161–168 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that kind of the point of hiring an expert? If you knew the provenance of an item, what it was worth, and how it was obtained, why waste money on hiring an expert?
...to verify that you are correct and the items are genuine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are cases of people going to jail because they donated money to charities claiming to help orphans. Government argument in those cases was that they should have "known better." Only reason executives are not charged with treason is because they are white Christians not brown Muslims.
> Only reason executives are not charged with treason is because they are white Christians not brown Muslims Well, rich white politically-connected Christians. And the charge wouldn't be treason, because the charge is never treason, because of the Constitutional limits on attached to treason and the fact that any punishment can be attached to some other offense without those limits.
There have been several Americans charged and convicted of treason. Tokyo Rose is a rather well-known one with many references in pop culture:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/asia/28rose.html
https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-1904-7.html
and also Robert Henry Best who served a life sentence and died in prison:
I think a lot of people on here are "fishing for a hypocrisy story" as one commentor said. What's the point in that? what if you're right,is it a surprise that hypocrisy exists? it only speaks to the character of the individual(s) not the quality or correctness of their belief. A person did something criminal. period. what point is there to be made with respect to their religion? Did they claim their religion mandate…
There's no need to fish. See my comments above, they Green's were well briefed on this before they started their collection. They were briefed by a well-known legal authority. Honestly you sound like a shill.
>"Regardless, I hope the people making this about religion also hold other corporations who commit crimes to the same standard and associate their beliefs or religion with their crimes.
Why wouldn't they?
>"Come on... leave some room to reason." Except that none of the actions or claims by the Hobby Lobby stand up to reason, which is why they lost in court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how the "justice" system works in America. Giant crime by a party with a lot of money? DOJ will just slap you with a relatively small fine. Bag of weed? You're going to jail, buddy!
So when someone from HL inevitably is jailed over this, will you admit that you and your outlook are wrong?
And my outlook is not wrong. There are two justice systems in America - one for the fairly-to-very wealthy and one for everyone else. I used to be a law clerk to a federal judge (no longer a lawyer). My outlook is unfortunately accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say the vast majority of their customers are just people who want crafting supplies and it happens to be the nearest big box store for them. I think a relatively small fraction of the population is as politically aware as you suggest.
The one opportunity I had to go in this store was safely avoided by going to a Michael instead. specifically because I refuse to give them a cent. it is extremely difficult to avoid stores/businesses owned by religious groups. I recently avoided purchasing an item from Yakima due to the coming across the following [0]. In reality businesses like Marriott Hotels and Chic Filet irritate me and I avoid when I can (busin…
Luckily, there's a lot of other options there, depending on exactly what product you're looking at. Thule is a very big competitor here, plus there's lots of other smaller name-brands too.
But I agree, someone should compile a list of religious-owned companies to avoid, and a list of atheist/agnostic owned companies to choose instead.
However, I do have to ask what your beef with Marriott is. I looked through their Wikipedia page and couldn't find anything about them being religious, except for a mention that they include a copy of the Book of Mormon along with the Bible in each room, but that could be just a PR thing (pretty much every hotel in the US has a Bible in each room after all, and they aren't all religious, they're just catering to America's population). The company itself is publicly traded, unlike privately-held Hobby Lobby.
The ones that irritate me are ChicFilA and In-and-Out Burger, as they're both overtly Christian.
This BTW shows why it's a good idea to, in general, avoid buying from American companies and instead buy from Japanese or western European ones. Japanese ones are probably easily the safest bets, since Japan has an extremely non-religious society, and the Abrahamic religions in particular have almost no representation there. And Japanese companies aren't in bed with Middle Eastern ones.
I think a lot of people on here are "fishing for a hypocrisy story" as one commentor said. What's the point in that? what if you're right,is it a surprise that hypocrisy exists? it only speaks to the character of the individual(s) not the quality or correctness of their belief. A person did something criminal. period. what point is there to be made with respect to their religion? Did they claim their religion mandate…
>"I think a lot of people on here are "fishing for a hypocrisy story" There's no need to fish. See my comments above, they Green's were well briefed on this before they started their collection. They were briefed by a well-known legal authority. Honestly you sound like a shill. >"Regardless, I hope the people making this about religion also hold other corporations who commit crimes to the same standard and associate…
> Why wouldn't they? Because it happens all the time and nobody says "Oh, are atheists,that's why they're so bad, hypocrits!" maybe that's just because their beliefs has no moral standards at all.
>"Come on... leave some room to reason." Except that none of the actions or claims by the Hobby Lobby stand up to reason, which is why they lost in court.
I wasn't defending hobby lobby, "reason" in that context means accusing someone of a different crime when the evidence/context is for a present crime. You're calling a thief a hypocrite because he said he doesn't approve of murder. that is unreasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in my experience. It's obviously not a distorted generalization of the Hobby Lobby owners themselves, and I think they're very representative of that sub-group of Christians. Not to say that all Christians are like this, not by a long shot; evangelicals are only a fraction, and the far-right-wing politically-active ones like the HL owners are a fraction of that, but they're a really awful fraction.
Having grown up in that culture, worked at HL as my first job and a brother that worked at Mardel, you have no idea what you are talking about.