Page 79 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2969777879808189 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 790 of 1290

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

  1. #781
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,303

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I'm not sure what word games you're talking about. The SC has already approved six orders that
    have the effect of allowing companies to deny coverage of ALL forms of contraception
    , not just abortifacients. You can read about them here: Wider impact of Hobby Lobby ruling? : SCOTUSblog

    And if you think the poor aren't priced out of "actual healthcare," you should get out more and actually maybe talk to a poor person every now and then?
    What's wrong with you?
    You better read your own link.
    It says what I said.
    HL's objection was specifically to abortifacients on religious grounds.
    Those other cases were also based on religious reasons and the SC sent them back for review given their ruling.
    If those companies can't make their case given the SC ruling they will fail ... if they can they will succeed ... that's as it should be, right?

  2. #782
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,472

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    That's not enough just to be closely held, as you already know. The ruling was specific and narrow. What percentage of that 90% are religious. What % of that % has a problem with certain types of contraception?
    I think the law is supposed to take an individuals religious convictions on 'faith'. That means any business owner can claim religious exemption from whatever might offend his religious convictions.

    I'm sure the government, if they see a benefit to government in doing so, will try. However, that is not germane to this topic.
    Sometimes I think the first amendment was intended to protect the government from religion rather than the other way around. lol

  3. #783
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,303

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I love it - contempt for working people on full display! Beautiful.
    You sound like you're a lot of fun to be around.

  4. #784
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,361

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    I have not paid much attention to this topic, but decided to read up on it a bit.
    So Hobby Lobby offers regular birth control to it's employees,
    But feels the morning after pill and IUE's, are forms of abortion which it opposes.
    Hobby Lobby case: What birth control is affected?
    The Supreme Court agrees to a very limited extent.
    Are they making too much of this issue?

  5. #785
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,303

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    I chose not to comment on this decision right out of the box, and instead decided to read the decision, sleep on it and let the dust settle. Well, the dust has settled, so...

    I agree that the religious rights of closely held companies like Hobby Lobby should be respected, when those religious beliefs are part of a companies charter, well established and woven into the fabric of the company. This does not mean that every religious kook has the right to claim everything is against their religion just to save a buck.

    In this case I agree with the Supreme courts decision because I believe Hobby Lobby's objection to those 4 drugs in question is valid, and even if I didn't think it violated their religious beliefs, I still think they should have won. Let me put it this way... It's not so much that I think Hobby Lobby should have won the case, but more a belief that HHS and the Administration should have lost. I don't say that from a "Repeal Obamacare" perspective, it's based on principal and accountability.

    Remember the heated debate about whether abortion would be included in Obamacare? Obama stated quite clearly while campaigning for the passage of Obamacare that it would not cover abortions, because he knew that if it did, it would cause a firestorm of public outrage and stop Obamacare in it's tracks. So what does HHS turn around and do? They include 4 contraceptive types in Obamacare that HHS acknowledges don't prevent conception, but instead destroy a potentially fertilized egg after conception...

    What was Sebelius thinking?

    I'm sorry, but HHS should have been content with the 16 preventative types of birth control and never included those other 4 in the first place. This is either another example of this administrations incompetence, or a demonstration of their arrogance. Either way, as far as people of faith and the pro-life movement are concerned, the inclusion of those 4 types of contraceptives in Obamacare was in effect an end-around by the Administration.

    In my opinion, I think HHS should have just removed those 4 contraceptives from their mandatory contraceptive coverage as soon as the Hobby Lobby case built up steam, instead of stubbornly sticking to their agenda and causing all this controversy and mess. Since HHS and the Obama Administration weren't smart enough, or respectful enough of religious rights to do that, they fully deserved to lose this case.


    There is one other thing I'd like say about this... The court decision does not diminish the availability of contraceptive products, prevent anyone from obtaining contraceptive products, nor did it have the potential to do either of those things from the outset.... Therefore it needs to be pointed out in no uncertain terms, that the SCOTUS decision yesterday does NOT violate women's rights, does NOT in any way effect women's rights, and from the very beginning NEVER had a damned thing to do with women's rights... Anyone who says this is a womens rights issue is doing so purely in the name of partisan politics in order to advance their liberal agenda.
    basement says right on bruh - lower case.jpg

  6. #786
    Wading Through Bull****
    shagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,496

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    Let's try this again.

    No employer is trying to push their religious beliefs on anyone.

    The ACA MANDATED certain medical coverage and, as such, infringed on the religious liberty of certain employers who fought against that infringement and won.
    Commandment 11? "thou shalt not enable the sinning of heathens". You have to convert them first, then you're free to push the moral end of things. You can't just push the morals on the unconverted masses.

    The religious beliefs in question concern the use of contraceptives by those whole follow said beliefs. Heathens/pagans/non believers do not factor in anywhere. Just because you've been legally mandated to provide health care does not mean you have a say in heath care standards, regardless of your beliefs.
    Could It Be Semantics Generating This Mess We're In?

  7. #787
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,303

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    I have not paid much attention to this topic, but decided to read up on it a bit.
    So Hobby Lobby offers regular birth control to it's employees,
    But feels the morning after pill and IUE's, are forms of abortion which it opposes.
    Hobby Lobby case: What birth control is affected?
    The Supreme Court agrees to a very limited extent.
    Are they making too much of this issue?
    There's a War afoot, haven't you heard?

  8. #788
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,566
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by shagg View Post
    no one is asking hobby lobby to use contraceptives, nor is it hobby lobbies moral imperative to make sure others don't.
    No, you're just forcing them to pay for abortions. HL has no interesting keeping others from having abortions as a business practice. If they did then they'd threaten to fire their employees or something for having them. HL just doesn't want to contribute to the act on their own part.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  9. #789
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,842

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Hobby Lobby owners should be forced to do things that are against their religious beliefs, but people should not be forced to do things against their religious beliefs. Got it.
    This is a key difference in how the two sides view it. HL's owners aren't being asked to do anything against their beliefs. The law mandates insurance with certain coverage, they provide the insurance. They don't have to approve, endorse, use, or even know about women who choose to use an IUD. They're providing a neutral service, which is a comprehensive medical package per the law.

    The argument is they're 'paying' for that IUD. Well, they're paying wages, and employees can use those wages to get IUDs or even abortions. The difference between the act of paying for an IUD through a standard insurance product mandated by law, versus paying for an IUD through wages is VERY small. We know this is at least partly true for HL because their insurance DID cover methods they now say they cannot without violating deeply held religious views. Presumably, they didn't use these products in their own homes, but didn't worry enough about others' use to check.

    The Court said it isn't their job to determine whether that difference is substantial, only take the word of the litigants that it is to THEM. I suppose that's OK, and proper, but for purposes of this debate we can challenge that assumption in my view, because whether that difference is 'substantial' was in fact a key part of the ruling and where the two sides frequently diverge.

  10. #790
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    If all the Founding Fathers suddenly rose from the dead and read this thread, what percentage would immediately put a gun to their heads?
    All of them probably.

Page 79 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2969777879808189 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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