• 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

The Man said:
Understood, but HL is challenging the law because they disagree with it, and they can do that. If Obamacare, which is unconstitutional, was upheld by the SCOTUS, I see no reason why they wouldn't side with HL on this. The SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare basically states that the Constitution really doesn't matter. That sets up a scary precedent for the future.
Click to expand...

That's completely absurd. PACA was always on sound constitutional footing. It's a tax, it's always been a tax, and taxes have always been constitutional. End of story.

This is completely different and nothing about the PACA ruling, which was sound, bears on this Hobby Lobby issue. Totally unrelated constitutional issues.
 
Ontologuy said:
Okay ..

.. Let's say the owner's religious tenet conflicts with your religious tenet, and, as is the topically relevant case, your religious tenet conflicts with the owner's religious tenet.

How do you resolved that conflict between two conflicting tenets of two religions?

You don't.

You, if you're a wise SCOTUS, strip religion from both sides of the argument, and examine the matter at its foundational elemets, you examine the substance of the conflict ..

.. And you settle the matter substantively.
Click to expand...

how do you resolve it?

don't let an employer determine what is and isn't permitted to be covered by your health care - it should be separated from employment. Someone shouldn't be without adequate care because of who they work for when all they do is stock shelves and wipe piss off of toilet seats.

they're not a religious organization and I'm sick of ****ing CORPORATE BUSINESSES pretending they're suddenly something more than what they ****ing are.
 
Fletch said:
You dont understand discrimination. You are misusing the term.
Click to expand...

weird im only stating what courst have done about cases like this :shrug: guess they got it wrong too lol

so are you saying i could deny your wife to coming to a business function based solely on if i thought she wasnt really your wife based on my religion and thats ok? no it would not be that would be me discrimination against you
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Hello ......... anybody home ? Your concept of "fairness and discrimination" is not the standard that determines a "right".
Click to expand...

its not my concept, its reality and how the courts see it :shrug:
 
The Man said:
1,)Understood, but HL is challenging the law because they disagree with it, and they can do that. 2.) If Obamacare, which is unconstitutional, was upheld by the SCOTUS, I see no reason why they wouldn't side with HL on this. 2.) The SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare basically states that the Constitution really doesn't matter. That sets up a scary precedent for the future.
Click to expand...

1.) yes they can, i agree 100% and im fine with their ability to challenge it and its what makes us a great country, whether i agree with them or not
2.) you are welcome to this opinion but im not sure how it changes this would still be an infringement at the foundation (the owner forcing something on employees based on religion)
 
Guy Incognito said:
That's completely absurd. PACA was always on sound constitutional footing. It's a tax, it's always been a tax, and taxes have always been constitutional. End of story.

This is completely different and nothing about the PACA ruling, which was sound, bears on this Hobby Lobby issue. Totally unrelated constitutional issues.
Click to expand...

Obama's camp only claimed it was a "tax" when it went before the Supreme Court, before that they called it a fine, or a penalty. And no, forcing citizens to purchase something from a private business is not Constitutional.

I know that the HL issue is not the same thing. I'm saying that the precedent that the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare sets, that the Constitution no longer matters, is scary.
 
Crosscheck said:
It basically just makes themselves feel better. But long as they stock their shelves with products from China they are supporting a country that provides abortions to control the population.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that would be an argument made by their opposition in the SCOTUS appeal.

The reply to such an argument is that products made in America are also made in a country that supports abortion on demand for any reason prior to the prenatal age of viability, and that such an argument is absurdly out of scope .. which, it is.

The SCOTUS would never consider it.

The court would only be concerned with the immediate behavior in the scope of the coporation conducting their own business affairs.

Now if humans were requisitely killed in the very process of procuring the products the company sells, that argument might be considered within scope and thus be admissable.

But the ownus of proof that such an exceptional situation was occurring would rest with the counsel of HL's opposition.

Considering the products HL likely sells, that's highly unlikely.

HL has a great case by simply modifying their bylaws as I previously stated.
 
The Man said:
Obama's camp only claimed it was a "tax" when it went before the Supreme Court, before that
they called it a fine, or a penalty. And no, forcing citizens to purchase something from a private business is not Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Let's not rehash this. Suffice to say the Supreme Court, led by conservative Chief Justice Roberts, disagrees with you. And so does anybody who has even the fainteste understanding of constitutional law.

I know that the HL issue is not the same thing. I'm saying that the precedent that the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare sets, that the Constitution no longer matters, is scary.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't set a precedent for anything because it doesn't relate. The constitution is being upheld just as well as it ever was. Maybe even better. Roberts is a great chief justice.
 
Objective-J said:
it explains itself, please be more specific with your questions.

Do people have a right not to be unfairly discriminated against?
Click to expand...


I don't get it, does Hobby Lobby tell their employees that they can't buy contraceptive?
 
Ontologuy said:
Okay ..

.. Let's say the owner's religious tenet conflicts with your religious tenet, and, as is the topically relevant case, your religious tenet conflicts with the owner's religious tenet.

How do you resolved that conflict between two conflicting tenets of two religions?

You don't.

You, if you're a wise SCOTUS, strip religion from both sides of the argument, and examine the matter at its foundational elements, you examine the substance of the conflict ..

.. And you settle the matter substantively.

Aunt Spiker said:
how do you resolve it?

don't let an employer determine what is and isn't permitted to be covered by your health care - it should be separated from employment. Someone shouldn't be without adequate care because of who they work for when all they do is stock shelves and wipe piss off of toilet seats.

they're not a religious organization and I'm sick of ****ing CORPORATE BUSINESSES pretending they're suddenly something more than what they ****ing are.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
In the long run, the best solution is to take the employer out of the healthcare providing equation.

That would go a long way toward solving this and similar problems.

I wish Obamacare would have done that, as that's really best for all concerned, for both owners and employees.

Regardless, a privately held business can incorporate, and thus the activity of the business is irrelevant to incorporation, so just because an endeavor is incorporated -- "CORPORATE BUSINESSES", as you state -- in no way precludes the owners from stipulating in their bylaws and business conduct codes the practices they will and will not engage in the process of conducting their affairs.

Public corporations have just a wee bit more difficult time so stating, as such can affect their stock performance.
 
Fletch said:
But what makes a law just? The fact that it exists? Or is there ome other standard?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if the law is just, the law is the law. If you think the law is unjust, there exist ways to attempt to change the law. When you actually manage to change the law, then you're free not to follow it. You don't get to ignore it simply because you don't like it.
 
j-mac said:
I don't get it, does Hobby Lobby tell their employees that they can't buy contraceptive?
Click to expand...

nope but whats that have to do with anything? oh thats right nothing.
just spit it out what you want to ask or are trying to get at
 
Grant said:
They shouldn't be exempt perhaps, but they are.

Why not go after the government to be sure that all companies follow the law, if you feel that strongly about justice and rights. Shouldn't that be where your complaints are directed?
Click to expand...

What makes you think that they're not? However, that puts Hobby Lobby in an even worse position, not only should there be no religious exemptions, there should be no exemptions of any kind. Just because those guys over there are getting away with it isn't a license for anyone who wants to get away with it to do so.
 
Cephus said:
Doesn't matter if the law is just, the law is the law. If you think the law is unjust, there exist ways to attempt to change the law. When you actually manage to change the law, then you're free not to follow it. You don't get to ignore it simply because you don't like it.
Click to expand...

Yes, much the same arguments were used by those who favored Jim Crow, and those who favored slavery before them. What an ignoble tradition you are perpetuating. Disgusting.
 
Ontologuy said:
It would seem that all Hobby Lobby has to do is to write in their corporate bylaws that they will not in any way participate, either directly or indirectly, in the killing of humans, in any way, in the course of conducting any aspect of their business.

That will eliminate religion from the issue and make it a corporate bylaw matter.

Because the company is privately held, their chances of success, already fairly good, will thereby increase.
Click to expand...

They still have no choice if the laws require insurance providers to cover contraceptives. Hobby Lobby is certainly welcome not to offer any form of health insurance to their employees, but if they want to provide insurance, this is the kind of insurance they will have to provide. Pick one.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

So a Fetus is a baby ? Glad you've started to see the light but there are those that believe life starts at conception. As far as the religious "fanatics " and their beliefs being condensed by you down to a unthinking mob ? Our Muslim community is still pretty small in the states in comparison.

Christians have no more power in this Country than any other group. Woman continue to kill their unborn babies and more and more aspects of the Christian religion are being purged almost on a daily basis from govt buildings, cemeteries and schools among other institutions. ( at the expense of our American Society )

So the whole narrative about Christians taking over or mandating their belief system onto poor unsuspecting non-believers is just a lie. As a Christian myself I can honestly say your average Christian is a *****, and their milk toast attitude is further reinforced by even weaker pastors.

I argue and argue with others who share my beliefs and come away frustrated.

We've been portrayed by the Left wing institution that is most of the media as terrorist or complicit in acts of violence whether the actual perpetrator was a Christian or not as our society grows increasingly hedonistic and void of any moral core.

If it feels good do it. right ?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yes, much the same arguments were used by those who favored Jim Crow, and those who favored slavery before them. What an ignoble tradition you are perpetuating. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

Even the people who disagreed with slavery were bound by laws to return escaped slaves or face the consequences thereof. You don't get to ignore the law just because you don't like it.
 
Objective-J said:
nope but whats that have to do with anything? oh thats right nothing.
just spit it out what you want to ask or are trying to get at
Click to expand...


You're trying to make a case that me not buying something for you is discrimination. In this case it is indirectly, but still the same. Plus you made some attempt earlier to say that HL following their religious precept, was in violation of yours....What religion accepts the use of contraceptives? None that I know of....Now if HL were saying that they didn't want to include contraceptives in their insurance policies, and at the same time mandating that their employees not use them, nor have out of wedlock sex then you'd have a case. But, frankly sir, and this will end my participation for the night, your argument is not only deeply flawed on several levels, but shows a fundamental lack of understanding on "rights" vs. entitlement. Neither of which I believe this is, but until the courts, and hopefully in the future the congress rectifies by striking down this fascist meddling in private business will be laid bare, and condemned. Good night.
 
Objective-J said:
nope its the government protecting its citizens' freedoms, rights liberties and from discrimation and rights infringement
Click to expand...

Since when is obligating one person to pay for another person's birth control measures freedom, liberty, discrinination, or roghtsd infringements. It seems clear ehre that ypou must be treferring to Hobby Lobby.

Also the cornerstone of Western Human Rights is equality before the law. We have seen dozens of companies who are excempt from these laws while others, like Hobby Lobby, are being forces to oblige against their will and their protected religious liberties.

Supplying birth control devices to employees was never a condition of employment when the workers began their jobs and the government should not be allowed to make these conditions retroactive.
 
Cephus said:
Even the people who disagreed with slavery were bound by laws to return escaped slaves or face the consequences thereof. You don't get to ignore the law just because you don't like it.
Click to expand...


It's not law, it's a HHC mandate.
 
Cephus said:
Even the people who disagreed with slavery were bound by laws to return escaped slaves or face the consequences thereof. You don't get to ignore the law just because you don't like it.
Click to expand...


But we have seen where other companies, under the presidents blessings, have been allowed to ignore the law. This is not equality before the law.
 
Objective-J said:
its not my concept, its reality and how the courts see it :shrug:
Click to expand...

This is absurd. The Courts will not rule based on "discrimination" by the employer upon the employees. There is not basis for that, and your willy-nilly use of the words "rights" and "discrimination" is a deterent to reasoned discussion here.

The issue will be the rights of the employer.
 
Grant said:
But we have seen where other companies, under the presidents blessings, have been allowed to ignore the law. This is not equality before the law.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Get all companies to be required to follow the same law. Don't make exceptions for anyone.
 
j-mac said:
1.)You're trying to make a case that me not buying something for you is discrimination. In this case it is indirectly, but still the same.
2.)Plus you made some attempt earlier to say that HL following their religious precept, was in violation of yours....
3.)What religion accepts the use of contraceptives? None that I know of....
4.)Now if HL were saying that they didn't want to include contraceptives in their insurance policies, and at the same time mandating that their employees not use them, nor have out of wedlock sex then you'd have a case.
5.)But, frankly sir, and this will end my participation for the night, your argument is not only deeply flawed on several levels, but shows a fundamental lack of understanding on "rights" vs. entitlement. Neither of which I believe this is, but until the courts, and hopefully in the future the congress rectifies by striking down this fascist meddling in private business will be laid bare, and condemned.
6.)Good night.
Click to expand...

1.) wrong again thats not what im doing at all
2.) i didnt make the "claim" its a fact their decision is based on their religion
3.) this is meaningless to the debate
4.) this is also meaningless to the debate
5.) you say this but yet all the facts and logic are on my side and the courts agree with me and not you, you are free to your OPINION but you have no support for it and nothing factually to bring to the table.
6.) night, when you wake up let me know if you have anything factual to add
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom