Balta1701

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 02:01 PM) Don't you have to be an All-Star to be in the derby? no

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) Why are you stuck on this? The employee doesn't have to abide by anything. They just have to pay for it themselves. You keep bringing this up as if Hobby Lobby is slapping chastity belts on women. Tell you what, you change your religion or pay a $1000 fine. Equally fair.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) No, it's really not. You still have the freedom to choose whether to work for the company. No one is forcing you to do that. And as always, the employee is s*** outta luck.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:04 PM) Comparing this kid with Viciedo at the same age (and considering the fact that Viciedo was kicked off the national team and missed significant development time in his late teens) is a lot more relevant than comparing him to Micker Zapata. He was essentially viewed as the best young player in Cuban coming into Serie Nacional. And we all know the impact most of those guys, even Alexei Ramirez, have had at the big league level now...we can't say the same for 15-17 year old Dominicans who are barely holding their own in AZ. Personally I compared him to Jorge Soler, who was actually older at the time he signed and is still a couple years away.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:47 PM) So you're saying an employer shouldn't run the business per the wishes of the owners of the company. It must abide by the wishes and demands (and beliefs) of its employees? What world do you live in? And you're saying that employees must abide by the religious beliefs of their employer. That seems like a pretty f***ed up world too.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:41 PM) Re-word that please. I think you're missing a word somewhere so I don't know what you're trying to say. The employer believes something that the employee believes is not true (add in; the employee is correct). However, the employer gets to force the employee to abide by the employer's beliefs regardless of what the employee believes. It only swings one way; the employer gets all the power. The employee has to abide by the employer's beliefs. they have to give up whatever they believe to follow the beliefs of the employer.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:37 PM) So what? You said employers force beliefs on their employees. It's simply not true. They may be stuck with beliefs they do not agree with, but they are not forced to believe it themselves. So why is the appropriate way for this to swing the employees having to obey the beliefs of the employer and not vice-versa?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:33 PM) But by law the "corporation" that is publicly traded is performing business for the benefit of its shareholders. Wal-Mart may be held by a majority of 5 or fewer people, but it's just a majority. Hobby Lobby and other privately held corps own 100%. They make corporate decisions for their benefit alone. That's a huge, huge distinction you're missing. On this point though i'm not sure if Alito even addressed it. I haven't read through the whole opinion. I know for the first 10 pages or so he basically says it doesn't matter because what the HHS was trying to argue was that even though non-profit corps were exempted, for-profit corps should be treated differently. His point was that under the law there should be no distinction between the two. If a non-profit company can have an exemption based on a religious belief, so too should for-profit companies. The public/private distinction i'm sure will be made in subsequent cases. The term specifically stated in the decision is "closely-held corporation". I'm going by the text of the decision. That is a specific term with an IRS definition that Walmart and all those other companies meet.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:29 PM) Eh, a distinction without a difference. Most women take contraception to prevent pregnancies from occurring, which some may believe is wrong. Just because it's not "stopping" an existing one or that it doesn't always prevent one because it may not occur anyway doesn't defeat the intent behind taking the drug. I'll admit the non-pregnancy use of birth control, to control menstrual cramps for example, is a better argument. But it's still widely available. Go to a planned parenthood. Or as the court said, pass a law that provides that if it's so important, have the gov't pay for it. Don't interfere with the rights of others to mandate that it has to be provided by them (even if indirectly). Then you believe this case was incorrectly decided because that difference is 100% the heart of this case.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:27 PM) Gotcha. That was obviously in reference to someone else cause I have never made that statement. Correct, several people previously disagreed with me when I said that I kinda lean towards signing several 16 year olds as opposed to only signing 1 19 year old on the grounds that the 19 year old could contribute in a couple years. When they gave the example of Viciedo, I responded sarcastically that it worked out well because frankly Viciedo contributed a little early but he has not developed and did not contribute nearly as much as we'd have hoped to making this a competitive roster

I don't worry about the slump, I worry about the foot.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:25 PM) Again, this has nothing to do with an employer forcing it's beliefs on the employee. They have to abide by them though. That's not even a distinction without a difference. The employee can believe Hobby Lobby is fully incorrect, which they are, but that does not matter. The employee is forced to abide by incorrect decisions based on the religion of the employer.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:23 PM) And you don't think that's an important characteristic here? That the public company works for shareholders who might not share the same beliefs, but a closely held private corporation doesn't? Again, every one of the ones I cited is a publicly traded, closely held corporation. Every one of them is publicly traded but the majority is owned by a group of 5 or fewer people. Walmart is the best example. They are a publicly traded closely held corporation.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:22 PM) con·tra·cep·tion ˌkäntrəˈsepSHən/Submit noun the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. Note the difference. You used the word "stop" in your first post, which implies that it would have had to previously start. In the definition you just used the term "prevent". Prevention is what contraception actually does. However, Hobby Lobby believes that it does something different, that it actually stops pregnancy. This is incorrect, but the court decided that did not matter and Hobby Lobby's belief needed to be recognized regardless of the fact that it is incorrect.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:22 PM) Lol, that is not the employer telling an employee what to believe. So if the employee believes that Hobby Lobby's management is incorrect, which they actually are, they can have coverage the same as people elsewhere in the country?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:08 PM) How many of those are publicly traded? I googled each one of the ones I mentioned and got a stock quote.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:18 PM) Viagra doesn't really stop pregnancies so... But at some point you guys are right, it becomes a judgment call by the court as to what is a legit religious belief and what is not. But so what? They've made those decisions numerous times in the past. People have tried to get around drug laws by doing the same thing and it hasn't really worked. I just love how you guys are all "slippery slope, slippery slope!" when the decision is not what you want, but with an issue that you support (gun restrictions) the slippery slope argument is a terrible one. So which is it? Neither does contraception.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:06 PM) Example? This case. Hobby Lobby's "beliefs" are actually factually untrue. They claim that they believe contraceptives actually cause abortions and the court stated that regardless of whether or not it was accurate the government and therefore the employees must respect that belief and cannot have this coverage.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:10 PM) QFT I think Balta was just challenging the assertion that this kid will make a Puig-like (or even Viciedo-like) immediate impact. There you go. Even if this guy is a solid player, it's quite silly to predict that a 19 year old is going to be a big contributor to this team in a short period of time. That's just not how these things work, even with Cubans.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 11:51 AM) Ummm...no, this would be similar to Viciedo, where he was signed after 2008 and made an impact in the 2010 playoff race. That worked out well right?

I'm wondering if someoe like Gasol might not be the "if we move Gibson we can add this guy without losing that much" option.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 10:33 AM) Half a decade would be 24, which is still a pretty young age to hit the majors. Jorge Soler was 20 when he signed, it looks like he will probably be 23-24 before he has a shot at the majors at the rate he's going.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 10:23 AM) BTW, Viciedo has a gun. Is that calculated in these defensive metrics? Yes.

5 year $90 mil max extension for Kyrie Irving.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 12:52 PM) So, say a closely held family corp is against vaccines and refuse to cover them, could they do that? No, right? Gov't would need to pick up bill for that too. I understand when splitting down to individual policies they can argue there are less intrusive ways, but in my mind this is just regulating insurance by hitting a basic minimum coverage. Justice Alito's opinion seems like it tries to limit itself to the evil that is abortion but you're right, the logic should follow to any other type of health care. It's just sort of a given that it won't get applied to men. They've clearly got no issue covering Viagra.