mieseratte

> The right to refuse service to customers, and birth control to employees, on the basis of religious belief of business owners, has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court.

That is not the case at all.

> You should be just as sick that these companies are pulling

One can be sick of people turning the office into a political battle-field and simultaneously have no problems with outward corporate lobbying. These are different problems.

> Red states that vote the most against social programs are the biggest beneficiaries. It's the leech screaming "Leech!" in the mirror

You're assuming in a "Red State," all those using social programs are the same ones screaming "Socialism!"

This entire premise is based on your stereotype of one's politics.

Perhaps you need to step back and re-examine your assertion.

> Or based on what the politicians elected by those states say and then vote for. "Vote the most against"...

You're stereotyping entire states and condemning the value of the people therein based on your ghostly spector of a Red State politician.

Yours is a stereotyped, bigoted position.

> It's more like they're willfully choosing to suffer. So in that case, enjoy your misery!

So, you're going to speculatively stereotype an entire group of people and condemn them based on your own hunch as to their politics and station in life.

While you're certainly entitled to an opinion, nothing about your entitlement precludes that opinion being a bigoted one.

What a bigoted existence.

> Yea I am stereotyping people based on my personal experience and what the author echos in the article. I’m in the Deep South and the article spoke about Illinois. Pretty far away but also the same mindsets.

Ah yes, the classically conservative Illinois which shares so much in common with the Deep South.

As a sibling comment mentions, non-profits aren't always "above board" in reality, e.g. the NFLs or Susan G. Komens of the world.

The position that I'm coming from is that a newspaper isn't always meant to be particularly profitable, e.g. in my small city our major paper is owned and underwritten by a wealthy real-estate family.

While the paper does good reporting in other areas, including having won a recent Pulitzer, they never publish anything negative about the local real-estate and development. You will never find a piece critical of development or developer mistakes in this paper.

If you're of the mind that papers can and are used as a way of laundering business propaganda for the owner, allowing it a non-profit status would then allow it to be a money-sink. The owning family can now provide donations to the non-profit paper which serves the business interests in the PR sphere. These donations can be written off. This means the tax-payer is now further subsidizing their PR efforts by virtue of a tax write off.

What would that solve, specifically?

Exactly my thought! This has "tax loophole" written all over it.

Company gets to subsidize favorable propaganda, while at the same time getting a nice tax write-off.

Edit: For those downvoting, would you care to elaborate? I don't see how this won't be abused. What am I wrong about here?

> Like saying Jill Stein is a Russian asset because literally 1 post in 10,000 (from troll farms) mentioned her as a "redirection" effort.

Therein lies a good point I routinely use to befuddle, is how do you know these trolls are working on behalf of someone for their benefit, or working on behalf of the opposition as a way to attempt to discredit?

Attribution is hard.

> All of a sudden the political subs were... reasonable.

Yeah... no. It went full "Not My President" overnight.

Hell, not even overnight. It went full "Not My President" that very night.

And if you think that's bad, had to deal with brass at work (fintech) proclaiming that we needed to spend an insane amount of capital in preparation for the record trade volume we would need to process because the markets were going to collapse.

> but Russian troll farms used Sanders to divide the left on social media websites.

Weird, IMHO Hillary and the Democrat party really seemed to be the one's doing the dividing.

> It's well-understood by Marxists how the mode of production determines the cultural superstructure[1] (and vice-versa).

It's not "understood," it's a sociological theory. Hardly hard science.