• 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!

Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

It means what it said? But the problem is, what you said never happened. Hobby Lobby never told anyone that he/she couldn't take or use birth control.

It will not be paid for / covered under insurance.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

People can still go out and purchase their contraceptives with their own money. The general idea here is that people are equal in their rights. If I as your employer have some religious objection to abortion, it is perfectly within my right to not provide coverage that includes abortion. It is perfectly within your right to work elsewhere if this imposes some burden upon you.

As an employer you're bound by all kinds of laws that apply to employment and benefits and insurance.

The simple truth here is that democrats injected this poison into the legislation for purely political reasons. Contraceptives are cheap and easily accessable to everyone. There is no reason whatsoever to make them part of health insurance.[/QUOTE]

The medical community and data contradict your baseless assertions, but that shouldn't be a barrier to making them I suppose.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

It will not be paid for / covered under insurance.

That isn't the same thing as telling someone they can't use birth control.

Birth control isn't an entitlement, and it isn't something that an employer should be obligated to offer - the ACA notwithstanding.

The HL employees will still have covered birth control.

There is no infringement on them. If the 16 covered forms aren't good enough, they can pay for them themselves. If they can't stand the idea of insurance not covering them, then they don't belong in a company like Hobby Lobby and would be wise to move on.

Not paying for something in no way is the same thing as denying someone something.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Sadly, this decision will probably result in an increase in abortions. Good job Christian lobby group!

Maybe its time to make abortion illegal. In fact I would take it a step further and make abortion felony murder.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

As an employer you're bound by all kinds of laws that apply to employment and benefits and insurance.

The simple truth here is that democrats injected this poison into the legislation for purely political reasons. Contraceptives are cheap and easily accessable to everyone. There is no reason whatsoever to make them part of health insurance.

The medical community and data contradict your baseless assertions, but that shouldn't be a barrier to making them I suppose.[/QUOTE]

I'm curious - what "baseless assertion" did he make?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Good, then we're done talking about China.

My political opposition to what though?

People you are politically opposed to.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

You are supposed to rule on precedent if there is a similar case you can refer to. I don't have one that I can put out there. So, if there isn't one then you basically create a precedent for future cases to refer to. This isn't a bad thing... it does happen sometimes when there isn't a precedent to refer to. The one off that they did was to say that this only applies to this specific religion in this specific way. To say that basically created a precedent for future cases to not need precedent any more.

Apparently they were presented with a slippery slope argument and they basically did away with it by saying, this law only applies to this case where the religion of this size company and smaller can use their executive's religion as an excuse not to provide this part of an existing law... BUT it cannot apply to another religion who wants exemption (like Jehovah's Witnesses) to opt out of health care coverage because of their opposition to blood transfusions.

Because this ruling does not apply across the board then it backs a specific religion's specific issue and therefore this ruling is making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

1st Amendment...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Yes, it was a narrow ruling that only applied to what they termed Closed Hold Companies or family owned of a certain size. Not to any publicly traded companies or corporations. Listening to a lawyer on the radio on the way home, she said this ruling applies to Hobby Lobby and its 13,000 employees and perhaps to a few other family owned companies that meet the criteria of a Closed hold Company. She estimate it might apply if they so choose to no more than 50,000 employees nationwide.

Time will tell if she was wrong or not. But the way she explained it do not expect GM or GE or some other corporation to start denying certain types of contraceptives. They do not fall under this ruling.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

People you are politically opposed to.

Is that was this is to you? Politics? Not to me. It's Constitutional. I'm sorry you are driven by political partisanship, Rob. I'm not.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

People can still go out and purchase their contraceptives with their own money. The general idea here is that people are equal in their rights. If I as your employer have some religious objection to abortion, it is perfectly within my right to not provide coverage that includes abortion. It is perfectly within your right to work elsewhere if this imposes some burden upon you.

The simple truth here is that democrats injected this poison into the legislation for purely political reasons. Contraceptives are cheap and easily accessable to everyone. There is no reason whatsoever to make them part of health insurance.

:agree: Plus, Planned Parenthood will give free BC pills to whoever asks, so money is not a consideration here, IMO.

Greetings, Fletch. :2wave:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The most ridiculous objection statement goes to Ginsburg:

In a dissent she read aloud from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "potentially sweeping" because it minimizes the government's interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace. "And it discounts the disadvantages religion-based opt outs impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer's religious beliefs," Ginsburg said.

How a national "labor" law that exempts employers of up to 50 (now 100 under the latest Obama "wait until after the midterm election" tweak) employees is deemed to be "uniform compliance" in the first place is beyond insane. PPACA had no uniform employer mandate in the first place. I guess since progressive taxation is A-OK constitutionally then progressive labor laws are cool too - unless they contain conscientious objection provisions that rile up progressive justices. ;)
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Is that was this is to you? Politics? Not to me. It's Constitutional. I'm sorry you are driven by political partisanship, Rob. I'm not.

I went on and on with you about that and you ignored it and opted for the china bit. If you really want to talk about the constitutionality of it you should've replied to the rest of my posts.

This is a good one to start with...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...tive-mandate-challenge-48.html#post1063471626
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I went on and on with you about that and you ignored it and opted for the china bit. If you really want to talk about the constitutionality of it you should've replied to the rest of my posts.

This is a good one to start with...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...tive-mandate-challenge-48.html#post1063471626

I have been posting about the Constitutionality since I started this thread. I never mentioned China or anything but the Constitutionality.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The failure rate of condoms in preventing pregnancy isn't a secret. Condom Knowledge Not Common Knowledge


Are you seriously THAT dishonest ?

Selective out of context quotes from a article that explicitly addresses the failure rates in reference to improper use is just dishonest.

I'm guessing Hobby Lobby vets their employees well enough to hire intelligent, people not morons.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Yes, it was a narrow ruling that only applied to what they termed Closed Hold Companies or family owned of a certain size. Not to any publicly traded companies or corporations. Listening to a lawyer on the radio on the way home, she said this ruling applies to Hobby Lobby and its 13,000 employees and perhaps to a few other family owned companies that meet the criteria of a Closed hold Company. She estimate it might apply if they so choose to no more than 50,000 employees nationwide.

Time will tell if she was wrong or not. But the way she explained it do not expect GM or GE or some other corporation to start denying certain types of contraceptives. They do not fall under this ruling.

I can see gearing different laws, boundaries and rules to different sized companies for various reasons but the whole gearing it to a specific religion in a specific way... that's damn creepy and very unconstitutional.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

:agree: Plus, Planned Parenthood will give free BC pills to whoever asks, so money is not a consideration here, IMO.

Greetings, Fletch. :2wave:

Even if they didn't, it wouldn't matter. This was never about the money. It was about constricting Hobby Lobby's right to exercise their religious freedom against the ACA which disregards religious beliefs when addressing contraception.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The most ridiculous objection statement goes to Ginsburg:



How a national "labor" law that exempts employers of up to 50 (now 100 under the latest Obama "wait until after the midterm election" tweak) employees is deemed to be "uniform compliance" in the first place is beyond insane. PPACA had no uniform employer mandate in the first place. I guess since progressive taxation is A-OK constitutionally then progressive labor laws are cool too - unless they contain conscientious objection provisions that rile up progressive justices. ;)


Ginsburg is a qualified lunatic and hard core Progressive.

A absolute stain on the Highest court
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I have been posting about the Constitutionality since I started this thread. I never mentioned China or anything but the Constitutionality.

Then stop talking about it. I sure have...
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That isn't the same thing as telling someone they can't use birth control.

Birth control isn't an entitlement, and it isn't something that an employer should be obligated to offer - the ACA notwithstanding.

The HL employees will still have covered birth control.

There is no infringement on them. If the 16 covered forms aren't good enough, they can pay for them themselves. If they can't stand the idea of insurance not covering them, then they don't belong in a company like Hobby Lobby and would be wise to move on.

Not paying for something in no way is the same thing as denying someone something.

Let's go back to what I said: "But, how is it in their right to tell someone else they cannot because it will not be paid for?"

I didn't say HL said they couldn't take it. Not like they're testing for BC. However, their insurance will not cover those contraceptives. Like I told Fletch, it is the employee's insurance. If they want coverage, let them get coverage. I disagree, with that. If you were diabetic and, instead of receiving insulin - you got to choose something a little bit less. Would you be happy with that?

Not making it a potential part of their medical coverage, is denying them that.

Maybe its time to make abortion illegal. In fact I would take it a step further and make abortion felony murder.

Yeah-nah.jpg
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No, what is dishonest, and not too bright, is to try to justify applying a principle only to those with whom you agree. We're done.
No, we're not quite done.

You thought it would be clever to drop the KKK in such a way as to associate them with Christians who have a moral dilemma with contraception based upon their Christian beliefs. In the process of doing so you made the false assertion that the KKK's justification for their bigoted beliefs was Christianity, a point which I called you out on and that you are now trying to run away from. The KKK's bigotry is based on hatred pure and simple. They only reference religion as a means of camouflage. Most people can easily see the difference but I guess you cannot. Either that or you were just trying to slide by a poorly thought out strawman and got caught with your fly open. Either way it's an epic fail.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Regardless.....the harder you make it to get contraceptives, the more likely unwanted pregnancies will occur which means increase abortions. This is true whether you like it or not. By making contraceptives harder to get, these Christian lobby groups have insured that more abortions will occur. I wonder how they feel about the blood on their hands.

Your statement is bull****, it's untrue. Hobby Lobby employees will be able to get 12 kinds of contraception.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Then stop talking about it. I sure have...

FFS Rob. Be honest. You just mentioned China in the post I responded to.

I don't want to get infracted so I have to move on from you.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Even if they didn't, it wouldn't matter. This was never about the money. It was about constricting Hobby Lobby's right to exercise their religious freedom against the ACA which disregards religious beliefs when addressing contraception.

:agree: Did you notice that they have now dragged Sandra Fluke out again? Unbelievable!

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Let's go back to what I said: "But, how is it in their right to tell someone else they cannot because it will not be paid for?"

I didn't say HL said they couldn't take it. Not like they're testing for BC. However, their insurance will not cover those contraceptives. Like I told Fletch, it is the employee's insurance. If they want coverage, let them get coverage. I disagree, with that. If you were diabetic and, instead of receiving insulin - you got to choose something a little bit less. Would you be happy with that?

Not making it a potential part of their medical coverage, is denying them that.

I am diabetic, and I do take insulin. I have posted about it on here elsewhere. And PS, my insurance - Cadillac by ACA defintion, does not cover every single form of insulin on the market, and in fact, I had to work with my endocrinologist when she told me I needed to start taking insulin a few months ago so she could prescribe the ones covered by my plan.

I can NOT believe you actually equated the problems of a diabetic with someone not getting 4 of 20 types of birth control paid for. Insulin is keeping me alive.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

:agree: Did you notice that they have now dragged Sandra Fluke out again? Unbelievable!

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

So what? She's a political candidate now, and was pretty high profile on this issue fairly recently. What's the big deal if she gets to write some op-ed?

Ginsburg is a qualified lunatic and hard core Progressive.

A absolute stain on the Highest court

:roll:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

:agree: Did you notice that they have now dragged Sandra Fluke out again? Unbelievable!

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

Yep, calling a loon a slut is just like advocating the bombing of a business (purely out of concern for its employees, of course). ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom