Page 21 of 58 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 575

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

  1. #201
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,947

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathematician View Post
    I'm waiting for Athiest Chick-fil-A employees to start complaining about being closed on Sundays.
    I like that they do that. Not because I am supporting that businesses should be closed on Sundays. I am against blue laws. To me that is freedom in action.

  2. #202
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post

    1.)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).



    2.)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.



    3.)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.



    4.)The point of insurance, is to cover unforeseen events like, cancer, heart attack, stroke, severe accidents, etc.
    Covering those things, makes the most sense.



    5.)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.
    1.) i agree in ways but what about the back end? as far as BC goes or maternity insurance if births go up and they arent aborted dont we end up paying for it anyway? longer and more?
    2.) this maybe true but im not sure why this matters, if this is true how much will costs actually go up if the need is so little?

    3.)again likely i agree but not an absolutely and also see above, it will get paid for one way or another

    <insert group here> is much more likely to do <inset item here>

    4.) i agree those should be universal givens but i have no problem with other things being covered especial things that "could" impact other costs to society, abuse, neglect, population, education, crime etc etc etc

    5.) well this we definitely agree with
    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. #203
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-17 @ 02:13 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,127

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Those who practice "religion" are claiming that "contraception", as a morning after pill, is abortion, and is against their religion. That is the reason Hobby Lobby is defying the Supreme Court ruling.
    A private company is not a government or state and therefore generally is not subject to the requirements of the First Amendment. Now go sit in the corner and think about that.

  4. #204
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    1.) no not really if both are based on SOLELY religious beliefs
    There is a difference between refusing employment and not extending a benefit. Since the owner has religious freedom as their constitutional right I think it's within that right to not provide benefits that conflict with what they believe.
    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?
    But it's also his business and his money, that money does not belong to the employees nor do they run the business. They work for the business. A private employer should have full freedom to do what they want within the boundaries of the Constitution. I believe the constitution is violated and the religious beliefs of the owner are infringed upon when they are forced to pay for something they think is wrong. If it was the owner somehow forcing employees to not spend their money on BC then that's one thing, but forcing the owner to spend their money on things they think is wrong is religious discrimination.
    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.
    And if their decision was based on a belief that BC is icky does that somehow make it different? Again, the employee is not being forced to do anything, they can do whatever they want with their money. The only thing being forced here is the employer being forced to use their money in a way that violates their religious beliefs.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  5. #205
    Professor
    vendur's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-05-13 @ 08:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    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?
    What is this "public" nonsense you are babbling about? I'm pretty sure they are a private institution, not a public one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post

    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.
    The employee isn't forced to do anything. They can find a different employer. Duh.

  6. #206
    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.) i agree in ways but what about the back end? as far as BC goes or maternity insurance if births go up and they arent aborted dont we end up paying for it anyway? longer and more?
    My opinion, is that there won't be anymore or less births, than there already were in the groups already covered by insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    2.) this maybe true but im not sure why this matters, if this is true how much will costs actually go up if the need is so little?
    It's shifting the costs from people who paid out of pocket, to all of the insured.
    Now the per item, per person cost may be little, but that's the whole problem.

    All these little incremental costs add up to, one big cost, the rising premium.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    3.)again likely i agree but not an absolutely and also see above, it will get paid for one way or another

    <insert group here> is much more likely to do <inset item here>
    Yea, but they effect the behavior of the individual.
    I think health insurance should move back to a life insurance pay out system.
    People will want to shop around, ask for prices, etc.

    Costs are so high, partially because there is no clear pricing standard and people don't ask.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    4.) i agree those should be universal givens but i have no problem with other things being covered especial things that "could" impact other costs to society, abuse, neglect, population, education, crime etc etc etc
    True.
    I just personally hate the idea that, I'm covered for mental health (which I don't need), substance abuse (when I don't drink or use drugs), pregnancy (when it's impossible for me to get pregnant), female birth control (which I can never use), etc.
    I don't need any of these things, yet I'm required to have and pay for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    5.) well this we definitely agree with
    People really don't understand the amount of legislation, that has altered our health insurance market, it's crazy.
    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

  7. #207
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    People really don't understand the amount of legislation, that has altered our health insurance market, it's crazy.
    Not only is it crazy, but it's also expensive.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  8. #208
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    1.)There is a difference between refusing employment and not extending a benefit. Since the owner has religious freedom as their constitutional right I think it's within that right to not provide benefits that conflict with what they believe.

    But it's also his business and his money, that money does not belong to the employees nor do they run the business. They work for the business. A private employer should have full freedom to do what they want within the boundaries of the Constitution. I believe the constitution is violated and the religious beliefs of the owner are infringed upon when they are forced to pay for something they think is wrong. If it was the owner somehow forcing employees to not spend their money on BC then that's one thing, but forcing the owner to spend their money on things they think is wrong is religious discrimination.


    And if their decision was based on a belief that BC is icky does that somehow make it different? Again, the employee is not being forced to do anything, they can do whatever they want with their money. The only thing being forced here is the employer being forced to use their money in a way that violates their religious beliefs.
    1.) again not if its solely based on religion, where would YOU draw the line? what if the employers religion didnt want to offer any maternal care to a baby out of wedlock? allow a wife to come to a work party because the boss doesnt view her as a true wife? etc

    sorry digs if its admitted to be based on religion or can be proven its discrimination of the employee

    2.) so what? its a public business so he has to play by public rules, i agree within the boundaries of constitution and rights etc etc and the supreme courts seems to think they are not

    its not discrimination as already proven by the examples above, if the owner doesnt want to play by public rules dont open a business.

    i dont want to pay for a womans bathroom because my religion views them as lessers? is that ok?
    Ill hire them but im not buy extra stuff

    3.) yes it 100% does, if they can make up a legit reason that would imply discrimination they would be ok
    the employee is 100% being forced, the employer is not because they choose to open a public business where NOBODY is allowed to discriminate or violate rights

    seems you only support this if it fits your views and not others
    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. #209
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

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

    Quote Originally Posted by vendur View Post
    1.)What is this "public" nonsense you are babbling about? I'm pretty sure they are a private institution, not a public one.



    2.)The employee isn't forced to do anything. They can find a different employer. Duh.
    1.)yes privately own but a public business so they have to play by public rules, its common sense

    2.) this is broken logci apply it to an employer not having handicap accessibility or not hiring latins or woman

    they cant work else where right?

    tell me that duh line again because its wrong.
    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

  10. #210
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,354

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

    Quote Originally Posted by austrianecon View Post
    A private company is not a government or state and therefore generally is not subject to the requirements of the First Amendment. Now go sit in the corner and think about that.
    You need to get out of that corner you painted yourself into.
    Religious Discrimination is as illegal as any other type of discrimination and private companies are not immune from prosecution for it.

Page 21 of 58 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... 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
  •