• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

There is a huge difference between phrasing it such that someone is "allowing" me to be forced to pay for their contraception, when the fact is that they are "demanding" that I pay for such. It amazes me that such is so difficult to accept.

The analogy that produces the hypocrisy is that such as Sandra Fuxalot demands that I pay for her contraception, but then feigns the liberal outrage that I would expect some standard of performance from her in other areas related to birth control.

I am very libertarian on such. I do not care if Fuxalot wants to fuxalot. What I do object to is having to pay to enable her own elective recklessness, much less the consequences of such. I want nothing to do with either, and feel I have zero obligation as well. A view chimed by many here who are not nanny-state liberals.

Game over.
 
Not relevant to the question you were asked, but no.

We'll you seemed to have been repulsed at the concept of law before.

Yes, standing for your principles can cost you. If more people were willing to do such a thing we would undoubtedly be more free.

A person's principles should be secondary to the law.

owners just went and replaced themselves with machines! Holy crap...

A group of people in any situation does not count as a single person.
 
No. that is not what happened. It was not an "appeal". Hobby Lobby essentially petitioned directly to SCOTUS, which rarely grants such without cases first coming up through the entire court system. There are cases currently moving through the system, and SCOTUS will likely eventually get one to pick from, which it will choose, usually because such case represents the best argument to illuminate the issue.

I'm sorry if i was incorrect. Could you give me link to article that states that I'd like to read it.
 
There is a huge difference between phrasing it such that someone is "allowing" me to be forced to pay for their contraception, when the fact is that they are "demanding" that I pay for such. It amazes me that such is so difficult to accept.

The analogy that produces the hypocrisy is that such as Sandra Fuxalot demands that I pay for her contraception, but then feigns the liberal outrage that I would expect some standard of performance from her in other areas related to birth control.

I am very libertarian on such. I do not care if Fuxalot wants to fuxalot. What I do object to is having to pay to enable her own elective recklessness, much less the consequences of such. I want nothing to do with either, and feel I have zero obligation as well. A view chimed by many here who are not nanny-state liberals.

When the law requires that you should, then she should demand that you do.

There is nothing wrong with the law what so ever, so please don't compare it to the civil rights movement or the revolutonary war because it is not even close to them by ay means.

It is simply part of her healthcare and if you are against contraceptives then don't use them. If she wishes to use them then all the more power to her. I don't think you or I as men for that matter can really understand the burden that is a pregnancy. Nor do you have to pay for it in this case its the employer who already a health plan for many workers.
 
When the law requires that you should, then she should demand that you do.

There is nothing wrong with the law what so ever, so please don't compare it to the civil rights movement or the revolutonary war because it is not even close to them by ay means.

It is simply part of her healthcare and if you are against contraceptives then don't use them. If she wishes to use them then all the more power to her. I don't think you or I as men for that matter can really understand the burden that is a pregnancy. Nor do you have to pay for it in this case its the employer who already a health plan for many workers.

I guess that means you would have went right along with the Nuremburg Laws, too.

This law forces American citizens, to use their private assets, to fund something that they deem as immoral. How anyone could claim there is nothing wrong with this law boggles my mind to no end.
 
I guess that means you would have went right along with the Nuremburg Laws, too.

This law forces American citizens, to use their private assets, to fund something that they deem as immoral. How anyone could claim there is nothing wrong with this law boggles my mind to no end.

Well I didn't say to not use the Nuremburg laws as as example there is still an extreme EXTREME DIFFERENCE between the two, but it appears you consider the united states similar to Nazi Germany in regards to our legislation so I'd lik to hear how you figure that.

This law does not force American citizens to pay for contraceptives. This law requires employers to include the morning after pill in their health care plans, to me there is quite a difference in the context of the phrase.

And also could you tell me why they consider these pills immoral?
 
Well I didn't say to not use the Nuremburg laws as as example there is still an extreme EXTREME DIFFERENCE between the two, but it appears you consider the united states similar to Nazi Germany in regards to our legislation so I'd lik to hear how you figure that.

I don't see a difference. I see different levels of barbarity, but an illegal, immoral law is an illegal, immoral law.

This law does not force American citizens to pay for contraceptives. This law requires employers to include the morning after pill in their health care plans, to me there is quite a difference in the context of the phrase.

Health care plans that are paid for with the private assets of American citizens.

Yes, they are. Hobby Lobby's assets belong to Hobby Lobby, a company owned by American citizens, who in turn own the assets.

And also could you tell me why they consider these pills immoral?

They claim the morning after pill goes against their religious beliefs. That's good enough for me. Go read the 1st Amendment.
 
We'll you seemed to have been repulsed at the concept of law before.

The concept of law is a dangerous one and not one I take easily. Everyone has reason to pause when considering more laws or another outlet of power for the government and only a fool would say otherwise. If the government is fight right violations I can tolerate it, but I can not tolerate anything else with any amount of ease.

A person's principles should be secondary to the law.

That is a rather dangerous view for the country as a whole to follow.Simply giving in to the law is not how a free country manages its own freedom. It is in fact, only how it loses it.

A group of people in any situation does not count as a single person.

It could be a group of people or a single person but they are still people and should we not treat all people with the same degree of respect?
 
Well I didn't say to not use the Nuremburg laws as as example there is still an extreme EXTREME DIFFERENCE between the two, but it appears you consider the united states similar to Nazi Germany in regards to our legislation so I'd lik to hear how you figure that.

This law does not force American citizens to pay for contraceptives. This law requires employers to include the morning after pill in their health care plans, to me there is quite a difference in the context of the phrase.

And also could you tell me why they consider these pills immoral?

Ah, context....Semantics....Whether or not you have to come out of pocket directly at the local drug store, or are forced to pay for it through insurance mandates that you must purchase, it is semantics....A disingenuous game at best.
 
Get a effin' grip dude.

This is just more twisted BS perception from the left wing.

Why cant the women buy their own birth control and how is Hobby Lobby's insistence on not paying for the morning after pill imposing their religion ?

Some chick wants to kill her baby, Hobby Lobby or I shouldnt have to pay for her lack of responsibillity.

Except it's not killing her baby. It's CONTRACEPTION. The fetus is never made. This crap about it being abortion is just more BS spin from the religious ayatollahs and their non-thinking fanatic followers.
 
Except it's not killing her baby. It's CONTRACEPTION. The fetus is never made. This crap about it being abortion is just more BS spin from the religious ayatollahs and their non-thinking fanatic followers.

You could just make it mandatory coverage for health insurance policies and take it out of anybody's hands but it is more fun to be able to mock people who don't share your values.
 
Except it's not killing her baby. It's CONTRACEPTION. The fetus is never made. This crap about it being abortion is just more BS spin from the religious ayatollahs and their non-thinking fanatic followers.

You assert that contraception should be mandated as "free", under PPACA, yet not life saving drugs, such as anticoagulant, blood pressure, or collesterol controlling medications. That is what I just cannot understand. Subsidizing medical procedure/product A yet not medical procedure/product B is clearly a political, not a medical, decision - to deny that is being both rediculous and dishonest.
 
Except it's not killing her baby. It's CONTRACEPTION. The fetus is never made. This crap about it being abortion is just more BS spin from the religious ayatollahs and their non-thinking fanatic followers.

It ends the pregnancy and inhibits implantation.. No real way to deny that.

You can't very well move the goal posts of pregnancy either like people are doing with Plan B. I have no idea why you think you can get away with moving the goal post to implantation, but apparently you do. If you were honest you would admit that scientists have confirmed a new human being is created at the moment the sperm and the egg join (fertilization), who is completely different from his/her mother. Guess what already passed? You know what that makes you? Wrong.
 
Last edited:
Not only is it crazy, but it's also expensive.

its expensive NOW, but eventually its going to be impossible to fund even after the Dems scratch and slime their way into your pockets.

There are 2 dozen States refusing to set up pools. I think its a brilliant move because if there is no Local Govt Pool it fqlls back on the Feds to pay the premiums for all the new dependents that qualify.

Hillarious. The Feds Broke.
 
It ends the pregnancy and inhibits implantation.. No real way to deny that.

You can't very well move the goal posts of pregnancy either like people are doing with Plan B. I have no idea why you think you can get away with moving the goal post to implantation, but apparently you do. If you were honest you would admit that scientists have confirmed a new human being is created at the moment the sperm and the egg join (fertilization), who is completely different from his/her mother. Guess what already passed? You know what that makes you? Wrong.

It doesn't end ANY pregnancy because THERE IS NO PREGNANCY to begin with. That is where the dishonesty of the religious nuts shows itself!!
 
I guess that means you would have went right along with the Nuremburg Laws, too.

This law forces American citizens, to use their private assets, to fund something that they deem as immoral. How anyone could claim there is nothing wrong with this law boggles my mind to no end.

Your argument breaks down when you say "immoral". This is not abortion. It is contraception. There is NO pregnancy to begin with. According to what you are posting, 90% of catholic women are baby killers.
 
It doesn't end ANY pregnancy because THERE IS NO PREGNANCY to begin with. That is where the dishonesty of the religious nuts shows itself!!

I already presented you the relevant facts. The fact is pregnancy begins when a new life is created which happens at fertilization and NOT implantation. Perhaps if you weren't so dishonest you would admit this has been confirmed for a long time now. It is the termination of a pregnancy and there is no way around that fact. Is not my opinion nor is it religious bull****, but an objective scientific fact. Deny it if you want but all it makes you is wrong.
 
Last edited:
1.)There is a huge difference between phrasing it such that someone is "allowing" me to be forced to pay for their contraception, when the fact is that they are "demanding" that I pay for such. It amazes me that such is so difficult to accept.

2.)The analogy that produces the hypocrisy is that such as Sandra Fuxalot demands that I pay for her contraception, but then feigns the liberal outrage that I would expect some standard of performance from her in other areas related to birth control.

3.)I am very libertarian on such. I do not care if Fuxalot wants to fuxalot. What I do object to is having to pay to enable her own elective recklessness, much less the consequences of such. I want nothing to do with either, and feel I have zero obligation as well. A view chimed by many here who are not nanny-state liberals.

1.) all insurance works this way, never said it didnt nor does this have anythign to do with the fact that the poster is inaccurate and a failure. Im not sure what you are trying to debate. Seems you have no clue what i actually said and what you want to debate.

2.) again Sandra Fuxalot concerns me not and is meaningless to the failed poster i commented on :shrug:

3.) interesting, another meaningless statment that has ZERO to do with anything i said.

is there something you are actually interested in debating?

fact is the poster i commented on is 100% inaccurate and a failure. Let me know if you want to talk about what i actually commented on.
 
Game over.

LOL nothing change the poster is still 100% a failure and inaccurate and nothing in the above post changes that, let me know when you have any facts what so ever that supports your false claim :)
 
And again I suggest Hobby Lobby go franchise and keep under 50 employees (fire the rest) and offer NO healthcare as an alternative to this federal over-reach. That or the owners take their cash and retire after shuttering the business.

Enough companies do that and the script from the hill will change as the people begin to wake up enough to tar and feather the goobers there now.
 
And again I suggest Hobby Lobby go franchise and keep under 50 employees (fire the rest) and offer NO healthcare as an alternative to this federal over-reach. That or the owners take their cash and retire after shuttering the business.

Enough companies do that and the script from the hill will change as the people begin to wake up enough to tar and feather the goobers there now.

i think more people would blame the companies that selfishly do that than the law :shrug:

I know I would, theres no reason to blame the law "IN THIS CASE", in others there might be but not here
 
i think more people would blame the companies that selfishly do that than the law :shrug:

I know I would, theres no reason to blame the law "IN THIS CASE", in others there might be but not here

I disagree on both points. First, the bill, the law, has been successfully entered into the public's mind as "Obamacare". He (and his supporters) are going to take the hits and the accolades going forward on any sufferring or enrichment folks feel because of the law.

Second, the law requires us all to subsidize the sexual activities of others. I'm not cool with that, and there are a lot of Americans who feel the same.
 
1.)I disagree on both points. First, the bill, the law, has been successfully entered into the public's mind as "Obamacare". He (and his supporters) are going to take the hits and the accolades going forward on any sufferring or enrichment folks feel because of the law.

2.)Second, the law requires us all to subsidize the sexual activities of others. I'm not cool with that, and there are a lot of Americans who feel the same.


1.) have no clue why this is relevant to anything at all. The topic is, is it right for the company to defy the law and if they shut down like you suggest (in this case) who would be at fault.

2.)so?
many people felt this way before the bill and many feel this way about lots of things
people dont like to pay for healthcare of people who smoke, drink, eat like ****, do drugs and or never exercise too :shrug:

this isnt anything new, just because now this ONE issues bothers you is pretty meaningless, some dont want anything to go to healthcare because they are against medicine period.

Most would blae the company in this case because they are trying to force their religious beliefs, all they had to do is be smart and come up with something else.
 
1.) have no clue why this is relevant to anything at all. The topic is, is it right for the company to defy the law and if they shut down like you suggest (in this case) who would be at fault.

It's a direct relevent answer to your supposition the company would be blamed by the majority if it were to take those actions.

2.)so?
many people felt this way before the bill and many feel this way about lots of things
people dont like to pay for healthcare of people who smoke, drink, eat like ****, do drugs and or never exercise too :shrug:

And many still feel that way. This was not enacted through initiative (popular will), but federally through legislation. And it was enacted without majority public support. But you are wrong in that last point. Though folks may be against supporting unhealthy activities, they are more against subsidizing them. And this bill does not subsidize those activities (it doesn't require insurance companies to buy cigs for the smokers). However, it does require the subsidization of private sexual activity.

this isnt anything new, just because now this ONE issues bothers you is pretty meaningless, some dont want anything to go to healthcare because they are against medicine period.

Now, that IS irrelevent to the discussion.

Most would blae the company in this case because they are trying to force their religious beliefs, all they had to do is be smart and come up with something else.

Again, you have no way to show that, it is your opinion alone. In my opinion Obama and his supporters would be blamed for foisting this upon us in the first place. Also disagree with your characterization/frame of the issue. HL is in no way trying to force their religious beliefs upon employees. Employees are still free to participate and fund their own private sexual activities.
 
Back
Top Bottom