Page 53 of 129 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563103 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 530 of 1290

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

  1. #521
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,855

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    I didn't like every post in this thread, Rob. There are over 500 of them now.

    I'm glad you're looking to talk about constitutionality. That's what this thread is about.
    What are you talking about? I didn't say you "liked" every post in this thread. I said you liked a post of a guy where in that post he quoted me... a quote of a post of mine you ignored. You liked his post... and his post was even agreeing with mine. What are you talking about?
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  2. #522
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,876

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The bolded above is my point exactly. She was squawking over her pet issue at the time and ignoring the bigger picture. That is why it is bad news for the gov't to try to micromanage "private" medical care insurance provisions. Why does age affect premium rates but not obesity?
    No, it's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    If pain medications and insulin are not supplied at no additional out of pocket cost then why should birth control prescriptions be? The idea that "my preferred stuff" should be included in everyone's premiums but not "your preferred stuff" is loony.
    She never once said "not your preferred stuff." She was going to bat for HER pet cause. That makes her a "loony"? If she had gotten in front of Congress and said "cover birth control, but DO NOT cover pain meds," that would have been loony. But she didn't.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  3. #523
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    T2, and my son gets an acne prescription from his pediatrician, but he won't die or get sick if he doesn't get it.

    You weren't targeting me, but you equated diabetes with birth control, and I'm sorry but that isn't a serious discussion and as a diabetic, I resent the comparison.
    I do see it as a serious discussion. If there was a more inclusive, or 'better' insulin, would you not want that?
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  4. #524
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,923
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    From Ginsburg's dissent:

    "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

    "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

    link...
    Perhaps as I said, what we are going on is what each one of us heard, Ginsburg may be on to something or she just might be hyperboling a descending point of view. Time will tell. But the first amendment is pretty specific:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Perhaps the SCOTUS will have to rule on exactly prohibiting the free exercise thereof and what exactly is free exercise thereof.

    You got me.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  5. #525
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,336

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    The fabrication is making a ruling favoring a specific religion and that the law won't apply to others across the board. Your repeated lack of addressing that in my previous posts speaks for itself.
    I'll address it. The decision was narrow by design, but I don't see any fabrication. I did not see the specific religion thingy. Did the ruling state only Christians? I thought it only addressed closely hold corporations. Does not the law apply to other closely held corporations? Perhaps with differing religious belief's?

  6. #526
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,337

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    I don't think Sandra Fluke ever argued that pain meds and insulin should not be supplied at no additional out of pocket cost. If you can find where she did, please feel free to link to it.



    California state senate.

    Hello, Polgara.
    I sure hadn't heard that she moved to California. Last I heard of her, she was at Georgetown University. Time sure does have a habit of moving right along, ready or not, doesn't it?

  7. #527
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,855

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Perhaps as I said, what we are going on is what each one of us heard, Ginsburg may be on to something or she just might be hyperboling a descending point of view. Time will tell. But the first amendment is pretty specific:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Perhaps the SCOTUS will have to rule on exactly prohibiting the free exercise thereof and what exactly is free exercise thereof.

    You got me.
    This ruling just seems so from the hip rather than thought out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  8. #528
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,553

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    No, it's not.



    She never once said "not your preferred stuff." She was going to bat for HER pet cause. That makes her a "loony"? If she had gotten in front of Congress and said "cover birth control, but DO NOT cover pain meds," that would have been loony. But she didn't.
    All prescriptions were covered (or not) before PPACA. She did not choose to advocate free prescriptions, in general, only free birth control prescriptions, that just happen to be for women. Like a loon, other's objections to that (only?) "my preferred stuff" should be "free" was translated into a whacky "war on women" assertion. Asking for free beer on Tuesday is, in effect, asking for more expensive beer on all other days - just worded a bit differently.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #529
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,876

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    All prescriptions were covered (or not) before PPACA. She did not choose to advocate free prescriptions, in general, only free birth control prescriptions, that just happen to be for women. Like a loon, other's objections to that (only?) "my preferred stuff" should be "free" was translated into a whacky "war on women" assertion. Asking for free beer on Tuesday is, in effect, asking for more expensive beer on all other days - just worded a bit differently.
    Oh, stop it. For starters, "free" didn't enter into the equation. "Covered" is not "free." Secondly, advocating for one particular thing to be covered while not addressing anything else makes someone a "loon"? That's absurd. No advocate for any cause would ever get anything done if they also had to equally advocate for anything that might be remotely related.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  10. #530
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Fabulous View Post
    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.
    I don't understand what you think I am creating a straw man toward. I have been talking about this SCOTUS decision, and the principles underlying it. In post #158, I expressed my agreement with this SCOTUS decision. I simply have said, basically, that I believe it will also apply to people with whom I (and you, apparently) utterly disagree. I honestly don't think we get to decide which people are engaging in a theology as an excuse for hate and which ones sincerely hold their beliefs. This applies in this SCOTUS case, even, because some could argue that HL only believes in this theology because it hates women. I don't believe that, but some people do. I simply don't even think it is necessary to decide whether it is true or not. The principle of freedom of religion applies regardless.

    Again, I don't know how to get my point heard that I believe this decision is a principle that must be applied without prejudice without making it clear that I really do agree with the SCOTUS decision. I have no idea what you mean by straw man as applied to my posts.
    Last edited by Dezaad; 06-30-14 at 11:54 PM.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •