I should have said, “If anyone needs this explained,” – I knew you knew it. Sorry.
The thing is, Steve, (may I call you “Steve”?) your post is the exact type of post Bryan Eckers was lampooning.
Buddy, you are arguing with a joke, and because you are arguing with a small joke, it makes the joke even funnier. I’d even call it prescient
minkey, (may I call you “minkey”?), I think this is a tad more scornful of Steve than is deserved. At worst, his comment is a bit extraneous, like from someone who adds an post-punchline “Yeah, the other side, because that’s where the chicken wanted to go and is therefore why he crossed the street.”
I gather Steve and I are in agreement regarding bad science, hoodoo and control-freakery, it was just a borderline inopportune time and manner to say so.
“Minkey”?
You know, I’m beginning to want to side with fucking Bricker, and I will tell you why. I don’t normally side with him in political issues, but he is the only one here who seems to understand how complicated freedom of religion can be.
And another thing!
I’ve had a long day / last night. (I’m a nightshift RN who is very, very tired right now.) Also a little drunk. So if y’all could just ignore my past coupe of posts,I’d aprreciate it
A ringing endorsement. 
The three quarters drunk insomniac seal of approval.
Sorry, I thought was “spell names wrong day.”
It’s obviously “omit pronouns day” instead.
Umm… can anyone actually point to a company with USG contracts that has applied for an exemption? Cause I don’t see General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin exactly firing up their lawyers.
I’m just curious about this because the claim in the article seems basically made up babble to me.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
It’s not a completely speculative worry. Plenty of faith-based companies have contracts to provide social services.
By the way: The President issued the Executive Order, without including the requested religious exemptions.