Free nude redhead ameture pictures
In this respect, I much prefer the European system, where healthcare insurance and pension funds are co-managed by workers’ representatives (usually, but not mandatorily, through trade unions)
Legal personhood is a metaphor which has been stretched far beyond its usefulness. It’s another of those modernist tendencies to gnostic abstraction which is causing so much damage.
@Siarlys: The flower shop in Washington is not a sole proprietorship. The business is Arlenes Flowers Inc., which is a registered for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington. Check out the Washington Secretary of State website.
@Erdrick: I agree. I think religious conservatives will come to regret the principle established in the Hobby Lobby case. Already, a number of major corporations require vendors to review their values and affirm their unambiguous agreement with those values as a condition of receiving business. I’d guess that about half of my firm’s clients require me to take a values quiz before I can be approved to do work for them.
@Giuseppe: Maybe so. But that’s not the position that religious conservatives have taken in the US.
The outlawing of sodomy on health grounds “because it hurts you” opens the door to prsecuting people who do not have a healthy diet. After all, obesity is the cause of too many diseases, and even a few pounds overweight can give you a heart attack.
So, if the State has the right, on health grounds to outlaw sodomy, why should it not have the right to lock up Chris Christie for his unholy love of Nachos?
The business is Arlenes Flowers Inc., which is a registered for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
In modern America, individuals who run a business out of their garage with no employees at all can incorporate, which is no bad thing. It means that they share with I.E. Du Pont de Nemours Inc. the privilege if not having their home, their car, their personal savings, their children’s educational fund, confiscated to pay the debts of the business in case of bankruptcy.
But an individual running a small personal business is, by your own admission, not the same as a gigantic soul-less corporate entity in terms of its rights.
Too many conservatives applauded it when it came to enforcing norms that they approved of. Now the shoe is on the other foot.
Which will get us to a better place? Enjoying the site of conservatives being thrown to the lions by the very forces we have long decried? Or welcoming the belated support of conservatives as the scales fall from their eyes? Corporate capitalism is the enemy, even if they are persecuting conservatives.
So you’d have to do a lot of policing of bedrooms and also outlaw 90% of heterosexual porno films in existence.
Baron Harkkonen, I don’t know which of the advocates of possibly banning sodomy you were responding to. Speaking only for myself, you may have noticed that I mentioned such a law would be honored in the breach quite often, would seldom be enforced, but in the most egregious circumstances, would be on the books and available, which might at least induce people to be most careful when they indulged.
My primary point is, removed from the gay rights issue, the act itself is hazardous, and therefore could be constitutionally regulated or outlawed, without respect to race, creed, color, nationality, sex, or sexual orientation. Whether its worth bothering is another question.
The outlawing of sodomy on health grounds “because it hurts you” opens the door to prsecuting people who do not have a healthy diet.
The outlawing of aggravated assault because it hurts you opens the door to persecuting people who get themselves tatooed?
This all or nothing syllogism is the most pathetic whimpering nonsense I’ve seen in a long time. If you don’t understand the difference between a specific time-limited act that tears the muscles of one human being by the invasive actions of another, vs. the cumulative effects of voluntary consumption of food by a single person at their own volition, you are unqualified to legislate on any subject whatsoever.
But of course you were just grabbing for a foolish analogy to reassure yourself that there is nothing to rethink in your adopted ideology.
You may not like sodomy even consensual. I just pointed out that “because it is not good for you” is NOT a rationale for crimializing people who indulge in something. You may think that I am stretching things a bit when I address overeating. But give it a few years, a few more fat shaming incidents, a few more statistics of what it costs the American economy all those diseases, and one day someone will want to make it illegal to indulge in the wrong foods. When it happens, you will remember Thomas More warning about tearing up places that could have been a refuge.
For you it is an important difference. For those now engaging in fat shaming, it is not. God help us overindulgers if they ever get power.
As for the disjuncitive you offer, between being glad that conservatives are hoist by their own petard, or welcoming that they are finally seeing the light, I do not see it that way. Because unless they were hoist by they own petard, they will have never seen the light. So I am rejoicing at their coming enlightment. But, since I am an imperfect human being, I am also indulging in a few “I told you so”s.
#AsianHottie #bigtits #deepcleavage