• 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

You need to refrain from accusing him of being such immoral being in such a way.

I am only speaking the truth about the implications of his (and your) argument. If you find that your argument leads your to such immoral conclusions, perhaps you should reconsider your immoral positions rather than shooting the messenger.
 
I am only speaking the truth about the implications of his (and your) argument. If you find that your argument leads your to such immoral conclusions, perhaps you should reconsider your immoral positions rather than shooting the messenger.

please list these truths(facts) you speak of because you havent posted ANY.

we are all waiting :)
 
The law was put into action by congress, and considered constitutional by the Supreme Court. Considered immoral by some yes, but not illegitimte.

The Hobby Lobby in this case is more similar to the bus company that segregated its seats rather than the actual citizens that are inconvienced.

As the supplier of the health insurance if required by law they should have to supply the morning after pill (which for the record isnt at all similar to an aborton in ethics or procedure), it is up to the individual citizen to decide if they wish to use it or not.
The bus company was upholding a discriminatory law. Rosa was ignoring that law. How does Hobby Lobby ignoring a law they consider discriminatory and illegitimate make them similar to the law abiding bus company?
 
No, the constitutional issue here has not yet gotten before the Supreme Court.

Actually if you read the first sentence of this article it expresses how Hobby Lobby lost its appeal with the Supreme Court. How about that?
Hobby Lobby, defying health law, refuses to cover morning-after pill - latimes.com

No, it's Rosa Parks. The employees demanding abortion pills are the bus company.

Please understand what he morning after pill does before you call it an Abortion pill.
1.The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
2.Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
3.It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.

How Does it Work? - Morning After Pill

I imagine you would have supported Jim Crow laws yourself. If not you are advocating a hypocritcal argument, because logically your argument entails support for apartheid or any other law infringing whatever else the government wants to infringe. So either you are advocating a disgusting viewpoint or a hypocritical viewpoint. Take your pick.

No. A company has no right to segregate or discriminate because of race and a company has no right to break the law because of religous beliefs of some administrators. The company cannot utilize any kind of medication because it is not a person. A person can utilize medication because they have a human mind and body.
 
The bus company was upholding a discriminatory law. Rosa was ignoring that law. How does Hobby Lobby ignoring a law they consider discriminatory and illegitimate make them similar to the law abiding bus company?

Without the variable of the law and taken just from the view point of the individual and the company. Hobby Lobby's administrators don't have the right to set a moral precedent on medication over their whole company.
 
Without the variable of the law and taken just from the view point of the individual and the company. Hobby Lobby's administrators don't have the right to set a moral precedent on medication over their whole company.

Oh, my bad. I didn't realize hobby lobby banned their employees from using Plan B. I thought they just refused to buy it for them.

That really IS analogous to using the threat of law to remove someone from a bus!
 
I am only speaking the truth about the implications of his (and your) argument. If you find that your argument leads your to such immoral conclusions, perhaps you should reconsider your immoral positions rather than shooting the messenger.

You are speaking off of unfounded assumptions not truth.

To directly assume that we are racist because of our disagrements on health providers. I believe is far more immoral on your part.
 
Last edited:
Oh, my bad. I didn't realize hobby lobby banned their employees from using Plan B. I thought they just refused to buy it for them.

through their health plan they are banning their employees from using it. Would you like to pay that extra money for it when your health insurance should?
 
Yes i do. My mother owns several things from Hobby lobby. Mostly China made products.

Without China the shelves of Hobby Lobby would probably be bare.

Trying to maintain an ideology becomes cloudy when reality seeps into the discussion. The reality is that by selling China's products they are supporting a country who has readily available government abortions and abortion pills.
But since they are just Chinese do we really care?

When I was a kid and went to church with my mother they preached to us all about worshipping on Sunday and one should't work. Right after church we headed for the local grocery store, which just happened to be own by a Chinese family. And there we would meet up with other members of the church doing their grocery shopping. We were being good Christians by worshiping for 3 hours on Sunday and they were, well they were just Chinese people.

I just wonder how many employees of Hobby Lobby actually complained about not getting the morning after pill?
 
through their health plan they are banning their employees from using it. Would you like to pay that extra money for it when your health insurance should?

Aha, so you were exaggerating the facts after all. So they aren't banning Plan B, they just refuse to buy it for their employees.

One thing I'm confused about: Did the employment contract the employees signed promise them free pregnancy killer pills, or was that the government?

And how does this make hobby lobby like the law abiding bus company?
 
Aha, so you were exaggerating the facts after all. So they aren't banning Plan B, they just refuse to buy it for their employees.

One thing I'm confused about: Did the employment contract the employees signed promise them free pregnancy killer pills, or was that the government?

And how does this make hobby lobby like the law abiding bus company?

I made no such exageration. Hobby Lobby is with holding coverage medication whose employees have a right to.

You know if you put it you're way perhaps Hobby Lobby is worse for breaking the law.
 
I made no such exageration. Hobby Lobby is with holding coverage medication whose employees have a right to.

You know if you put it you're way perhaps Hobby Lobby is worse for breaking the law.
Oh, I didn't realize in the constitution it said that all citizens have a right to pregnancy killing pills being bought for them by their employers. You've ignored my question 3 times now: How is hobby lobby, who is breaking the law for something they consider discriminatory, similar to a bus company that followed the law to the tee.
 
Oh, I didn't realize in the constitution it said that all citizens have a right to pregnancy killing pills being bought for them by their employers. You've ignored my question 3 times now: How is hobby lobby, who is breaking the law for something they consider discriminatory, similar to a bus company that followed the law to the tee.

Morning after pills prevents pregnancies it does not terminate them

How Does it Work? - Morning After Pill

I have answered your question each time just not in the way you'd prefer.

Hobby Lobby has inconvienced and infringed upon the rights of their employees (who are also viable parts of their company) similar to how the bus company inconvienced, but perhaps not at the time infirnged upon their patrons rights.
 
I made no such exageration. Hobby Lobby is with holding coverage medication whose employees have a right to.

No, you don't have the right to force action on others simply because you need or desire their service.
 
Morning after pills prevents pregnancies it does not terminate them

How Does it Work? - Morning After Pill

I have answered your question each time just not in the way you'd prefer.

Hobby Lobby has inconvienced and infringed upon the rights of their employees (who are also viable parts of their company) similar to how the bus company inconvienced, but perhaps not at the time infirnged upon their patrons rights.

I see, so you're arguing that it is a right because it was recently signed into law? If they made a law that everyone can bang your wife would you also consider it a right?

A right is something that applies to all citizens. This only applies to females that work for a company with more than 50 people. Tell me again how that's just like being black.
 
No, you don't have the right to force action on others simply because you need or desire their service.

The employees are not forcing them, what is forcing the is called the law. As determined by our congress and our supreme court this law is consitutional and needs to be followed appropriately.

To not fulfill the law is a crime.

And by no means is this a breach of Hobby Lobby's rights which makes no sense because the consensus of the entire company is not that of an anti-contraceptive state of mind.
 
The employees are not forcing them, what is forcing the is called the law. As determined by our congress and our supreme court this law is consitutional and needs to be followed appropriately.

So when the government does it that changes something then?

To not fulfill the law is a crime.

It is obvious they don't care about that.

And by no means is this a breach of Hobby Lobby's rights which makes no sense because the consensus of the entire company is not that of an anti-contraceptive state of mind.

Do you think its right people can just go around forcing other people to do their bidding? If you were forced to do my bidding would you consider that a violation of your rights?
 
I see, so you're arguing that it is a right because it was recently signed into law? If they made a law that everyone can bang your wife would you also consider it a right?

A right is something that applies to all citizens. This only applies to females that work for a company with more than 50 people. Tell me again how that's just like being black.

Please don't use such a ridiculous hyperbolye such as that. At least try to keep your analogies in context to our argument.

A right doesnt have to apply to all citizens. This a legal right not a natural right. The law determines who has what legal rights or not.

I don't believe that this is by any means a parallel to the turning point of the civil rights movement, don't assume I believe that. It's just a similar moral principle.
 
So when the government does it that changes something then?

Are you an anarchist?

It is obvious they don't care about that.

And because of that they have to pay over a million dollars everyday in a fine.

Do you think its right people can just go around forcing other people to do their bidding? If you were forced to do my bidding would you consider that a violation of your rights?

Hobby Lobby is not person it is a company. The individuals that Hobby Lobby is refusing to cover are the victims.
 
I agree. I think this is a larger test, a toe in the water if you will...think about it, the government is seeing how far they can go through force with an item easily affordable by the mass public. The only reason to push so hard is to set a precedent.

64046_209591725832537_1187004996_n.jpg
 
Are you an anarchist?

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

And because of that they have to pay over a million dollars everyday in a fine.

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

Hobby Lobby is not person it is a company. The individuals that Hobby Lobby is refusing to cover are the victims.

The owners just went and replaced themselves with machines! Holy crap...
 
no not at all because that part is meaningless to the word hypocrisy


yes people are fighting for things to be covered but there would be no force by the government in one case and in the other there would be force


were minorities/women DEMANDING equal rights and and protections but at the same time hypocrites against others freedoms? of course not because that logic is broken and doent fit the definition of hypocrisy.

AGain like the other poster if you disagree by alll means shows us factual proof its hypocrisy.

no clue who Sandra Fuxalot but she is meaningless to the debate that the poster is factually inaccurate and illogical.

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.
 
It is not the company's right to break the law. No one is above the law.

Incorrect. See our Founders for a refresher. Check out Rosa Parks too.
 
The law was put into action by congress, and considered constitutional by the Supreme Court. Considered immoral by some yes, but not illegitimte.

The Hobby Lobby in this case is more similar to the bus company that segregated its seats rather than the actual citizens that are inconvienced.

As the supplier of the health insurance if required by law they should have to supply the morning after pill (which for the record isnt at all similar to an aborton in ethics or procedure), it is up to the individual citizen to decide if they wish to use it or not.

The SCOTUS has not yet ruled on this issue. There are numerous lawsuits moving forward on it. To include one by Tom Monaghan, the founder of Domino's Pizza, who while he sold that company to Bain Capital, still represents such as Domino's Farms outside Ann Arbor, and other entities.
 
Actually if you read the first sentence of this article it expresses how Hobby Lobby lost its appeal with the Supreme Court. How about that?
Hobby Lobby, defying health law, refuses to cover morning-after pill - latimes.com

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom