• 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

1.) so many? i used one other FACTUAL example, nothing to debate

You used an example that had no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand.

2.) wrong they are being forced to obey the law and not violate the rights of their employees and not discriminate, HUGE difference

There are no employees rights being violated. They did not commence their employment with any right of free contraception in place so how are they losing any rights? It is HL who are losing their rights.

3.) again the analogy i used is factual

It doesn't matter if it is factual or not. That is not the point of an analogy. it should have something to do with the subject under discussion, to further illustrate the point being made, and not veer off into other directions entirely.
 
1.)You used an example that had no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand.



2.)There are no employees rights being violated. They did not commence their employment with any right of free contraception in place so how are they losing any rights? It is HL who are losing their rights.



It doesn't matter if it is factual or not. That is not the point of an analogy. it should have something to do with the subject under discussion, to further illustrate the point being made, and not veer off into other directions entirely.

1.) facts, reality and laws disagree with you.
2.) of course they are, discrimination thats why laws, realty disagree with you. The employees will have to go out of thier way and do extra steps based soley on a religious decision being forced against them.

HL loses ZERO rights and isnt having any rights being infringed on, if you disagree please state what it is.

3.) it did, no my fault if you cant recognize it, the examples shows business and what dont cant make a declensions solely based on religious views if it discriminates against others, it applies 100%
 
Last edited:
1.) facts, reality and laws disagree with you.

Facts? Who's yours? I haven't seen you back up one thing you call a fact. Reality? Again, who's reality? Your liberal reality? Laws? What law forces the mandatory inclusion of contraception coverage? In answering this please use sourced materiel so that we can see where you are getting your ideas from.



2.) of course they are, discrimination thats why laws, realty disagree with you. The employees will have to go out of thier way and do extra steps based soley on a religious decision being forced against them.

The argument of discrimination is foolishness. There is no discrimination because someone would have to purchase their own contraception.



HL loses ZERO rights and isnt having any rights being infringed on, if you disagree please state what it is.

Religious liberty is a fundamental right. The HHS anti-conscience mandate directly goes against that liberty.





3.) it did, no my fault if you cant recognize it, the examples shows business and what dont cant make a declensions solely based on religious views if it discriminates against others, it applies 100%

You have to prove discrimination. You haven't even come close to doing that.
 
Apples and oranges.

Not so fast. Just as the government can take your tax money, which is paid into a general fund, and use some of it to buy ammunition, whether you are morally opposed to it or not, insurance companies can take some of Hobby Lobby's insurance premium money, which is general in nature, and apply it to contraceptive care, whether they are morally opposed to it or not.

No difference whatsoever.
 
"The Right", has been hit by natural disasters? Gee whiz, which one?

Nothing but a buncha righties in Orleans and Jefferson Parish Is that what you're saying?

Did I say JUST the right? No, I didn't. Nice try at deflecting. The facts remain in my post.
 
One only needs to look at the right to see the hypocrisy. They whine about personal responsibility, but have no problem taking federal money (FEMA) when disaster hits their states.

Personal responsibility would dictate you don't live in hurricane prone areas OR you pay for it yourself through insurance and plan ahead.


your post is laughable... I live in NJ..inland...have paid some of the highest taxes in the USA... but of course you just care about some Obama clown getting a free phone...

I ddint see Kanye West saying "Obama hates White People"...

so under your lack of logic nobody should have paid for Katrina...
 
1.)Facts? Who's yours? I haven't seen you back up one thing you call a fact.
2.)Reality? Again,
3.)who's reality? Your liberal reality?
4.)Laws? What law forces the mandatory inclusion of contraception coverage? In answering this please use sourced materiel so that we can see where you are getting your ideas from.

5.)The argument of discrimination is foolishness. There is no discrimination because someone would have to purchase their own contraception.

6.)Religious liberty is a fundamental right. The HHS anti-conscience mandate directly goes against that liberty.

7.)You have to prove discrimination. You haven't even come close to doing that.

1.) yes facts that a company cant discriminate based on religious grounds, not only has this been backed up but its proven and the laws and court agree. lol
2.) yep reality, see 1.
3.) this just exposes your bias, im not a liberal lol good job showing your hand
4.) its always funny watching the hand full of people that deny facts make stuff up. Who said theres a law that deals with the inclusion of contraception? thats right NOBODY lmao its something you made up
5.) again the facts and court disagree with you
6.) yes it is until it infringes on others :shrug:
7.) thanks for your opinion but like i said fact and court disagree :)

let me know when you have something factual to back up your false claims
 
1.) yes facts that a company cant discriminate based on religious grounds, not only has this been backed up but its proven and the laws and court agree. lol
2.) yep reality, see 1.
3.) this just exposes your bias, im not a liberal lol good job showing your hand
4.) its always funny watching the hand full of people that deny facts make stuff up. Who said theres a law that deals with the inclusion of contraception? thats right NOBODY lmao its something you made up
5.) again the facts and court disagree with you
6.) yes it is until it infringes on others :shrug:
7.) thanks for your opinion but like i said fact and court disagree :)

let me know when you have something factual to back up your false claims


1.) It is not the employee being discriminated against if their company offered health insurance doesn't cover contraception. It is however, in my view an overstep, and discrimination forced upon HL when the government tells them, a private business, what they must include in that benefit.

2.) Arrogance will not help you here. If you think that only you have the correct view or answer to this debate, then you have already lost said debate.

3.) "Liberal", "Progressive", "Obamabot", hell I really don't care what you call yourself.

4.) Your premise up to now I believe was based on contraception being included in the law. Now, either you are moving the goalposts, or you are on here playing games. Either way it is a dishonest approach.

5.) The courts are not done with this. Soto didn't address the constitutional question in this at all. All she did was refer it back to the lower court system.

6.) How is having to pony up for your own contraception, and infringement of your rights?

7.) Could you point to me where the court specifically disagreed with me?

I asked you earlier to back up your claims with sourced fact. You failed to do that. So, I will not be held to a standard you have no interest in upholding for yourself.
 
If there was something that the government wanted to mandate that insurance cover 100% it should have been chemotherapy.

They would if they could get dependent voters out of it.
 
Not so fast. Just as the government can take your tax money, which is paid into a general fund, and use some of it to buy ammunition, whether you are morally opposed to it or not, insurance companies can take some of Hobby Lobby's insurance premium money, which is general in nature, and apply it to contraceptive care, whether they are morally opposed to it or not.

No difference whatsoever.

Obviously, that's not the case. Otherwise, there wouldn't have to be a law in place to force Hobby Lobby to pay for contraception.

Also, you're are wrong in the sense that insurance companies are also privately owned companies and not the government. Hobby Lobby is free--or at least they should be--to seek out an insurance company that will sell them the insurance package that they choose.

Like I said...apples and oranges.
 
Did I say JUST the right? No, I didn't. Nice try at deflecting. The facts remain in my post.

Yes, you did. Right here:

One only needs to look at the right to see the hypocrisy. They whine about personal responsibility, but have no problem taking federal money (FEMA) when disaster hits their states.

Personal responsibility would dictate you don't live in hurricane prone areas OR you pay for it yourself through insurance and plan ahead.
 
1.) It is not the employee being discriminated against if their company offered health insurance doesn't cover contraception. It is however, in my view an overstep, and discrimination forced upon HL when the government tells them, a private business, what they must include in that benefit.

2.) Arrogance will not help you here. If you think that only you have the correct view or answer to this debate, then you have already lost said debate.

3.) "Liberal", "Progressive", "Obamabot", hell I really don't care what you call yourself.

4.) Your premise up to now I believe was based on contraception being included in the law. Now, either you are moving the goalposts, or you are on here playing games. Either way it is a dishonest approach.

5.) The courts are not done with this. Soto didn't address the constitutional question in this at all. All she did was refer it back to the lower court system.

6.) How is having to pony up for your own contraception, and infringement of your rights?

7.) Could you point to me where the court specifically disagreed with me?

I asked you earlier to back up your claims with sourced fact. You failed to do that. So, I will not be held to a standard you have no interest in upholding for yourself.

1.) again facts and courts disagree, if they choose to not cover it based on religious belifes they are simply wrong, they must play by the rules.
2.) arrogance has nothing to do with it, this is just a deflection by you, my personal view is also meaningless im just stating reality and facts. theres nothing to "win or lose" lol :shrug:
3.) thanks you just further exposed yourself because im none of those, its a failed attemtp to make yourself feel better about your inaccurate opinion but it doesnt work, dishonest people like yourself often use this losing tactic. I get the same thing in gun and war threads i get called con, righty, gunnie etc. its just as stupid then too.
4.) no thats NEVER been my premise thats some BS you made up in your head because its hard for you not to be biased, i dont care what is being offered or not, my focus in on discrimination. the dishonesty is all on your end as the thread history proves.
5.) yes with this ONE case its not done but others have been done and other cases just like it. HL isnt a religious realm they are a business.
6.) never said it was, again you are making stuff up lol, discrimination is what we are talking about. people TRY to make this about WHAT is being offered and that is MEANINGLESS.
7.) easy you cant discriminate against employees based on religious grounds, its pretty simple
8.) another deflection huh, like i said facts are on my said because companies cant discriminate based on religion, this is just common sense. I knew you wouldnt have anything though so im not surprised.

just scroll back and read the examples about wives, parties and hospitals.

HL ADMITTED their decision was based on a ceo, owners whatever religion, they lose :shrug:

If HL doesnt want to play by the same rules as everyone else then they are free to close thier doors they however do not get to discriminate.

Can ST lukes hospital decided not to allow your wife visitation because they do feel you are married according to their religion? nope thats discrimination. Can they be forced to allow visitation agaisnt their religious views? absolutely and rightfully so.

If im your wifes boss and i have religion A and she has religion B can i deny her something solely based on my religion A? OF COURSE NOT, thats discrimination.
I decided not to promote her because my religion A says women are lesser, so thats cool right? of course not
 
Obviously, that's not the case. Otherwise, there wouldn't have to be a law in place to force Hobby Lobby to pay for contraception.

Also, you're are wrong in the sense that insurance companies are also privately owned companies and not the government. Hobby Lobby is free--or at least they should be--to seek out an insurance company that will sell them the insurance package that they choose.

Like I said...apples and oranges.

If the government mandates that all insurance companies are required to provide this service in all of their packages, then Hobby Lobby is no longer free to seek out one that does not contain that service. They can no more refuse to follow government mandates than they can choose not to follow OSHA guidelines.

Welcome to reality.
 
If the government mandates that all insurance companies are required to provide this service in all of their packages, then Hobby Lobby is no longer free to seek out one that does not contain that service. They can no more refuse to follow government mandates than they can choose not to follow OSHA guidelines.

Welcome to reality.

Has the government mandated that insurance companies provide this service in all their packages?
 
1.) again facts and courts disagree, if they choose to not cover it based on religious belifes they are simply wrong, they must play by the rules.
2.) arrogance has nothing to do with it, this is just a deflection by you, my personal view is also meaningless im just stating reality and facts. theres nothing to "win or lose" lol :shrug:
3.) thanks you just further exposed yourself because im none of those, its a failed attemtp to make yourself feel better about your inaccurate opinion but it doesnt work, dishonest people like yourself often use this losing tactic. I get the same thing in gun and war threads i get called con, righty, gunnie etc. its just as stupid then too.
4.) no thats NEVER been my premise thats some BS you made up in your head because its hard for you not to be biased, i dont care what is being offered or not, my focus in on discrimination. the dishonesty is all on your end as the thread history proves.
5.) yes with this ONE case its not done but others have been done and other cases just like it. HL isnt a religious realm they are a business.
6.) never said it was, again you are making stuff up lol, discrimination is what we are talking about. people TRY to make this about WHAT is being offered and that is MEANINGLESS.
7.) easy you cant discriminate against employees based on religious grounds, its pretty simple
8.) another deflection huh, like i said facts are on my said because companies cant discriminate based on religion, this is just common sense. I knew you wouldnt have anything though so im not surprised.

just scroll back and read the examples about wives, parties and hospitals.

HL ADMITTED their decision was based on a ceo, owners whatever religion, they lose :shrug:

If HL doesnt want to play by the same rules as everyone else then they are free to close thier doors they however do not get to discriminate.

Can ST lukes hospital decided not to allow your wife visitation because they do feel you are married according to their religion? nope thats discrimination. Can they be forced to allow visitation agaisnt their religious views? absolutely and rightfully so.

If im your wifes boss and i have religion A and she has religion B can i deny her something solely based on my religion A? OF COURSE NOT, thats discrimination.
I decided not to promote her because my religion A says women are lesser, so thats cool right? of course not


First off, and not the first time you've been told this, so read carefully. Leave my family out of this discussion. Period.

As I said, I don't give a tinkers damn what you think your political lean is, what you are doing here is patently dishonest. And I really after this post have no further inclination to continue with someone who is not willing to have an honest discussion about this. To that end I will only say, that in the end HL doesn't have to bend to statist will, or go out of business, and as anti American as that thought from you is (although you'll just deny you even said what you said) HL could just pay the fine, and not offer insurance at all, like many other businesses are going to do.
 
1.)First off, and not the first time you've been told this, so read carefully. Leave my family out of this discussion. Period.

2.)As I said, I don't give a tinkers damn what you think your political lean is, what you are doing here is patently dishonest. And I really after this post have no further inclination to continue with someone who is not willing to have an honest discussion about this. To that end I will only say, that in the end HL doesn't have to bend to statist will, or go out of business, and as anti American as that thought from you is (although you'll just deny you even said what you said) HL could just pay the fine, and not offer insurance at all, like many other businesses are going to do.

1.) and ill tell you just like the other person who knew they had no logical or factual come back, thats nothing but a dodge and deflection. Be more honest if you just answered the two questions but you know its discrimination so you dont.

2.)sorry you support discrimination against your fellow americans but i dont and im glad my government wont allow HL to get away with it, theres nothing anti-american about fighting against discrimination LAMO talk about dishonesty.

im fine with HL paying the fine as they should

as for not offering insurance that would be fine to but once they admit that a decision is based on the religion of the owner it discrimination:shrug:

seems you simply dont actually understand what the OP and situation is about, oh well , not my issue
 
1.) and ill tell you just like the other person who knew they had no logical or factual come back, thats nothing but a dodge and deflection. Be more honest if you just answered the two questions but you know its discrimination so you dont.

2.)sorry you support discrimination against your fellow americans but i dont and im glad my government wont allow HL to get away with it, theres nothing anti-american about fighting against discrimination LAMO talk about dishonesty.

im fine with HL paying the fine as they should

as for not offering insurance that would be fine to but once they admit that a decision is based on the religion of the owner it discrimination:shrug:

seems you simply dont actually understand what the OP and situation is about, oh well , not my issue


1.) No, it's a simple statement, Leave my wife out of your thought process. Last warning before I report it.

2.) Your argument is weak, there is no discrimination. HL can just pay the fine and drop the coverage.

3.) You have not met the legal standard for claiming discrimination, so I question if you even know what you are talking about.
 
3.) You have not met the legal standard for claiming discrimination, so I question if you even know what you are talking about.
He doesnt. There is no discrimination and there is no court case he can name that has determined that there is.
 
1.) No, it's a simple statement, Leave my wife out of your thought process. Last warning before I report it.

2.) Your argument is weak, there is no discrimination. HL can just pay the fine and drop the coverage.

3.) You have not met the legal standard for claiming discrimination, so I question if you even know what you are talking about.

1.) report it all you want, i did it ONCE its not a violation LMAO so warn me again internet tough guy
I noticed you STILL are dodging the examples, wonder why, because they prove you worng
2.) translation you cant factually argue against it
3.) of course i have and thats why the courts are currently up holding it in this case and have done so on others that have gone to court similarly and lost but hey, you are free to have your opinion.

let me know when you are ready to address the examples
 
First off, and not the first time you've been told this, so read carefully. Leave my family out of this discussion. Period.

As I said, I don't give a tinkers damn what you think your political lean is, what you are doing here is patently dishonest. And I really after this post have no further inclination to continue with someone who is not willing to have an honest discussion about this. To that end I will only say, that in the end HL doesn't have to bend to statist will, or go out of business, and as anti American as that thought from you is (although you'll just deny you even said what you said) HL could just pay the fine, and not offer insurance at all, like many other businesses are going to do.

It's called
300px-Trolling_drawing.jpg
 
1.) report it all you want, i did it ONCE its not a violation LMAO so warn me again internet tough guy
I noticed you STILL are dodging the examples, wonder why, because they prove you worng
2.) translation you cant factually argue against it
3.) of course i have and thats why the courts are currently up holding it in this case and have done so on others that have gone to court similarly and lost but hey, you are free to have your opinion.

let me know when you are ready to address the examples

Not a tough guy, just telling you the facts.

You should read more than what ever source is misleading you at present.

Hobby Lobby, the Christian-owned company that provides hobby, arts and crafts supplies to tens of millions of customers across America, will defy the Obamacare mandate that health insurance for its employees cover “abortion-inducing drugs.”

The confirmation is from a statement released by an attorney, Kyle Duncan, who said in a website statement that, “The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees. To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”



The conflict is the latest firefight in the battle against Obama’s mandate that employers pay for abortifacients no matter their religious beliefs. The administration has argued in many of the dozens of lawsuit that have erupted over the conflict that religious people who own corporations must give up their rights to religious freedom.

Hobby Lobby’s case against the mandate remains pending in a lower court, but the statement from the attorney, who is with the Becket Fund, was released after an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected.

Officials estimate the company could face $1.3 million in daily fines for refusing to pay for abortifacients as Obama demands.

Sonya Sotomayor, who responds to emergency actions to the Supreme Court from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, simply told the company that officials could pay up for the abortifacients or face crushing penalties while its case continues in the lower courts.

Duncan’s statement confirmed those appeal efforts will continue.

“The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time. It left open the possibility of review after their appeal is completed in the 10th Circuit,” he wrote.

Sotomayor wrote in her rejection of the appeal for recognition of the Constitution’s requirement for freedom of religion that the company didn’t meet the legal standard for blocking enforcement of the Obama demand.

While the judges at the 10th Circuit had rejected the company’s request, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier handed Christians a major victory against Obama, who previously has supported extreme abortion – to the point of advocating that babies who survive abortions be left to die.

“The government … represented to the court that it would never enforce [the mandate] in its current form against the appellants or those similarly situated as regards contraceptive services,” said an order released by U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

That three-judge panel said the government promised there would be “a different rule for entities like the appellants … and we take that as a binding commitment.”

“The government further represented that it would publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the new rule in the first quarter of 2013 and would issue a new Final Rule before August 2013.”

The judges continued: “We take the government at its word and will hold it to it.”

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Christian business owners, religious colleges and others. Several judges, including those at one appellate bench, have ordered the government not to enforce the mandate for now.

The decision from the federal appeals court in Washington comes in a case brought by Wheaton College of Illinois and Belmont Abbey College.

The lower courts had dismissed the cases as premature. Now the appeals judges have reinstated the cases and have ordered the Obama administration to report back every 60 days, starting in February, until its promise for a new rule that protects the colleges’ religious freedoms is in effect.

“The D.C. Circuit has now made it clear that government promises and press conferences are not enough to protect religious freedom,” said Duncan. “The court is not going to let the government slide by on non-binding promises to fix the problem down the road.”

The judges said that based “expressly upon the understanding that the government will not deviate from its considered representations to this court, we conclude that the cases are not fit for review at this time because ‘if we do not decide [the merits of appellants' challenge to the current rule] now, we may never need to.’”

“The colleges argue that the government’s promise not to enforce the mandate still leaves them exposed to liability from ERISA claims brought by employees and other beneficiaries,” they continued.

“Although the parties disagree over the likelihood of that happening, we see nothing about the bringing of those claims that alters our conclusion that the petitioners’ lawsuits should be held in abeyance pending the new rule that the government has promised will be issued soon.”

The judges said the government must file “regular status reports … every 60 days from the date of this order.”

Duncan called the decision a win not just for Belmont Abbey and Wheaton, but for all religious non-profits challenging the mandate.

“The government has now been forced to promise that it will never enforce the current mandate against religious employers like Wheaton and Belmont Abbey and a federal appellate court will hold the government to its word,” he said.

But other victories have been earned by corporations seeking protection from a presidential mandate to pay for killing the unborn. Another previous decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set the tone for the developing arguments.

That court agreed with three U.S. district judges and blocked the enforcement of the Obamacare mandate that would have forced a Missouri company to pay for health insurance, including abortifacients in violation of the religious beliefs of the owners.

According to the American Center for Law and Justice, the order put on hold the White House-promoted requirement in the case involving Frank R. O’Brien and O’Brien Industrial Holdings, a St. Louis, Mo., company that runs a number of businesses that explore, mine and process refractory and ceramic raw materials.

“By granting our motion, the appeals court blocks the implementation of the HHS mandate and clears the way for our lawsuit to continue – a significant victory for our client,” said Francis Manion, senior counsel of the ACLJ. “The order sends a message that the religious beliefs of employers must be respected by the government. We have argued from the beginning that employers like Frank O’Brien must be able to operate their business in a manner consistent with their moral values, not the values of the government. We look forward to this case moving forward and securing the constitutional rights of our client.”


Read more at Hobby Lobby to defy Obamacare mandate
 
Not a tough guy, just telling you the facts.

You should read more than what ever source is misleading you at present.

what facts did you tell me? none
and what does this post change? nothing
 
1.) and ill tell you just like the other person who knew they had no logical or factual come back, thats nothing but a dodge and deflection. Be more honest if you just answered the two questions but you know its discrimination so you dont.

2.)sorry you support discrimination against your fellow americans but i dont and im glad my government wont allow HL to get away with it, theres nothing anti-american about fighting against discrimination LAMO talk about dishonesty.

im fine with HL paying the fine as they should

as for not offering insurance that would be fine to but once they admit that a decision is based on the religion of the owner it discrimination:shrug:

seems you simply dont actually understand what the OP and situation is about, oh well , not my issue

Practicing one's religion is now discrimination? :lamo

That's rich!
 
Back
Top Bottom