• 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

clownboy;10613088371.) said:
It's a direct relevent answer to your supposition the company would be blamed by the majority if it were to take those actions.



And many still feel that way. This was not enacted through initiative (popular will), but federally through legislation. And it was enacted without majority public support. But you are wrong in that last point. Though folks may be against supporting unhealthy activities, they are more against subsidizing them. And this bill does not subsidize those activities (it doesn't require insurance companies to buy cigs for the smokers). However, it does require the subsidization of private sexual activity.



Now, that IS irrelevent to the discussion.



4.)Again, you have no way to show that, it is your opinion alone. In my opinion Obama and his supporters would be blamed for foisting this upon us in the first place. Also disagree with your characterization/frame of the issue. HL is in no way trying to force their religious beliefs upon employees. Employees are still free to participate and fund their own private sexual activities.

1.) no it had no relevance
2.) nothing wrong about my statement, its true
3.) no its not im showing you how your feeling inst a new one and many people have had feelings just like you way before you
4.) i agree 100% it is my opinion, never implied otherwise

dont care about obama and supporters lmao

they are in fact "trying" to force their religious views, they admitted that


what im asking you is about your calim that this company should shut down and fire everyone and that action would make people blame the law and not the company.

Im asking you why would i blame the company? im open to suggestion, pleae give me anything logic, or reality based to blame the law and not the company.
 
It doesn't end ANY pregnancy because THERE IS NO PREGNANCY to begin with. That is where the dishonesty of the religious nuts shows itself!!


That's not necessarily true, and is still under debate in the scientific community...It is true that Plan B is not RU486, nor will it stop a fertilized egg already attached to the Uterine wall. But if there is a fertilized egg not attached is it not an embryo?

I found this article interesting....


Think twice about Plan B
 
1.) no it had no relevance
2.) nothing wrong about my statement, its true
3.) no its not im showing you how your feeling inst a new one and many people have had feelings just like you way before you
4.) i agree 100% it is my opinion, never implied otherwise

Not interested your take on relevence since you clearly intend to claim anything that conflicts with your opinion as irrelevent.

dont care about obama and supporters lmao

That's nice to hear, but also irrelevent.

they are in fact "trying" to force their religious views, they admitted that

No, they didn't. They have said they did not wish to subsidize the private sexual activity, because it conflicts with their religion (a legitimate First Amendment argument). Regardless of their reasons for doing so however, my argument is that the requirement itself is wholly wrong and should be opposed. My suggested action serves either argument.

what im asking you is about your calim that this company should shut down and fire everyone and that action would make people blame the law and not the company.

Im asking you why would i blame the company? im open to suggestion, pleae give me anything logic, or reality based to blame the law and not the company.

Because HL offerred health insurance to their employees BEFORE the law was enacted. The only thing that has changed is the law, not the company. They would not be considering these actions but for Obamacare.
 
That's not necessarily true, and is still under debate in the scientific community...It is true that Plan B is not RU486, nor will it stop a fertilized egg already attached to the Uterine wall. But if there is a fertilized egg not attached is it not an embryo?

Don't humor stupid crap. There is no debate on when pregnancy begins in the scientific community. I'm sorry, but its an established scientific fact and there is no reason to consider even opening up a debate about it. I realize people want to move the start of pregnancy to implantation but they are wrong. That is just a fact that they need to get over.
 
Last edited:
1.)Not interested your take on relevence since you clearly intend to claim anything that conflicts with your opinion as irrelevent.



2.)That's nice to hear, but also irrelevent.



3.)No, they didn't. They have said they did not wish to subsidize the private sexual activity, because it conflicts with their religion (a legitimate First Amendment argument). Regardless of their reasons for doing so however, my argument is that the requirement itself is wholly wrong and should be opposed. My suggested action serves either argument.



4.)Because HL offerred health insurance to their employees BEFORE the law was enacted. The only thing that has changed is the law, not the company. They would not be considering these actions but for Obamacare.

1.) what you stated has nothing to do with my claim LMAO or the topic
2.) good we agree you shouldnt have brought them up cause they are meaningless to the topic
3.) exactly, so they want to break the law and force their religious belies on others, this is very clear no matter your opinion on it. its no a legitimate 1st amendment argument at all thats way i failed. They arent being infringed on one single bit.
if you dont like the requirement thats fine by me, theres many requirements i agree or disagree with but that doesnt change the fact the company is in the wrong currently.
4.) and? this isnt any type of logic to blame the law?

if the company shuts down and fires everybody for their religious beliefs thats on them not the law. When you run a business you play by the same rules as everybody else.

maybe you have something else, so far with everything you have stated i would still definitely blame the company because thered be no reason to shut down.
 
maybe you have something else, so far with everything you have stated i would still definitely blame the company because thered be no reason to shut down.

I know you would, you would regards of what I, or anyone, said. This is all opinion and we put forth our separate opinions and the internal logic behind them. You don't buy mine, I don't buy yours. The difference is that I see what you're trying to say, I just don't agree with it. You on the other hand either are or are playing noncomprehending.

The owners of the company have every right to appeal the law before the courts. They have a legitimate First Amendment copmplaint (despite your take on it). Lower federal courts will decide if they can withhold participation in the law in the meantime.

My suggestion that they either shutter their doors or go <50 employees and franchise is purely born from my current feelings of helplessness as I watch my country head for the ****ter with abandon. If I could get my kids and grandkids to move I'd head out - first time in my life I've felt like this.
 
Don't humor stupid crap. There is no debate on when pregnancy begins in the scientific community. I'm sorry, but its an established scientific fact and there is no reason to consider even opening up a debate about it. I realize people want to move the start of pregnancy to implantation but they are wrong. That is just a fact that they need to get over.

Well, you have a point. It all boils down to when one believes life starts, conception at the earliest stage, or 10 years old. Obviously a religious organization is going to side on earliest stage. So regardless of what Catholic women espouse when taking communion, and what they do once they leave the pews is irrelevant.
 
1.)I know you would, you would regards of what I, or anyone, said. This is all opinion and we put forth our separate opinions and the internal logic behind them. You don't buy mine, I don't buy yours. The difference is that I see what you're trying to say, I just don't agree with it. You on the other hand either are or are playing noncomprehending.

2.)The owners of the company have every right to appeal the law before the courts.
3.)They have a legitimate First Amendment copmplaint (despite your take on it). Lower federal courts will decide if they can withhold participation in the law in the meantime.

4.)My suggestion that they either shutter their doors or go <50 employees and franchise is purely born from my current feelings of helplessness as I watch my country head for the ****ter with abandon. If I could get my kids and grandkids to move I'd head out - first time in my life I've felt like this.

1.) i comprehend it fine, you are wrong :shrug:
2.) yes they have a right to appeal, good thing i didnt say they didnt
3.) no they dont, they have no grounds at all and its why the law passed
4.) so you have nothing else then? ok
 
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
.

But in your limited worldview non-religious people have the right to demand that they get free contraception?

In what universe should a business be obligated to provide a morning after pill - give me one logical reason?
 
But in your limited worldview non-religious people have the right to demand that they get free contraception?

In what universe should a business be obligated to provide a morning after pill - give me one logical reason?

the company isnt obligated to provide a morning after pill?, they are obligated to not infringe on rights of employes though and they cant decide what insurance to offer based solely on religious beliefs
 
the company isnt obligated to provide a morning after pill?, they are obligated to not infringe on rights of employes though and they cant decide what insurance to offer based solely on religious beliefs


Ok, please provide in the Constitution where the "right" to healthcare, or contraception appears, because I must have missed it.
 
Ok, please provide in the Constitution where the "right" to healthcare, or contraception appears, because I must have missed it.

first please provide a link where i said there is a right to healthcare because it seems you have missed many things.
 
the company isnt obligated to provide a morning after pill?, they are obligated to not infringe on rights of employes though and they cant decide what insurance to offer based solely on religious beliefs

In what universe is a morning after pill a right in the first place?

Hell, company provided medical insurance isn't even a right!

If slutty employees aren't pleased with their company provided health care then the little promiscuous tarts can go find a new job where the coverage covers their immoral behavior.
 
first please provide a link where i said there is a right to healthcare because it seems you have missed many things.


Oh for God's sake...I posted it in the response. Go back and read.
 
1.)In what universe is a morning after pill a right in the first place?

2.)Hell, company provided medical insurance isn't even a right!

3.)If slutty employees aren't pleased with their company provided health care then the little promiscuous tarts can go find a new job where the coverage covers their immoral behavior.

1.) never said it was :shrug:
2.) never said this is either
3.) slutty employees? LOL wow you just showed your hand, didnt know using BC made you slutty and immoral? you like to just make stuff up as you go dont you, sorry id rather stick to facts.
 
Oh for God's sake...I posted it in the response. Go back and read.

you posted nothing of the sort no where ever did i even come close to saying or implying healthcare its self is a right, try again, ill wait
 
1.) never said it was :shrug:
2.) never said this is either
3.) slutty employees? LOL wow you just showed your hand, didnt know using BC made you slutty and immoral? you like to just make stuff up as you go dont you, sorry id rather stick to facts.

Yes you did claim the morning after pill was a right in your original post.
 
Yes you did claim the morning after pill was a right in your original post.

nope i did nothing of the sort on any planet what so ever, its something you made up in your head.
 
you posted nothing of the sort no where ever did i even come close to saying or implying healthcare its self is a right, try again, ill wait

*sigh* Games...That's all we get anymore in these boards....

You said:

Objective-J said:
the company isnt obligated to provide a morning after pill?, they are obligated to not infringe on rights of employes though and they cant decide what insurance to offer based solely on religious beliefs

There, I even highlighted the claim of yours. Now answer the question.
 
nope i did nothing of the sort on any planet what so ever, its something you made up in your head.

"the company isnt obligated to provide a morning after pill?, they are obligated to not infringe on rights of employes though and they cant decide what insurance to offer based solely on religious beliefs"

Really? so what exactly does that mean?
 
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.

Nobody is demanding anything, all policies that you can buy are going to include such coverage at no additional cost to you. It's not like you're being charged extra for something you don't want. It is simply present whether you like it or not. Deal with it.

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.

She's not demanding that *YOU* pay for anything. You are paying for insurance as a part of your employee's benefit package. You do not get to pick and choose what is a part of that package. It's not like the money comes straight out of your pocket, your part in the insurance premium doesn't change whether your employees take advantage of it or not.

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.

If you were really libertarian, you wouldn't want to pay for insurance at all, it should *ALL* be up to the employee and you're not complaining about all the other things included in the insurance package that you're paying for, so clearly this has nothing to do with being libertarian and everything to do with religious stupidity.
 
*sigh* Games...That's all we get anymore in these boards....

You said:



There, I even highlighted the claim of yours. Now answer the question.

seems you dont understand English at all, i never said healthcare is a right by any means what so ever. Im still waiting for you to point this out as the statment is a 100% lie
Ill show you how broken your logic is

if i own a business, you are my employee and you were black, gay, fat, old, a woman etc and i didnt let you use the front door to my business or go to the company party because i thought being black, gay, fat, old etc was wrong based on my religious beliefs did i violate your rights?

the answer is yes i did

now the follow up question, using YOUR wrong/broken logic, how did i violate your rights if going to a party or using a front door isnt a right?

see how dumb, dishonest and broken that logic is?

its ok, you were wrong, mistakes happened, thanks for playing
 
Last edited:
"the company isnt obligated to provide a morning after pill?, they are obligated to not infringe on rights of employes though and they cant decide what insurance to offer based solely on religious beliefs"

Really? so what exactly does that mean?

it most certainly doesn't mean healthcare is a right LMAO
i even state the company is NOT obligated to provide the pill, what part dont you get
 
This law does not force American citizens to pay for contraceptives. This law requires employers to include the morning after pill in their health care plans, to me there is quite a difference in the context of the phrase.

If the federal government can forcibly change the benefits previously agreed to by the employer and the employee then that is quite a precedent for governments yet to come. It will make it very difficult for companies to plan ahead and, once again, make it more difficult for people to do business in the United States.

Having federal ideologies trump the right of employers and entrepreneurs may seem like a good idea to those who have never met a payroll, such as the current president, but it certainly discourages business, investment, and those who expect their individual rights to be respected..
 
it most certainly doesn't mean healthcare is a right LMAO
i even state the company is NOT obligated to provide the pill, what part dont you get

You damn well know you implied the morning after pill was a right, now you're just trying to back-peddle on your position because it's illogical and nothing more than a selfish baseless expectation.
 
Back
Top Bottom