If you can craft specific legislation that does not create an undue burden on law abiding owners and can actually be shown to be effective at preventing gun violence... I'd be open to hearing of it, alas so far virtually proposals we see are simply knee-jerk feel good moves which do nothing to increase safety or reduce 'gun violence.'
Wanting to reduce gun deaths by making guns illegal or very difficult to obtain is a perfectly rational response.
Then do so in a rational way. Don't target guns because of how they look or their shape or their size... target them outright... repeal the Second Amendment... because without doing so, four words at the end will continually get in way "shall not be infringed."
Less guns = less gun violence.
What a simplistic view... there are 300 million some privately owned firearms in this country... the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of which are used safely and lawfully... rather than blaming a piece of metal & plastic... target those who use them irresponsibly?
Should we ban alcohol because some people can't hold their liquor and may drive drunk?
Should we ban cars because some people can't be arsed to pay attention to the road?
Should be ban cell phones because some may not be able to walk down the road and stay out of traffic?
Should we ban marriage because some people happen to cheat and/or get divorced?
You know... if we banned humans (and exterminated them)... we wouldn't have to worry about any of these things anymore as no one could possibly commit a crime after the total extinction of the race.
Most of us act in a responsible way, why are you so focused on the wrong group?
I'll tell you a little secret... not all heterosexuals want to get married... nor do all marry... ditto for homosexuals.
While being straight or gay may not be a choice... marrying is... ditto for firearm ownership... or are you implying that cracking down on one ok... but not permitting the other the other a denial of a right?
Because he made no argument. He just spouted off "gun owners" as if it was in any way equivalent.
Clearly you've an reading comprehension issue or lack a sufficient attention span, if you read the thread, you'd see he was responding to someone who asked:
I don't know, are the Democrats supporting reprehensible legislation that places a segment of society beneath others for arbitrary and ill defined reasons?
'Gun owners' is a answer to that question... you know, the fact that Democrats support 'reprehensible' legislation that places certain segments of society (gun owners) beneath others (non gun owners) for arbitrarily and ill defined reasons... it's been in the papers for quite some time.
Now if you wish to disagree with his view, you are free to do so and maybe craft a counter argument, but instead you do so in a rather dismissive and condescending way.
Well sure - you reap what you sow, after all. Intolerance breeds intolerance.
Wow, someone has admitted that there is intolerance afoot in the response to Eich... now the big question... when will that intolerance be met with comparable intolerance?
No one's denied Eich any freedom at all. He can spout his bigoted views as much as he wants. The rest of us are allowed to complain loudly about it,
Tell me, what's it like to be a bigot?
Yes you are.. you are acknowledging your membership and participation in a group which has acted very vocally on it's intolerance of his views. I may not agree with his views (or yours)... but you don't see me demanding that any of you resign or be fired.
So yes, that makes you a bigot.
I wonder what else you and Mr Eich have in common?
Intolerance of what, exactly? A bad argument? Am I supposed to simply accept your argument without question, and any attempt to rebuttal it is simply "intolerance?"
By virtue of you labeling it a "nonsensical argument"... it's safe to say that you are intolerant of it... so yes, you are acting in a rather intolerant way.
Really? You're going to try and argue that people are being bigots because *blah blah blah*
You can attempt to justify their reasons all you want, that does not change the fact that they acted in a mob fashion to punish someone for a view that they found reprehensible... which is actually a step beyond bigotry.
they're opposed to the appointment as CEO of a man who is known to have supported politicians and campaigns centered around denying equal rights being made CEO of an organization whose philosophies are antithetical to such a stance?
I'd wager... we could find plenty of others who would meet such a definition... hell, the current President was elected with similar views, seeing marriage as between one man and one women... is he then unfit for office because of his views?
Is not Bill Clinton equally unworthy of any praise as he was the one who signed DOMA in the first place?
Do you really want to go down that road?
You're not presenting a convincing argument here.
I'm sorry you aren't open to a discussion then.
The appointment of Eich to CEO was hypocrisy, as it put someone known to support intolerant views in charge of an organization defined by its tolerance and acceptance.
If anything... his appointment was an act of tolerance as it showed that even they could handle someone with a differing view running it... so long as he didn't run the company based on his differing views.
It could also be argued that Eich was a hypocrite for accepting the position,
Come back with an argument, not a "could be argued" weasiliness.
there's no way he could claim ignorance of how opposite his beliefs and those of Mozilla as an organization are.
Some of us are able to separate our personal and professional lives you know, maybe he, unlike you is able to do that.
False equivalence.
Citation?
The people opposed to Eich here (whom you casually pigeonhole as the "left") have done nothing to the degree that the supporters of Prop 8 and similar laws across the country.
Citation?
Gun owners in this country have to deal daily with existing and proposed new laws that seek to criminalize their usually safe and lawful behavior...? Yup... nothing like that is happening from the left today or in past.
Condescending and insulting. A masterful attempt at shutting down debate.
You mean... like the anti-Prop 8 folks and other bigots such as yourself who were so outraged with a person like Eich at the top and will accept nothing less than his removal, but forgive others who have done far worse and in higher positions?
Don't talk to be about trying to shut down debate when you try to engage in the exact same kind of rhetoric you accuse me of.
Actually, it's quite sad that you are rejecting his rather correct response.
Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.
Today it is primarily politicians who are aligned with the Democrat party who from time to time trying to crack down on, even criminalizing previously legal activity or objects which centuries of legal precedent has codified as an explicit right that shall not be infringed.
What exactly is your issue with that?...other than an inability to respond.
That makes me wonder if any gay couple has been prosecuted for tax evasion due to attempting to file "married filing jointly."
False equivalency.
Up until rather recently, it was not lawful for such couples to do so at the federal level... and while I cannot say if they would be charged with 'tax evasion' (a specific crime), or if their return would just be rejected or 'corrected' by the IRS.
Or for trespassing/disorderly conduct/any catch-all offense when trying to visit their [not-legally-recognized] spouse in the hospital.
And where there is such a risk... one should prepare, not only by having a specific PoA, but a lawyer on speed dial.
Nothing stops a hospital from kicking a husband out of a room where his wife lies ill... knowing that is always a risk, I've taken steps to ensure my time away would be minimal.
Or with fraud or whatever when trying to exercise power of attorney in each others' name. Etc.
I wonder how many times you were as a child dropped on your head... as it's the only explanation for some of your rantings... as a properly crafted PoA would handle such a thing... or do you want to make up some more unsupported (by you) potential circumstances?
Also, regarding intolerance, since "you guys" never seem to understand this:
Which guys? Don't try to lump me into groups and assume that their views are my own... by doing so once again you demonstrate your own baseless intolerance.
Still the republicans. Sorry. Your subjective complaints about minor consequences of a particular piece of legislation do not stand up to the kinda shit republicans do, and I'll go so as far as to say that if you think that's injustice, you haven't seen even the tiniest scraps of the real world.
Says you... I could go down the list, but why bother to waste so much time with a person whose views are clearly so intolerant of the other?
This case is a good demonstration as to why anonymous contributions should be allowed.
Nyeh! Then we'll have billionaires making massive donations unknown & unchecked! Nyeh!
While I agree that there is a benefit of allowing anonymous contributions... largely to try to prevent the sort of chilling effects we see here where there is now a risk that a previous donation could come back and haunt you later... the question remains, especially after this weeks SCOTUS ruling...if we are going to allow contributions large or small to an issue or candidate... how do we minimize the likelihood of abuse from those with the means to abuse it (Soros vs Koch), while protecting privacy... if either are deemed important in such a case.
President Obama in no way shape or form was signing any law that would deny rights
Incorrect.
President Obama signed the ACA which not only encourages employers to drop coverage, but outright denies people the right to pick & choose exactly the kind of coverage I want.
Oh it's only with regards to same-sex couples you are worried about the denying of rights? The rest of us don't matter? Good to know...
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2: an act or instance of hypocrisy
Unless Brendan Eich went out and got married to someone of the same sex... I'm quite unclear as to how he meets that description.
But then... this is the hypocrisy we usually see from the left who will scream: "____ is bad!!!"... except for when they do it. in this case, ____ == blacklisting.
Until you can address the above two points, I'm not going to waste more time replying to someone who clearly does not have their head on straight.
He wasn't fired, he chose to resign as it was in the best interests of Mozilla.
I'm confused then... when an executive asks for the resignation of someone under their umbrella... is that person being fired or not?
While on paper they 'resigned'... it's quite clear they were forced either:
1. Decide to spend more time with their family and reflecting on life and leave now with their 'dignity' intact, or 2. Be escorted by security out of the building immediately.
You are really going to claim there is a difference other than the ability to say "No" to the question "Were you fired from your previous job?" ?
If you vote for the modern republican party in the united states(at the national level), you are actively engaged in using your limited power to harm others, and there's not really any excuse I've heard for the behavior.
Such intolerance!
Call me crazy... but it was a whole slew of people voting for Democrats back in 2008 which caused me to lose my very high quality health insurance policy thanks to their unilateral passage of the so called 'Affordable Care Act'
Now then... which party is seeking to harm me again?
His $1000 donation did not deny anyone anything, it did however assist an organization which could be seen to try to 'deny rights'... that group and it's side lost.
Instead, we have a group of sour winners lashing out against not only those who lost, but the (previous) supporters of those who lost, even seeking to deny them the rights.
Based on the previous decisions of the Mozilla board, based on his work history, Eich had every right to be CEO of the foundation... a right that he has now been stripped of based on this mob mentality.
Would you call it "just an opposing view" if it were something else?
Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.
I however am in a community that has politicians from time to time trying to crack down on, even criminalizing previously legal activity or objects which centuries of legal precedent has codified as an explicit right that shall not be infringed.
So while I am a much bigger target for much more hostile politicians... yes, I call it 'just an opposing view' and work to defeat them at the ballot box every 2-4 years as well as in-between.
What if he had said, "blacks don't deserve the right to vote"?
When?
*If* he'd said it in the 1840's... that'd be a pretty common view and chances are I wouldn't care much... but then there would also be the issue of how I would know he said it.
*If* he said that last week... I'd put him in the same category I do the KKK, Democrat party and NAMBLA... groups I am not going to do any business with... but not waste my time to advertise that fact, figuring they will do a good enough job of it themselves.
Clearly donations are out as the pro-Prop 8 donor list was leaked/stolen which is part of the reason for this bigotry of differing opinions.
Even filling in the oval on the ballot could come back and haunt you depending on how your ballot is treated and if it can be linked to you (here in Washington State, it's a trivial matter)).
you plan to head up an organisation that is sensitive as to how it is perceived by a cross-section of society.
I don't know about you, I don't know which groups I might be heading in 6 years, or 60 for that matter... best to just stop voting, donating money or having opinions that someone somewhere might find offensive... unless that too is considered offensive.
Then at least acknowledge that the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry when Eich had (past tense) done something that some might see as intolerant, the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done... and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.
I am aware that 2012 R2 is a distinct SKU from 2012 and that unlike 8.1 it is not available through the built in store.
That doesn't automatically mean that there is a cost to upgrade.
Software assurance, volume licensing, many options exist to get the next version effectively for 'free'... it just depends on how the original version was acquired, and a surprising number of server licenses are not licensed as one offs, but instead of something larger.
Of course the other side of the coin is the question of "do I really need R2"? And the answer for many is surprisingly no, even though there is quite a bit of goodness inside. Heck, I've a server running 2012 which I've not yet seen reason to upgrade yet as for the time being, it is doing exactly what it was built to do, host a good # of VMs.
Well until the Supreme Court says employers can shove their religious beliefs onto their employees.
Somehow I doubt SCOTUS saying that Hobby Lobby paying for 16 different birth control drugs but not having to pay for 4 others will constitute shoving 'their religious beliefs onto their employees'.
If the (now) CEO had simply held his opinion that he was opposed to same sex marriage... no one at Mozilla or elsewhere would know... but because he dared to put his money where his quiet mouth was... he is to be damned!
So too goes for those employees who think that he is unfit to serve... those who stay silent are ok... but those who speak out in opposition to him publically are to be damned!
First, there has been no decision on that case, only arguments. As to whether contraception is a civil rights issue, it sounds like that depends which gender you are.
At the SCOTUS level yes... but the lower court rulings do make for interesting reading (if you are into that sort of thing ((which I am)) as they tend to be part of what a final ruling is based on (yes, in part).
Based on how you phrased that, it is obvious where your own personal bias lies.
So you read from my statement that I don't think the federal government has any role in compelling an employer to provide much of anything to their employees other than wages & benefits that have been negotiated between the employer and employee? Wow, I didn't think I was being that transparent.
So, allow me to point out that no, the government is not currently compelling employers to pay for medication. The corporation has the choice to not provide insurance for their employees, and instead pay the fine.
You are attempting to split hairs. The penalty/tax is there to compel more and more businesses to provide coverage (and said medication), and over time will likely go up to compel more employers to pick the cheaper of the two options.
The justices noted that this is their choice, and that in fact the fine is less than the cost of insurance.
Today, one also highlighted that if an employer can be compelled today to provide certain (what the employer deems to be) abortion inducing drugs, what stops the government from also compelling outright abortion coverage?
You've called them "private individuals", but that is not correct. The owners of the company have no requirement to provide insurance. The actual company as a legal entity does.
Again you try to split hairs... lemme guess, you are also one of the 'corporations are not people' type?
The company on it's own is little more than an empty legal entity or person... only through it's owners giving it direction does it have any meaning or substantive form be it selling potatoes or hobby supplies. When mandates come in against this legal person, it is the natural persons who are ultimately responsible for ensuring that things happen on behalf of the legal person.
If we carry your logic further, it is not a person pulling the trigger of the gun... nor even the gun that kills someone, but instead the full blame must be put on the bullet and the bullet alone... and despite the direct causal actions of the previous entities, it was only the bullet that actually did the deed.
One of the justices rightly asked the question of how the religion of a company can be determined.
The same way a culture within a company can be determined... via it's creation & enforcement.
They also pointed to the case of an Amish farmer suing the government because he did not want to pay social security taxes for his employees, because paying taxes violated his religious beliefs. He did not win that case. Religious beliefs do not trump everything else.
Funny... did I or anyone else say they do?
No? Interesting strawman you have there.
I can start a religion that believes that black people should be eradicated from the planet, but that does not give me the right to murder people.
Again, strawman, do you have a point?
A person who owns a corporation is free to believe that contraception is a sin, but that does not make them exempt from providing insurance to their employees or paying a fine.
Says you.
That's the way it is.
As you said, there has been no final ruling in this case yet... so the actual outcome remains to be seen... but then from your wording of al
Slashdot Mirror
If you can craft specific legislation that does not create an undue burden on law abiding owners and can actually be shown to be effective at preventing gun violence... I'd be open to hearing of it, alas so far virtually proposals we see are simply knee-jerk feel good moves which do nothing to increase safety or reduce 'gun violence.'
Then do so in a rational way. Don't target guns because of how they look or their shape or their size... target them outright... repeal the Second Amendment... because without doing so, four words at the end will continually get in way "shall not be infringed."
What a simplistic view... there are 300 million some privately owned firearms in this country... the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of which are used safely and lawfully... rather than blaming a piece of metal & plastic... target those who use them irresponsibly?
Should we ban alcohol because some people can't hold their liquor and may drive drunk?
Should we ban cars because some people can't be arsed to pay attention to the road?
Should be ban cell phones because some may not be able to walk down the road and stay out of traffic?
Should we ban marriage because some people happen to cheat and/or get divorced?
You know... if we banned humans (and exterminated them)... we wouldn't have to worry about any of these things anymore as no one could possibly commit a crime after the total extinction of the race.
Most of us act in a responsible way, why are you so focused on the wrong group?
And that differs from same-sex marriage... how?
I'll tell you a little secret... not all heterosexuals want to get married... nor do all marry... ditto for homosexuals.
While being straight or gay may not be a choice... marrying is... ditto for firearm ownership... or are you implying that cracking down on one ok... but not permitting the other the other a denial of a right?
Clearly you've an reading comprehension issue or lack a sufficient attention span, if you read the thread, you'd see he was responding to someone who asked:
'Gun owners' is a answer to that question... you know, the fact that Democrats support 'reprehensible' legislation that places certain segments of society (gun owners) beneath others (non gun owners) for arbitrarily and ill defined reasons... it's been in the papers for quite some time.
Now if you wish to disagree with his view, you are free to do so and maybe craft a counter argument, but instead you do so in a rather dismissive and condescending way.
QED
Wow, someone has admitted that there is intolerance afoot in the response to Eich... now the big question... when will that intolerance be met with comparable intolerance?
Tell me, what's it like to be a bigot?
Yes you are.. you are acknowledging your membership and participation in a group which has acted very vocally on it's intolerance of his views. I may not agree with his views (or yours)... but you don't see me demanding that any of you resign or be fired.
So yes, that makes you a bigot.
I wonder what else you and Mr Eich have in common?
By virtue of you labeling it a "nonsensical argument"... it's safe to say that you are intolerant of it... so yes, you are acting in a rather intolerant way.
You can attempt to justify their reasons all you want, that does not change the fact that they acted in a mob fashion to punish someone for a view that they found reprehensible... which is actually a step beyond bigotry.
I'd wager... we could find plenty of others who would meet such a definition... hell, the current President was elected with similar views, seeing marriage as between one man and one women... is he then unfit for office because of his views?
Is not Bill Clinton equally unworthy of any praise as he was the one who signed DOMA in the first place?
Do you really want to go down that road?
I'm sorry you aren't open to a discussion then.
If anything... his appointment was an act of tolerance as it showed that even they could handle someone with a differing view running it... so long as he didn't run the company based on his differing views.
Come back with an argument, not a "could be argued" weasiliness.
Some of us are able to separate our personal and professional lives you know, maybe he, unlike you is able to do that.
Citation?
Citation?
Gun owners in this country have to deal daily with existing and proposed new laws that seek to criminalize their usually safe and lawful behavior...? Yup... nothing like that is happening from the left today or in past.
You mean... like the anti-Prop 8 folks and other bigots such as yourself who were so outraged with a person like Eich at the top and will accept nothing less than his removal, but forgive others who have done far worse and in higher positions?
Don't talk to be about trying to shut down debate when you try to engage in the exact same kind of rhetoric you accuse me of.
Actually, it's quite sad that you are rejecting his rather correct response.
Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.
Today it is primarily politicians who are aligned with the Democrat party who from time to time trying to crack down on, even criminalizing previously legal activity or objects which centuries of legal precedent has codified as an explicit right that shall not be infringed.
What exactly is your issue with that? ...other than an inability to respond.
False equivalency.
Up until rather recently, it was not lawful for such couples to do so at the federal level... and while I cannot say if they would be charged with 'tax evasion' (a specific crime), or if their return would just be rejected or 'corrected' by the IRS.
And where there is such a risk... one should prepare, not only by having a specific PoA, but a lawyer on speed dial.
Nothing stops a hospital from kicking a husband out of a room where his wife lies ill... knowing that is always a risk, I've taken steps to ensure my time away would be minimal.
I wonder how many times you were as a child dropped on your head... as it's the only explanation for some of your rantings... as a properly crafted PoA would handle such a thing... or do you want to make up some more unsupported (by you) potential circumstances?
Which guys? Don't try to lump me into groups and assume that their views are my own... by doing so once again you demonstrate your own baseless intolerance.
Says you... I could go down the list, but why bother to waste so much time with a person whose views are clearly so intolerant of the other?
Nyeh! Then we'll have billionaires making massive donations unknown & unchecked! Nyeh!
While I agree that there is a benefit of allowing anonymous contributions... largely to try to prevent the sort of chilling effects we see here where there is now a risk that a previous donation could come back and haunt you later... the question remains, especially after this weeks SCOTUS ruling...if we are going to allow contributions large or small to an issue or candidate... how do we minimize the likelihood of abuse from those with the means to abuse it (Soros vs Koch), while protecting privacy... if either are deemed important in such a case.
Incorrect.
President Obama signed the ACA which not only encourages employers to drop coverage, but outright denies people the right to pick & choose exactly the kind of coverage I want.
Oh it's only with regards to same-sex couples you are worried about the denying of rights? The rest of us don't matter? Good to know...
Correctly, and your intolerance of it demonstrates the need for people to educate you.
You really need to look up the definitions of the words you are using.
From bigotry & bigot respectively:
In addition to your not knowing the meaning of the word 'bigotry'... you clearly also do not understand the definition of the word hypocrisy, allow me to assist again:
Unless Brendan Eich went out and got married to someone of the same sex... I'm quite unclear as to how he meets that description.
But then... this is the hypocrisy we usually see from the left who will scream: "____ is bad!!!" ... except for when they do it. in this case, ____ == blacklisting.
Until you can address the above two points, I'm not going to waste more time replying to someone who clearly does not have their head on straight.
I'm confused then... when an executive asks for the resignation of someone under their umbrella... is that person being fired or not?
While on paper they 'resigned'... it's quite clear they were forced either:
1. Decide to spend more time with their family and reflecting on life and leave now with their 'dignity' intact, or
2. Be escorted by security out of the building immediately.
You are really going to claim there is a difference other than the ability to say "No" to the question "Were you fired from your previous job?" ?
Such intolerance!
Call me crazy... but it was a whole slew of people voting for Democrats back in 2008 which caused me to lose my very high quality health insurance policy thanks to their unilateral passage of the so called 'Affordable Care Act'
Now then... which party is seeking to harm me again?
I take it you feel the same way about laws which seek to diminish the second amendment which in part codifies the basic human right of self-defense?
Do you really want to play that game?
His $1000 donation did not deny anyone anything, it did however assist an organization which could be seen to try to 'deny rights'... that group and it's side lost.
Instead, we have a group of sour winners lashing out against not only those who lost, but the (previous) supporters of those who lost, even seeking to deny them the rights.
Based on the previous decisions of the Mozilla board, based on his work history, Eich had every right to be CEO of the foundation... a right that he has now been stripped of based on this mob mentality.
Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.
I however am in a community that has politicians from time to time trying to crack down on, even criminalizing previously legal activity or objects which centuries of legal precedent has codified as an explicit right that shall not be infringed.
So while I am a much bigger target for much more hostile politicians... yes, I call it 'just an opposing view' and work to defeat them at the ballot box every 2-4 years as well as in-between.
When?
*If* he'd said it in the 1840's... that'd be a pretty common view and chances are I wouldn't care much... but then there would also be the issue of how I would know he said it.
*If* he said that last week... I'd put him in the same category I do the KKK, Democrat party and NAMBLA... groups I am not going to do any business with... but not waste my time to advertise that fact, figuring they will do a good enough job of it themselves.
How well hidden is enough?
Clearly donations are out as the pro-Prop 8 donor list was leaked/stolen which is part of the reason for this bigotry of differing opinions.
Even filling in the oval on the ballot could come back and haunt you depending on how your ballot is treated and if it can be linked to you (here in Washington State, it's a trivial matter)).
I don't know about you, I don't know which groups I might be heading in 6 years, or 60 for that matter... best to just stop voting, donating money or having opinions that someone somewhere might find offensive... unless that too is considered offensive.
Didn't you get the memo? Your right to protest or have a contradictory view is only protected if it is accepted by a big enough mob or those in power.
Disagree? The IRS will be auditing you shortly...
Then at least acknowledge that the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry when Eich had (past tense) done something that some might see as intolerant, the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done... and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.
I am aware that 2012 R2 is a distinct SKU from 2012 and that unlike 8.1 it is not available through the built in store.
That doesn't automatically mean that there is a cost to upgrade.
Software assurance, volume licensing, many options exist to get the next version effectively for 'free'... it just depends on how the original version was acquired, and a surprising number of server licenses are not licensed as one offs, but instead of something larger.
Of course the other side of the coin is the question of "do I really need R2"? And the answer for many is surprisingly no, even though there is quite a bit of goodness inside. Heck, I've a server running 2012 which I've not yet seen reason to upgrade yet as for the time being, it is doing exactly what it was built to do, host a good # of VMs.
What makes you think you can't upgrade to 2012 R2 without paying $1400?
Somehow I doubt SCOTUS saying that Hobby Lobby paying for 16 different birth control drugs but not having to pay for 4 others will constitute shoving 'their religious beliefs onto their employees'.
Holding opinion != advocating opinion
If the (now) CEO had simply held his opinion that he was opposed to same sex marriage... no one at Mozilla or elsewhere would know... but because he dared to put his money where his quiet mouth was... he is to be damned!
So too goes for those employees who think that he is unfit to serve... those who stay silent are ok... but those who speak out in opposition to him publically are to be damned!
At the SCOTUS level yes... but the lower court rulings do make for interesting reading (if you are into that sort of thing ((which I am)) as they tend to be part of what a final ruling is based on (yes, in part).
So you read from my statement that I don't think the federal government has any role in compelling an employer to provide much of anything to their employees other than wages & benefits that have been negotiated between the employer and employee? Wow, I didn't think I was being that transparent.
You are attempting to split hairs. The penalty/tax is there to compel more and more businesses to provide coverage (and said medication), and over time will likely go up to compel more employers to pick the cheaper of the two options.
Today, one also highlighted that if an employer can be compelled today to provide certain (what the employer deems to be) abortion inducing drugs, what stops the government from also compelling outright abortion coverage?
Again you try to split hairs... lemme guess, you are also one of the 'corporations are not people' type?
The company on it's own is little more than an empty legal entity or person... only through it's owners giving it direction does it have any meaning or substantive form be it selling potatoes or hobby supplies. When mandates come in against this legal person, it is the natural persons who are ultimately responsible for ensuring that things happen on behalf of the legal person.
If we carry your logic further, it is not a person pulling the trigger of the gun... nor even the gun that kills someone, but instead the full blame must be put on the bullet and the bullet alone... and despite the direct causal actions of the previous entities, it was only the bullet that actually did the deed.
The same way a culture within a company can be determined... via it's creation & enforcement.
Funny... did I or anyone else say they do?
No? Interesting strawman you have there.
Again, strawman, do you have a point?
Says you.
As you said, there has been no final ruling in this case yet... so the actual outcome remains to be seen... but then from your wording of al