach (and have not had for thirty-five years). My income sources are NOT attachable under Arkansas law, and I keep bank accounts drawn down to a few hundred or thousand dollars. My state has no debtor prison laws.

Now what is the real value of a million dollar judgment against me? Answer = zero.

And those who were not as legally astute as you?

I make my decisions and allow others to make theirs. What they choose to know or not know / do or not do, is their business, not mine.

Businesses which can be identified, and assets which have not been cleverly disguised? (not that I in any way criticize you for doing so, mind you, if indeed you have).

Businesses are well advised to have very competent legal advice upon which to make decisions (and attorneys to represent them in court if necessary).

I am quite aware of the term 'judgement proof." I was, for a very long time. No longer, because I do own a home and have identifiable income (social security and a small pension). Nobody's going to get a million out of me, though.

It is best to think of judgment EXECUTON proof because no one is immune to a judgment (i.e., anyone can be sued – nearly), but to execution of the judgment (collection) one can be immune.

Your Social Security is NOT subject to creditor attachment. Retirement pensions are also exempted in most states. Real estate owned in your name is usually attachable (typically with a lien that has no effect until and unless title to the property (deed) is to be transferred, as in a sale.

Even with those assets, I can always declare bankruptcy and get out of it that way, but declaring bankruptcy is a VERY expensive and life changing thing to do. It puts a crimp in one's life for quite a long time.

Bankruptcy is an option chosen by about 1.5 million US citizens annually (excluding business bankruptcies). That is not very different from the number of divorces and the number of abortions.

Evidently citizens survive all three.

In reality, the government (court) does NOTHING to collect a judgment. Collection is the responsibility of a claimant who is awarded a judgment.

.....and the claimant shows up to the defendant's back with a (whisper this one) court order and the bank garnishees wages. Or he shows up with a (again in a whisper) court order and puts a lien on the property.

Speaking out loud, garnishments and liens are public actions, not something secretly done by banks or registrars.

Violating a court order has some pretty serious consequences.

To what court order do you refer?

All the above is true, and only serves to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the defendant to get a job, acquire property or make any money.

That may pose a problem for some people in some circumstances. For others it is no problem at all. General claims are often wrong.

As soon as his new employer finds out that he has to garnishee wages...oops...and just TRY to get a security clearance if you have a judgement against you.

I, and others, do not care to have a security clearance.

About 4 million people have a security clearance in the US. Thus, a few less than one in a hundred have this as a consideration.

Even if you end up not having to pay the actual money, your life will become considerably limited...and government agencies and government court systems are the folks who do it.

A judgment would make absolutely no difference in the lives of many people, me included. However, the general public seems to fear the prospect all out of proportion.

The above is a simplification serving only to demonstrate that a person or entity can be "judgment execution proof" (there is nothing to attach).

The greatest fear of most people is that the will go to jail if they don't pay a judgment or lien – which is irrational (consult an attorney if in doubt).

No jail time...unless someone does something really stupid.

Thank you

However, what would YOU call someone who can't get a job, can't buy a home, can't earn money, and can't acquire assets without the government grabbing it?

What government agencies do you envision grabbing a person's assets as a result of a civil court lawsuit?

Many people can't get a job or earn money (or seem unable or unwilling) with or without judgments against them. Many cannot buy a home even with a good credit rating and no judgments if their income is insufficient. So what?

You are only 'judgement proof' until you actually get some money. Then you aren't, any more. That judgement doesn't just go away...not for a decade or more.

I disagree. One can have significant money and assets that are NOT attachable – if they have adequate legal advice or personal knowledge.

The second greatest fear is that their credit rating will be affected. To this I respond, "Your credit rating is an inducement to incur debt. It may be wiser to remain debt-free and to pay 'cash on the barrel-head' for what you purchase" rather than paying interest to purchase what you cannot afford to pay for up-front."

So....you aren't arguing that their credit rating won't either suffer, just that it's a good thing if it does?

In my opinion, credit ratings primary influence is upon a person's ability to BORROW money. I discourage borrowing money and do not do so myself (refusing to pay interest in order to "own" something that I cannot afford to buy outright).

I realize that is a foreign concept to most people because they have been in debt their entire life and pay out a significant portion of their income in interest.

Ever try to rent a house, an apartment, or BUY a car or house without a decent credit rating? OK, so you don't need to buy a house...but people usually like to have roofs over their heads. You need a decent credit rating to RENT.

I have done the above with NO credit rating (no credit to report – don't borrow money, don't have bills other than electric, DSL, fitness center) for thirty five years.

I do not often buy vehicles (buy a good one and keep it) but when I do I pay cash. No one inquires about my credit rating when I hand them money.

Or...to work for the government. That pesky security clearance stuff again.

I worked for a state government (university) for a decade without problem. Security clearance may be an issue for some people if that is required in their desired occupation – which does not apply here.

People often have great fear of the infamous collection agencies. Those who are in the know often laugh at such agencies (and people who fear them). "See you in court" usually ends any threats.

Usually...and thank you. Collection agencies are among the worst culprits of the type I was vilifying; they threaten to sue so that you will pay them rather than get sued.

Collection agencies are among the most disreputable businesses in existence – along with payday loan companies (both probably comparable to drug dealers and the Mafia).

That
This is a common misconception -- that law enforcement arm will enforce court judgment.

It absolutely will, especially if the court order involves an injunction of some sort.

A judgment awarding damages and an injunction are two separate and different things.

An injunction is Court order forbidding something from being done (prohibitory injunction), or commanding something to be done (mandatory injunction). Injunctions are issued where mere award of damages at the end of a trial would not be satisfactory or effective, or may lead to a greater harm or injustice.

Jail time is an issue for 'dead beat dads" even if they DON'T have the assets.

Is that true nationwide or just in some states, or do you know?

BTW, "deadbeat parents" is less gender biased.

Who is defending the morality of all court decisions?

That depends ENTIRELY upon whether someone agrees with that decision, Zzyzx.

In other words, the "morality" of which you speak is simply a matter of personal opinion?

Also, in other words, no one here is defending morality of all court decisions. Right?

[DanieltheDragon]

while this has been very educational in terms of the legal process of lawsuits I can't help but wonder if we are perhaps getting a bit off topic?


With regards to the bakery case, perhaps the lawsuit should not have occurred perhaps there was no other bakery that made quality wedding cakes in the area.

Regardless the bakery was in violation of the law and that is the issue.

The lawsuit was not without merit and according to Colorado law was justified.

If you have issue with the case it is with the Colorado law not the merits of the suit.

Do we have the right to deny service to individuals or groups we do not like?
I would be inclined to say yes but this presents many problems and is it beneficial as a society to live with these problems and where do we draw the line at pay at the cost of goods(charging more for the same service/product to individuals of a particular group).

Perhaps we can agree that if one offers a good or service to the public one should not be allowed to discriminate.

[Danmark]

I have been careful from the outset to say it is a matter of the 'definition of terms.' I disagree with your statement "The courts are the government." Yes, they are one of the 3 branches of 'government,' but they are distinct and they adjudicate disputes brought by and against the 'government.'

Well, parsing and redefining the words might make a more interesting argument from your pov, but the guy who loses a lawsuit and is then forced to abide by the court ruling is going to understand quite well that the government is making him do it.

I had a great time over the extended weekend, camping along the North Fork of the John Day River in Oregon. It's a great stretch of country, heavily wooded, where one can find undesignated camping and solitude. I got to thinking about why I resist calling the courts part of the 'government.' I guess for me, 'government' is a semi dirty word. I don't believe in anarchy, but government can be just as overbearing as giant international corporations as it oppresses the rights of the individual. Too frequently the very wealthy and their corporations exert a disproportionate power over the legislative and executive branches, particularly the former. The judicial branch is not immune from the indirect power exerted by the executive, but it is the branch of government most independent from the rule of the mob and the power of money. More than any other branch of government, it is the judicial branch that can give the little guy, the average person, the individual who does not have great financial resources, a fighting chance when he goes up against the overwhelming powers of darkness that exert control over our elected representatives with the power of $.

When I look at the current Bush court and see their more or less automatic 4 votes and often 5, I see them as part of the government, a rubber stamp for big business and the conservative ideology that oppresses the individual, glosses over the Constitution, and affirms the power elite.

It is the Justices like William O. Douglas, and Hugo Black, Thurgood Marshall and others who I see as supporting the ideal of the U. S. Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, which I see as a violently anti government document, that makes me resist calling the court part of the guv'mint. But to the extent we have government favoring rubber stamps like Thomas and Alito, yes, they are just part of the government, or so it seems to me. But the champions of the individual citizen and his rights seem to me the antithesis of government, whatever technical category you want to put them in.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 24 by DanieltheDragon]

No, of course not..no one is FORCED to use a given product. But none should be hounded out of a job either, as some here have supported, (saying that he deserved to lose his job for not having liberal views on the issue)

Not sure about the struggle of Firefox, but I could be wrong on that. Still, that is not the way I heard it was reported. And boycotts organized by advocates and rabble rousers CAN be a form or "hounding" wouldn't you agree?

On the other hand, why should I buy a product from someone who is spending money against my interests, or against the interests of family members ?? If enough people deceide to vote with their cash, why not!

For example, I will NEVER shop at Hobby Lobby. When the whole Jewish issue came out about 'we don't cater to you people', one of my friends, who is Jewish, went to the one hobby lobby in the entire area to test it out. He was told 'Our owner has Christian Values, we don't carry Jew stuff'. This was even before the whole thing with birth control came about.

Why shouldn't I boycott places lke that?? if it hounds someone out of a job, well, there is a good reason for them not to be in there.. because their lack of judgement is turning customers away. Why should I shop at a place that does things against my best interests?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 24 by DanieltheDragon]

No, of course not..no one is FORCED to use a given product. But none should be hounded out of a job either, as some here have supported, (saying that he deserved to lose his job for not having liberal views on the issue)

Not sure about the struggle of Firefox, but I could be wrong on that. Still, that is not the way I heard it was reported. And boycotts organized by advocates and rabble rousers CAN be a form or "hounding" wouldn't you agree?

On the other hand, why should I buy a product from someone who is spending money against my interests, or against the interests of family members ?? If enough people deceide to vote with their cash, why not!

For example, I will NEVER shop at Hobby Lobby. When the whole Jewish issue came out about 'we don't cater to you people', one of my friends, who is Jewish, went to the one hobby lobby in the entire area to test it out. He was told 'Our owner has Christian Values, we don't carry Jew stuff'. This was even before the whole thing with birth control came about.

Why shouldn't I boycott places lke that?? if it hounds someone out of a job, well, there is a good reason for them not to be in there.. because their lack of judgement is turning customers away. Why should I shop at a place that does things against my best interests?

I NEVER heard anything like that about Hobby Lobby, the anti-Semitic stuff (policy?).
To me, that sounds like pure, Fundamentalist religious bigotry. So if it is true, and I have no reason to doubt your story, I would oppose Hobby Lobby to that extent too, and certainly understand your reason for wanting to boycott them. Personally, I would say that they have that RIGHT to sell only Christan products (whatever that means) but I would probably join you in boycotting them for their display of Fundamentalist religious bigotry, but not for their policy on birth control.

But that is not the same as values discrimination about birth control, the kind that induces abortions. Hobby Lobby was not denying anyone's legal right to use that kind of birth control, they just felt they should not be FORCED to pay for it. There is a difference.

So I do not think the Firefox and the Hobby Lobby cases are (or were) the same....at all.

I oppose what I consider the tyranny of the minority, (not to be confused with minority rights) and do not think ANYONE should be hounded out of a position because of their political views, whether pro or anti gay marraige. One sould be free to differ with a given point of view, be it from a minority OR from the majority.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 24 by DanieltheDragon]

No, of course not..no one is FORCED to use a given product. But none should be hounded out of a job either, as some here have supported, (saying that he deserved to lose his job for not having liberal views on the issue)

Not sure about the struggle of Firefox, but I could be wrong on that. Still, that is not the way I heard it was reported. And boycotts organized by advocates and rabble rousers CAN be a form or "hounding" wouldn't you agree?

On the other hand, why should I buy a product from someone who is spending money against my interests, or against the interests of family members ?? If enough people deceide to vote with their cash, why not!

For example, I will NEVER shop at Hobby Lobby. When the whole Jewish issue came out about 'we don't cater to you people', one of my friends, who is Jewish, went to the one hobby lobby in the entire area to test it out. He was told 'Our owner has Christian Values, we don't carry Jew stuff'. This was even before the whole thing with birth control came about.

Why shouldn't I boycott places lke that?? if it hounds someone out of a job, well, there is a good reason for them not to be in there.. because their lack of judgement is turning customers away. Why should I shop at a place that does things against my best interests?

I NEVER heard anything like that about Hobby Lobby, the anti-Semitic stuff (policy?).
To me, that sounds like pure, Fundamentalist religious bigotry. So if it is true, and I have no reason to doubt your story, I would oppose Hobby Lobby to that extent too, and certainly understand your reason for wanting to boycott them. Personally, I would say that they have that RIGHT to sell only Christan products (whatever that means) but I would probably join you in boycotting them for their display of Fundamentalist religious bigotry, but not for their policy on birth control.

But that is not the same as values discrimination about birth control, the kind that induces abortions. Hobby Lobby was not denying anyone's legal right to use that kind of birth control, they just felt they should not be FORCED to pay for it. There is a difference.

So I do not think the Firefox and the Hobby Lobby cases are (or were) the same....at all.

I oppose what I consider the tyranny of the minority, (not to be confused with minority rights) and do not think ANYONE should be hounded out of a position because of their political views, whether pro or anti gay marraige. One sould be free to differ with a given point of view, be it from a minority OR from the majority.

I will boycott any for profit company that tries to get around a law for 'religious purposes'. Period. I totally disagree with that decision from the supreme court,and feel that attempting to not follow the law with the excuse of religous practices is unethical. I also am boycotting Exxon, Eden foods, Burger king (for thinking about moving their company headquarters out of the states to avoid taxes).

Why should I spend money for a company that is promoting things that are against my interests or against my ethics?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 24 by DanieltheDragon]

No, of course not..no one is FORCED to use a given product. But none should be hounded out of a job either, as some here have supported, (saying that he deserved to lose his job for not having liberal views on the issue)

Not sure about the struggle of Firefox, but I could be wrong on that. Still, that is not the way I heard it was reported. And boycotts organized by advocates and rabble rousers CAN be a form or "hounding" wouldn't you agree?

On the other hand, why should I buy a product from someone who is spending money against my interests, or against the interests of family members ?? If enough people deceide to vote with their cash, why not!

For example, I will NEVER shop at Hobby Lobby. When the whole Jewish issue came out about 'we don't cater to you people', one of my friends, who is Jewish, went to the one hobby lobby in the entire area to test it out. He was told 'Our owner has Christian Values, we don't carry Jew stuff'. This was even before the whole thing with birth control came about.

Why shouldn't I boycott places lke that?? if it hounds someone out of a job, well, there is a good reason for them not to be in there.. because their lack of judgement is turning customers away. Why should I shop at a place that does things against my best interests?

I NEVER heard anything like that about Hobby Lobby, the anti-Semitic stuff (policy?).
To me, that sounds like pure, Fundamentalist religious bigotry. So if it is true, and I have no reason to doubt your story, I would oppose Hobby Lobby to that extent too, and certainly understand your reason for wanting to boycott them. Personally, I would say that they have that RIGHT to sell only Christan products (whatever that means) but I would probably join you in boycotting them for their display of Fundamentalist religious bigotry, but not for their policy on birth control.

But that is not the same as values discrimination about birth control, the kind that induces abortions. Hobby Lobby was not denying anyone's legal right to use that kind of birth control, they just felt they should not be FORCED to pay for it. There is a difference.

So I do not think the Firefox and the Hobby Lobby cases are (or were) the same....at all.

I oppose what I consider the tyranny of the minority, (not to be confused with minority rights) and do not think ANYONE should be hounded out of a position because of their political views, whether pro or anti gay marraige. One sould be free to differ with a given point of view, be it from a minority OR from the majority.

I will boycott any for profit company that tries to get around a law for 'religious purposes'. Period. I totally disagree with that decision from the supreme court,and feel that attempting to not follow the law with the excuse of religous practices is unethical. I also am boycotting Exxon, Eden foods, Burger king (for thinking about moving their company headquarters out of the states to avoid taxes).

Why should I spend money for a company that is promoting things that are against my interests or against my ethics?

You are free to disagree, and boycott, that is your right. But apparently the Supreme Court is PROTECTING Hobby Lobby's religious freedom, thus what they are doing IS legal, and they are not "trying to get around the law". In the minds of many, religuous freedom IS ethical, and a founding principle.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 59 by Elijah John]
The Hobby Lobby issue is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. I seldom become emotionally involved in the religious beliefs of others.

If a business chooses to alienate a portion of their customer base -- or loses significant employees, that is fine with me. If the business fails as partially a result of their decision, fine. Who cares?

When I was in business (various times) religion was simply NOT an issue -- related to customers or employees. I consider it foolish to involved one's theistic position (positive or negative) in business matters. Others seem to think otherwise.