• 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

Hobby Lobby isn't trying to deny contraceptives to everyone. They are surely aware that women will still get contraceptives whether they provide them or not. They just didn't want to be the ones providing them. That was the whole point; it's a religious objection. That doesn't make it an "empty gesture".

I guess I disagree, but perhaps reasonable people can on that narrow issue. But if you take the end result proposed by the courts, there is really no change on the ground. If HL had lost, their plan would have covered all 20 options for free. HL won, and if the court's proposed remedy is put in place, all 20 are covered for free, and paid for by the same insurance company administering the HL plan, and for the same employees. The changes is the official 'HL Insurance Drug List" doesn't include the names of those 4, but access by employees to those 4 is unaffected
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I heard somewhere that HL pays double the minimum wage.
It's a War On Women, doncha know.

And I see you also labor under the delusion that the only employees affected are HL employees.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No, I don't know. Do you know how many women working for HL or the approximately half the working population in small, family owned firms who will be affected and who are part of the millions of working poor? Do you assume that number is positive?

As an aside, I'm not quite sure why you keep pretending that the only people impacted are the employees of one corporation. Dozens have sued for the same right HL sued - to deny coverage for contraceptives. This ruling is much broader than just HL and the other named plaintiffs. Surely this is obvious, right?

No this has nothing at all to do with any imagined hardship for anyone. What this is about is the left being butthurt over being slapped down by SCOTUS once again. Again and again the Administration has tried to enact their far left wing policies by over-reaching their authority only to get slapped down by the court. It seems to be a pattern with them. They want so much to be tyrants and to be able to run everything by their own whims that they are forgetting to wait for the day when they have that kind of power. And it's not like they lost on anything that's even significant, it's just that they are in a narcissistic rage about not getting 100% of what they wanted.

As for not being able to get 4 kinds of contraceptives out of over 2 dozen different kinds of contraceptives, this is next to meaningless. It will affect no one. It will cause no one any hardship, and it will have almost no effect on the ACA.

It does, at least, mean that the government can't run roughshod over people's religious beliefs. Again, this is something the left dearly wanted to be able to do, not for any practical reason but just because they hate religious people so much, which is why they insisted on going to the mat over this.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

A bogus religious objection:

67169043d1404185976-supreme-court-backs-hobby-lobby-contraceptive-mandate-challenge-w-513-hobbylobby.jpg





Almost all of the products sold by Hobby Lobby were made in China. China has mandatory abortion laws.

Hobby Lobby = Hypocrisy Lobby.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Ginsburg's dissent focusing in on the slippery slope argument doesn't highlight the issues with this ruling, but rather the issues as it relates to a law that is mandating all insurance to become one generalized cookie cutter mold. If enough muslim ran companies wanted to offer health insurance to their employees as a BENEFIT, but wish to only offer one that covers items derived from a pig, then there would likely have been an insurance plan specializing in such a thing that they could've offered as part of their benefits package. That's not a problem, but how a market works. Ginsburg's slippery slope dissent simply highlights the issues caused by the ACA. Other laws and constitutional principles shouldn't change by fiat simply to make sure this law actually "works".
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

A bogus religious objection:

67169043d1404185976-supreme-court-backs-hobby-lobby-contraceptive-mandate-challenge-w-513-hobbylobby.jpg

And a bogus retort on your part. Religious objections are what religious people say they are. Unbelievers don't and can't understand.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The left is fond of saying something is "settled law," when they happen to agree with that law yet all day long yesterday the usual suspects on the left were talking about how they need to act in Congress to subvert the hobby lobby decision. If they weren't doing that they were cheering on Obama for threatening to use an EO for immigration reform.

Leftists have zero respect for the Democratic and legislative processes. Inside every leftist is an intolerant totalitarian just itching to run roughshod over everyone else's rights and advance their own personal agenda at all costs.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

And a bogus retort on your part. Religious objections are what religious people say they are. Unbelievers don't and can't understand.

Where do you stand on the full coverage for viagra? Doesn't that prescription go against God's plan to not let your little guy up anymore?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Where do you stand on the full coverage for viagra? Doesn't that prescription go against God's plan to not let your little guy up anymore?

Is viagra a contraceptive?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I guess I disagree, but perhaps reasonable people can on that narrow issue. But if you take the end result proposed by the courts, there is really no change on the ground. If HL had lost, their plan would have covered all 20 options for free. HL won, and if the court's proposed remedy is put in place, all 20 are covered for free, and paid for by the same insurance company administering the HL plan, and for the same employees. The changes is the official 'HL Insurance Drug List" doesn't include the names of those 4, but access by employees to those 4 is unaffected

It is often in the nature of religious ideas to be hard for unbelievers to understand. Four contraceptives might not seem like much of anything, and from a practical standpoint it's not, but for the religious it can be a distinction with tons of meaning.

It might not be in your nature to respect religious beliefs, but for legal purposes respect for religious beliefs is mandatory.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This is a shame, at least however if their male employees need a little help from viagra or cialis they're covered. And when they decide the time is right for that vasectomy they got em' covered there too.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

It might not be in your nature to respect religious beliefs, but for legal purposes respect for religious beliefs is mandatory.


So you will respect a Muslim or Wiccan CEO's religious beliefs when it comes to the workplace and what is religious objections in their religion?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I heard somewhere that HL pays double the minimum wage.
It's a War On Women, doncha know.

2 x $7.25 = $14.50. It would still probably cost an entire months wages to pay for an IUD.


So if it's not a war on women then why is only women's health care singled out?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Is a vasectomy a contraceptive?

You answer mine first. But you won't I gather.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

So you will respect a Muslim or Wiccan CEO's religious beliefs when it comes to the workplace and what is religious objections in their religion?

Or a Scientologist CEO, who disapproves of psychiatric medication and treatment.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

They are both prescriptions, right?

Whether they are both prescriptions or not is irrelevant. The ruling and case was not based on "prescriptions" but contraceptives. Prescriptions ≠ contraceptive.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Where do you stand on the full coverage for viagra? Doesn't that prescription go against God's plan to not let your little guy up anymore?

Contraceptives were included in coverage because the Administration considered them to be preventative care (as if pregnancy is a disease). That's where the legal authority to make contraceptives free came from since according to the ACA preventative care is supposed to be free. Viagra can in no way be considered preventative.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Or a Scientologist CEO, who disapproves of psychiatric medication and treatment.

The little parade of horribles is amusing, but the US has been balancing religious concerns with other legal concerns for a very long time. I foresee no difficulty in that regard.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Contraceptives were included in coverage because the Administration considered them to be preventative care (as if pregnancy is a disease). That's where the legal authority to make contraceptives free came from since according to the ACA preventative care is supposed to be free. Viagra can in no way be considered preventative.

So why is viagra covered and why is there no moral issue with it?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

So you will respect a Muslim or Wiccan CEO's religious beliefs when it comes to the workplace and what is religious objections in their religion?

Yeah, but, as has always been done, within reasonable limits.

You guys act as if the issue of balancing religious rights with other legal rights has never come up before. But we have a very long and well established legal tradition in that regard.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

And a bogus retort on your part. Religious objections are what religious people say they are. Unbelievers don't and can't understand.

Do you think for-profit corporations hold and practice religious beliefs?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

So why is viagra covered and why is there no moral issue with it?

To be fair, I'd argue that it shouldn't be covered either.

However, if one were to make the argument in favor of it, I suppose you could say that Viagra is meant to treat a legitimate medical condition. Birth control really does not.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No this has nothing at all to do with any imagined hardship for anyone. What this is about is the left being butthurt over being slapped down by SCOTUS once again. Again and again the Administration has tried to enact their far left wing policies by over-reaching their authority only to get slapped down by the court. It seems to be a pattern with them. They want so much to be tyrants and to be able to run everything by their own whims that they are forgetting to wait for the day when they have that kind of power. And it's not like they lost on anything that's even significant, it's just that they are in a narcissistic rage about not getting 100% of what they wanted.

As for not being able to get 4 kinds of contraceptives out of over 2 dozen different kinds of contraceptives, this is next to meaningless. It will affect no one. It will cause no one any hardship, and it will have almost no effect on the ACA.

I am worried that my posts aren't readable. I've made the same point about 10 times now that the ruling applies to more than HL and there is nothing in the ruling that requires any employer to cover 1 or 4 or 16 or any of the available contraceptive options, but you guys keep repeating that as if it's gospel. It's weird. Maybe I should contact a moderator to see if they're blocking out part of my responses..... :confused:

It does, at least, mean that the government can't run roughshod over people's religious beliefs. Again, this is something the left dearly wanted to be able to do, not for any practical reason but just because they hate religious people so much, which is why they insisted on going to the mat over this.

There are practical, medical reasons for covering contraceptives as part of a standard comprehensive medical insurance package. They're well documented, you can read the reasons for their inclusion in dozens of places.

Sure, there's a political element to this entire battle, on both sides.

And there is an element of 'running roughshod' over beliefs on both sides as well. I see the point that the owners of HL have the 'right' to impose their religious views about contraception on all their employees, and other employers will deny contraception of any kind through the insurance plan, but you can't deny that's a few owners 'running roughshod' over the medical decisions between women and their doctors, otherwise fully covered by insurance. The employers are sticking their noses into this process and saying, "If you decide this, insurance will pay, if you decide these other ways, insurance will not pay because it conflicts with OUR, not your, religious views." Again, saying the person with the gold makes the rules is fine and I see it, but it's still undeniable one party imposing views on thousands of others.
 
Back
Top Bottom