Page 20 of 58 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 575

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

  1. #191
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Very bad timing here. I would love to continue this discussion, but I have to hit the sack. Got 6 hours of practice tomorrow, and then a NYE gig in Galveston for Curtis King. Gonna be a long day too. I sprained my thumb during my gig Friday, and will be playing in pain. I plan to get drunk as the bejesus when I finally get home. LOL. I will try to pick this up again New Year's day.

    'Cya next year.
    Sounds like you have awesome plans. Have a good time, happy new year!
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  2. #192
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Comparing a person's belief that birth control is wrong and not wanting to provide a benefit for it is hardly comparable with the practices of the taliban Please tell me what religious beliefs are being forced on someone when the owner of their own private company decides that they don't want to run their business in a way that conflicts with their beliefs. They can't stop someone from getting birth control or preventing the individual from purchasing their own insurance plan that covers what they want, they are just choosing not to provide benefits that conflict with their beliefs.
    easy if those beliefs are admittedly based on religion or it can be proven to be based on religions. they have to make something up to fit in the parameters of the law.

    what if i only hired Christians because other people worshiped false gods and thats against my beliefs? I mean im only choosing not to go against my beliefs, im not preventing them from working else where.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #193
    Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 03:23 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    967

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    definitions support me and they dont support you as already shown.

    again if you disagree please factually prove its hypocrisy and "definitions" prove me wrong
    Definitions support neither of us. They support objectivity.

    As has been said, claiming to be pro-choice when it comes to personal behavior, yet NOT pro-choice when it comes to the freedom of an independently owned company to offer what it chooses is hypocrisy, and it does not have to be intentional. You may also use several of the following terms if hypocritical doesn't suit your objectivity:

    affected, artificial, assuming, bland, canting, captious, caviling, deceptive, deluding, dissembling, double, double-dealing, duplicitous, faithless, false, feigning, fishy, fraudulent, glib, hollow, insincere, jivey, left-handed, lying, moralistic, oily, pharisaical, phony, pietistic, pious, sanctimonious, self-righteous, smooth, smooth-spoken, smooth-tongued, snide, specious, spurious, two-faced, unctuous, unnatural, unreliable

    Regardless of what you call it, PPACA is STILL coercion, which is my main beef anyway. I don't really care about your motivations.

  4. #194
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    easy if those beliefs are admittedly based on religion or it can be proven to be based on religions. they have to make something up to fit in the parameters of the law.

    what if i only hired Christians because other people worshiped false gods and thats against my beliefs? I mean im only choosing not to go against my beliefs, im not preventing them from working else where.
    There is a difference between not hiring someone solely based on their religion and not providing a benefit that conflicts with your beliefs.

    What about the religious rights of the owner and not having beliefs shoved down their throat? As I said, an employer that is against birth control shouldn't be forced to provide benefits that cover it. It's their business and their money and I think it should be within the law for the owners to run a business in accordance with their values (and to prevent tangents I would say Constitutional values, not civil rights violations like discriminating based on race or sex).

    An employer that doesn't provide for birth control in no way is forcing their religious belief upon anyone, they are just living by what they believe and not using their businesses' money that they own to provide a benefit that they believe is wrong. No one is stopping anyone from going out and getting birth control nor is anyone being fired for it. You can do what you want with your own money, no one is stopping that. The employer just doesn't want to be forced to do something with their money that they believe is wrong.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  5. #195
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    1.) again though im not sure of the rational on the line, me and you may agree where a line should be drawn but what about everybody else? and if you make it a totally insured decision how long before insurance becomes way otu fo control and getting anything like what we have today becomes even more expensive or insurance companies find ways to start excluding things left and right.
    I think the law should have some protections (against rescission, premium jacking and pre existing conditions) for the insured, but should largely leave a lot of things optional like, mental health, alcohol and drug treatment, etc.

    One of the main reasons insurance is so expensive is, because a lot of people have too much coverage and pay little out of pocket (for medical services).

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    2.) dont disagree but there are people out there that this would help dramatically, and many CAN NOT afford the premiums.

    but your questions could be asked about many things could they not?
    Most of the people who need help with this, would of been helped anyway, via medicaid or were already helped through local departments of health.
    Even the medicaid co pays were tiny, in my state (Georgia) medicaid co pays were between $.50 and $2.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    3.) ???? that isnt factual at all that would assume the vast majority or lower and middle class can afford it and that the upper class isnt taking advantage of the insurance and or they are all paying for it without insurance.
    Upper and middle income people, are already the most likely to be insured and use birth control.
    Lower income women, are the least likely to be insured or use BC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    but again the same question, wouldnt this be true with some things with any and all insurances?
    The point of insurance, is to cover unforeseen events like, cancer, heart attack, stroke, severe accidents, etc.
    Covering those things, makes the most sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    again i totally see the logic i just dont see picking this ONE thing to judge or be upset about when many things could fall into this category. DO you disagree with that?
    Oh, believe me, I have more than one criticism, in regards to legislation and insurance.
    It's against all parties involved, state, federal and lobby groups.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #196
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jwzg View Post
    1.)Definitions support neither of us. They support objectivity.

    2.)As has been said, claiming to be pro-choice when it comes to personal behavior, yet NOT pro-choice when it comes to the freedom of an independently owned company to offer what it chooses is hypocrisy, and it does not have to be intentional. You may also use several of the following terms if hypocritical doesn't suit your objectivity:

    affected, artificial, assuming, bland, canting, captious, caviling, deceptive, deluding, dissembling, double, double-dealing, duplicitous, faithless, false, feigning, fishy, fraudulent, glib, hollow, insincere, jivey, left-handed, lying, moralistic, oily, pharisaical, phony, pietistic, pious, sanctimonious, self-righteous, smooth, smooth-spoken, smooth-tongued, snide, specious, spurious, two-faced, unctuous, unnatural, unreliable

    Regardless of what you call it, PPACA is STILL coercion, which is my main beef anyway. I don't really care about your motivations.
    1.) i partially agree, but they do support me since i just gave you facts why the poster was inaccurat and you gave me your opinion why you think its right. And the fact remains you havent been able to show any facts or reason for it.

    i keep waiting for your proof and you keep deflecting

    2.) this is OPINION and again not factual hypocrisy
    pro-choice is a term for abortion, not anything else, you dont get to make up your own definitions and call it objective lol

    again a company cant not force views on you based on religion because that restricts your freedoms, if they make something up that is just they are ok

    again the poster has factually been proven to be a failure and inaccurate, who ever created it doesnt understand what hypocrisy is.

    so again i ask do you have ANYTHING that factually proves the poster to be accurate? anything?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #197
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,277

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I have 2 statements to make here:

    1) Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religious views on others. Your freedom of religion stops where my own freedom of religion begins.

    2) If Hobby Lobby wants to pay 1.3 million in fines per day, then by all means let them. It will help reduce our deficit a tiny bit. Thank you, Hobby Lobby, for volunteering to pay a little more.

    Article is here
    .
    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.

  8. #198
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    1.)There is a difference between not hiring someone solely based on their religion and not providing a benefit that conflicts with your beliefs.

    2.)What about the religious rights of the owner and not having beliefs shoved down their throat? As I said, an employer that is against birth control shouldn't be forced to provide benefits that cover it. It's their business and their money and I think it should be within the law for the owners to run a business in accordance with their values (and to prevent tangents I would say Constitutional values, not civil rights violations like discriminating based on race or sex).

    3.)An employer that doesn't provide for birth control in no way is forcing their religious belief upon anyone, they are just living by what they believe and not using their businesses' money that they own to provide a benefit that they believe is wrong. No one is stopping anyone from going out and getting birth control nor is anyone being fired for it. You can do what you want with your own money, no one is stopping that. The employer just doesn't want to be forced to do something with their money that they believe is wrong.
    1.) no not really if both are based on SOLELY religious beliefs

    2.) he is not forced to use BC if he doesnt want to, his rights are intact. Its a public realm, dont like the public realm stay out of it, its really that simply.
    how many things could an employer deny based on religious belifs if we let them? where does it stop and who gets to decided what acceptable?

    3.) If that decision is based solely on religion it 100% is because you are discriminated against based on your beliefs vs theirs, the employee will be FORCED to do something above and beyond based on the employors religions beliefs, thats forcing views.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #199
    Professor
    Mathematician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    09-22-17 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,147

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

    I'm waiting for Athiest Chick-fil-A employees to start complaining about being closed on Sundays.
    "With me everything turns into mathematics."
    "It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well."
    "It is truth very certain that, when it is not in one's power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is more probable." -- Rene Descartes

  10. #200
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,998

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Or they could just keep their noses out of their employees bedrooms.
    This is based off a improper premise. Whether or not a given service is offered on a given health care plan has nothing to do with someone's right to a given service. Whether or not someone has the money to obtain a given service has nothing to do with their right to said service. One's right to something simply means that the government cannot legally forbid it to them, not that someone is required to provide it.

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    That's exactly what the law does. It leaves the choice of using birth contol up to the individual not a Corporation.
    No it removes the choices and the freedom of two or more entities to negotiate their own business. And it also removes from the covered the choice of which services (s)he wants on their medical insurance. Because BC services are required on all medical insurances, I, as a single male, must have and pay for BC coverage, a service that I shall never use. So much for my individual choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Part of many women's healthcare includes using birth control. Why should a company choose for them? Especially since it is a cost saving benefit. Hobby Lobby does not pay one extra dime for it. It is also a purely religous issue that is subject to seperation of church and state. A company may not impose their religous views on their employees.
    False premise again. For the company to impose a religious view as such, then they would need to tell their female employees that they may not use MAP at all, as opposed to not providing it themselves. To force the company to provide the MAP would be to impose a religious view upon the company, the very act that you seek to stop.

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    What I don't understand is why it doesn't violate their religion when an employee purchases a morning after pill themselves. After all the company paid the salary that paid for the purchase. It is still their money that bought the thing.
    Once the money changes hands for services rendered (the work the employee does) the money is no longer the company's but the employee's. Therefore the company is paying for the MAP when the employee purchases it for themselves, or even if the employee obtains their own insurance outside of what the company offers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    What's really happening here is that the employer wants to tell the employee what they can and cannot do in their off-hours, in a bedroom which is none of the employer's damn business.

    That's the reality.
    Not the reality. The willingness of the company to provide or not provide BC in no way tells the employee what they can and cannot do in the bedroom during off-hours. How does a lack of employer provided BC, verses the general availability of BC, affect what one does in the bedroom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    They're not being compelled to provide it, the plan that is offered simply includes it and they are making a big deal of insisting it is removed from the plan offered by the insurance company.
    Incorrect. On an assumption of government mandating not being present, then insurance companies would, and have, offered various services and bundle plans. Every service the company provides costs and the potential cost is figured into each plan. If the plan doesn't have BC then those cost are not needed and the overall plan is less expensive. By forcing all insurance companies to carry BC, you are forcing other companies to pay for that BC, or at least you are if you also require them to provide insurance coverage, another violation of freedom in and of itself. Now if there were no government mandate on what the insurance companies had to provide, then other companies could shop to find the one or more that had plans that matched what they are willing to provide.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    just as there is no reason to mandate cancer coverage
    or
    care for heart attacks or stroke
    Someone who gets it.....although I'm sure that was supposed to be sarcasm. But yes, exactly! There is no reason to mandate any business between individuals, companies or any combination of the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I agree. For example, no one has the right to impose on Hobby Lobby the religious view that the morning after pill is morally acceptable, or force them to take part in what they perceive as evil, any more than we have the right to force Muslim grocers to carry and sell pork. Hobby Lobby, in turn, has no right to impose their religious views on anyone else, and has no right to stop their employees from going and getting birth control on their own.
    Let me add in with this that it doesn't matter if some or even all Muslim grocers do carry and sell pork. There is no reason to mandate it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    That is not medically unethical. Though I do think that all of that should be covered, and this whole debate just illustrates that it is ridiculous to have health insurance tied to employment. Which is why I wanted a single payer system.
    If it wasn't tied to employment by law, it would probably be a lot lower. In parallel with that if certain coverages were not required by law, including preventive care, the costs would not be as high.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    The problem is that liberals want health care as a right. They want full-coverage single-payer. As evidenced by this contraception mandate.
    No they want health care payment as a right. Health care is already a right, even if they won't admit it. There is no law ANYWHERE deny ANYONE access to health care. Lack of ability to compensate the provider of a service is not the same as being denied access to the service.

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    You can't claim that a third party(a) providing services to another third party(B) violates your freedom of religion; it doesn't work that way.
    You can when you are paying (a) to provide (b) the services. When all the money exchanged is only between (a) and (b), then you have no say

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    Birth control pills are widely regarded as the best option to treat those conditions and I'd put more faith in a doctor on these matters than some guy who hocks cheap art supplies for a living. The point is that you don't know why an employee may need birth control. It could be for one, or more, of the aforementioned medical conditions or they may not use that benefit at all. The religious argument rings hollow. You can't claim a religious exemption because of an imagined action which doesn't involve you directly, hasn't occurred, may never occur, and which you would never know if it had occurred.
    The problem with this argument is in classifying these drugs as birth control drugs. If a drug that is used for issues like BC, PE or ED can also be used to treat other life threatening conditions, then their use for the later conditions is not a violation of religions views, at least not related to BC. Has there ever been a study done that compares a company's/person's view on the different applications of the same given drug and the inclusion of said drug in insurance for the various purposes? I would like to see that. For example: Viagra is used to treat both ED and Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. How many people would be ok with the prescribing of Viagra for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension paid for on the taxpayer's back, but not when it's prescribed for ED?

Page 20 of 58 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •