0
kallend

The Hobby Lobby case

Recommended Posts

kallend

******

Quote

The ACA would have employers pay for a bit over 30 different kinds and types of birth control



That is not entirely factually correct. Employers are already paying for it through insurance plans, or contributions to insurance plans howsoever structured within each company.

And even if the '4' that they claim are removed, they will still be paying for it and I bet $100 that the premiums that the companies pay will not actually be reduced by one nickel over these four forms of birth control.

So this is an ethical/moral, not a financial argument - I get that. So stop bringing up the issue of 'companies do not want to pay for it - I will argue that paying for it is not relevant to the case. Your (their) religious objections to it are relevant to the case, and exactly why they will lose this one.

Your religious beliefs end where they impose on my rights. rights for birth control are not constitutional, but they are well established case law. This case, while divisive to the country, much like the pro-slavery arguments will die in favor of women having the right to control their reproductive systems.



You can turn this argument against yourself as well
Employees are forcing their beliefs on the comany here
So, there religious rights end where they attempt to impose their beliefs on the company owner

It is NOT like the slavery issue in any way

The women can still get any product or procedure they want
At any time
The issue is who is being FORCED to pay for it

Tell us, Marc, how will you feel when a company owned by Muslims decides to enforce Sharia Law on its employees under the guise of "religious freedom"?

What religious beliefs are they imposing on the employees? they have not forced any employee to believe as they do. They have not imposed any religious beliefs on the employees, the employees are free to get any treatment they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

It actually has everything to do with this topic.
:S



Ok
sharia law takes all rights from women
They have now choice
The wormen cant go to school or drive

Tell me oh wise one
WHAT is taken from women here?

They still can get these 5 or 6 kinds of abortion drugs and the like if they wish now cant they
Nothing is stopping them is there

The ONLY question is who pays for them

Next
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc


They still can get these 5 or 6 kinds of abortion drugs and the like if they wish now cant they
Nothing is stopping them is there

The ONLY question is who pays for them

Next



Indeed, you nailed it. It's ALL about the corporate profit margin, since they have no hesitation in outsourcing their production to China, the abortion capital of the world.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

***
They still can get these 5 or 6 kinds of abortion drugs and the like if they wish now cant they
Nothing is stopping them is there

The ONLY question is who pays for them

Next



Indeed, you nailed it. It's ALL about the corporate profit margin, since they have no hesitation in outsourcing their production to China, the abortion capital of the world.

the only thing that was nailed was a damn stupid argument
NOTHING is taken from the Women
YOU cant say that regarding sharia law
BUSTED!!!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend


So you don't deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all. Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case.



The only thing i do not deny is you making crap up and putting words in others mouths
You do not know the motivation
Cause even the great kallend can't
Regardless
They have the RIGHT to make the claim
They are denying nothing to the women who would use those drugs
Getting those drugs is NOT a right
Sharia denies women basics rights
Why do you hate women?

You cant stand it
You refuse to refute my points so you just make shit up
Just like you denying you would ban guns if you could

sheesh....
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>They said corporations can donate to and influence politics and elections based on
>the beliefs of the board or owners, therefore that allows the beliefs of the board
>or owners in regards to religion to be expressed in how they handle the
>purchases of the business based on religious freedom.

Not when those expressed beliefs discriminate against people based on their gender, race or sexual orientation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead.



Your argument is pathetic
I will not debate your strawman
But how about this

You and others have said that what happens in the bedroom should be private
But now you think that should not be the case
Because you think that companies should pay to help offset decisions people make in the bedroom
So, since you think that companies should pay for stuff that happens in the bedroom, should that company now have say what happens? should that money come with string attached?
Fed dollars do!

Just think of your HC insurance regarding smokers and the obese

Which way do you think this should all go John?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

Because you think that companies should pay to ...



Companies don't "pay" for anything here except their share of the insurance.

What you are suggesting is companies should have the right to dictate how employees decide how insurance is regulated and how employees can spend their compensation packages. THAT is ridiculous.

It's like saying companies should be able to dictate how you spend your retirement money.

It's stupid.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

***Because you think that companies should pay to ...



Companies don't "pay" for anything here except their share of the insurance.

What you are suggesting is companies should have the right to dictate how employees decide how insurance is regulated and how employees can spend their compensation packages. THAT is ridiculous.

It's like saying companies should be able to dictate how you spend your retirement money.

It's stupid. Stupid? What you express here is exactly what the government wants to do.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>What you express here is exactly what the government wants to do.

So you are saying that people should be free to spend their healthcare/wage/retirement money on whatever they like?



What I am saying is the government is playing in a sand box they have not right to play in
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>They said corporations can donate to and influence politics and elections based on
>the beliefs of the board or owners, therefore that allows the beliefs of the board
>or owners in regards to religion to be expressed in how they handle the
>purchases of the business based on religious freedom.

Not when those expressed beliefs discriminate against people based on their gender, race or sexual orientation.



How are they discriminating? they did not deny anyone any treatment, all they said was that all people that wanted the treatments listed would have to pay for it themselves. they did not single out any one or group.
the only one being discriminated against is Hobby Lobby for their religious beliefs which are protected in our bill of rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
marks2065

***>They said corporations can donate to and influence politics and elections based on
>the beliefs of the board or owners, therefore that allows the beliefs of the board
>or owners in regards to religion to be expressed in how they handle the
>purchases of the business based on religious freedom.

Not when those expressed beliefs discriminate against people based on their gender, race or sexual orientation.



How are they discriminating? they did not deny anyone any treatment, all they said was that all people that wanted the treatments listed would have to pay for it themselves. they did not single out any one or group.
the only one being discriminated against is Hobby Lobby for their religious beliefs which are protected in our bill of rights.

this is the angle the left keeps using in it's arguments here
It is also based on the premise that HC insurance is a right
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead.



Your argument is pathetic
I will not debate your strawman


So you still haven't figured out the correct use of "strawman", and you still can't rebut my statement.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

******So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead.



Your argument is pathetic
I will not debate your strawman

the is nothing to rebut
You start from a stupid premise
So you still haven't figured out the correct use of "strawman", and you still can't rebut my statement.

the is nothing to rebut
You start from a stupid premise
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

*********So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead.



Your argument is pathetic
I will not debate your strawman

the is nothing to rebut
You start from a stupid premise
So you still haven't figured out the correct use of "strawman", and you still can't rebut my statement.

And you STILL haven't figured out how to use the quote function in this forum.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

************So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead.



Your argument is pathetic
I will not debate your strawman

the is nothing to rebut
You start from a stupid premise
So you still haven't figured out the correct use of "strawman", and you still can't rebut my statement.

And you STILL haven't figured out how to use the quote function in this forum.

Still grading the paper instead of debating the issue. I guess when you don't have a good argument you need something to fall back on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>How are they discriminating? they did not deny anyone any treatment, all they
>said was that all people that wanted the treatments listed would have to pay for it
>themselves.

Let's take the two parallel cases in the post above.

=========
Company B does not provide medical coverage for Bidil because they do not think blacks deserve it.

How are they discriminating? It is their religious belief that blacks are undeserving, and they are entitled to it. They didn't deny blacks cardiac medications; they just said that if blacks want that particular medical care they have to pay for it themselves.

Company C provides maternity and paternity leave for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals.

How are they discriminating? It is their religious belief that gays should not raise children, and they are entitled to it. They didn't deny gays time off; they are free to quit and take as much time as they want to raise their kids.
==========

Still think it's not discrimination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>How are they discriminating? they did not deny anyone any treatment, all they
>said was that all people that wanted the treatments listed would have to pay for it
>themselves.

Let's take the two parallel cases in the post above.

=========
Company B does not provide medical coverage for Bidil because they do not think blacks deserve it.

How are they discriminating? It is their religious belief that blacks are undeserving, and they are entitled to it. They didn't deny blacks cardiac medications; they just said that if blacks want that particular medical care they have to pay for it themselves.

Company C provides maternity and paternity leave for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals.

How are they discriminating? It is their religious belief that gays should not raise children, and they are entitled to it. They didn't deny gays time off; they are free to quit and take as much time as they want to raise their kids.
==========

Still think it's not discrimination?


they did not pick out one race or gender, since all insurance policies have to have all coverage (mean have to carry maternity and birth control) and they deny it to all then they did not discriminate. so tell me again who they are discriminating against?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
marks2065

***************So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead.



Your argument is pathetic
I will not debate your strawman

the is nothing to rebut
You start from a stupid premise
So you still haven't figured out the correct use of "strawman", and you still can't rebut my statement.

And you STILL haven't figured out how to use the quote function in this forum.

Still grading the paper instead of debating the issue. I guess when you don't have a good argument you need something to fall back on.

It's rushmc who keeps changing the subject because he has NO REBUTTAL to the issue I raised.

Since all he does is throw dust in the air, it's perfectly legitimate to criticize his throwing ability.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>they did not pick out one race or gender

Ah. So they are denying certain kinds of reproductive health care to men as well? If so I agree; the above analogy would not be valid since they are applying similar limitations to both sexes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>they did not pick out one race or gender

Ah. So they are denying certain kinds of reproductive health care to men as well? If so I agree; the above analogy would not be valid since they are applying similar limitations to both sexes.



yep, no one will get the 4 or 5 drugs they list

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0