Page 82 of 129 FirstFirst ... 3272808182838492 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 820 of 1290

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

  1. #811
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,640

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    This is the common strawman where the freedom to impose your religion on other people is conflated with the freedom to practice your religion.

    Women's health care is Health Care, not religion. Someone taking birth control is not practising their religious beliefs. Someone else may believe it's wrong to use birth control and choose to not to take it. Someone else may believe that taking medicine is immoral. But that doesn't mean that I'm committing a religious act by taking a Tylenol.
    The issue is one of mandating that one person pay for the CHOICES another makes.

  2. #812
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,670

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    There just seems to be a a lot more chatter than necessary for a company
    saying they will not provide morning after pills as part of their insurance.
    It is not like Hobby Lobby is not covering traditional birth control methods.
    You'll notice that the bulk of the discussion is about the impact of this ruling on other cases.

    For example, could a Buddhist company object to the 40% of their taxes which go towards the military because they're pacifists? What's the legal difference? Tax revenues go into a fund which gets appropriated and then some of those appropriations go to something which people find morally objectionable. Hobby Lobby was required to pay for insurance essentially out of their employees wages which then went into a fund which could potentially pay for something which the owner of the company found objectionable.

    Why does anyone have to pay for anything or do anything anymore?

  3. #813
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    It's the Democrats, the party of race, sex, and belief division, who care about such optics.
    That's just not true and you're reasonable enough to see that. This is a polarizing issue. If the democrats had an all female panel of women's rights activists and atheists decide that employers should provide abortion on demand to all women, plus all contraceptives, there's not a religious conservative on the planet who believed that decision wasn't influenced by the beliefs of those making the decision, that their biases in fact dictated that outcome.

    You can't tell me that those on the other side of the decision, mostly younger single women, aren't allowed to see the people on the SC making this decision and rationally suspect their personal biases also played a large role in THIS decision.

    Heck, this is true for every issue. If we want to know about the best way to treat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, we should probably include actual veterans in that discussion. If we want to know about religious liberty, I KNOW you'd want to hear from actual religious leaders, not just academic gearheads who study religion. Etc.

  4. #814
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    There just seems to be a a lot more chatter than necessary for a company
    saying they will not provide morning after pills as part of their insurance.
    It is not like Hobby Lobby is not covering traditional birth control methods.
    But many companies are already getting the go ahead from the SC to not cover traditional birth control methods. HL was just a named party, the effect goes far beyond HL.

  5. #815
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,899

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    You'll notice that the bulk of the discussion is about the impact of this ruling on other cases.

    For example, could a Buddhist company object to the 40% of their taxes which go towards the military because they're pacifists? What's the legal difference?
    The Contraception policy was a presidential mandate, not a tax for the legislative branch.

    So, yes, if a President ever decides to mandate that Buddhists need to buy ammunition and then deliver it to soldiers at a national guard armory, I bet they can refuse.

  6. #816
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    A ruling cannot be so narrow that it violates the idea of having some kind of principle. If rulings are to be without principle, then it is simply the caprice of the Judges. "This ruling only applies to Christians of a mainstream belief set" simply doesn't cut it.

    The response Lowdown gave from the conservative perspective, and quoted in the post above this one, is a far more intelligent conservative view than your own about how the ruling might be limited. And it has some implications which might mitigate what I have been saying.
    He's obviously got more time to educate you than I have today.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #817
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,670

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    The issue is one of mandating that one person pay for the CHOICES another makes.
    Hardly.

    This is like forcing a piece of property which was constructed as a liability shield to protect the owners of that property's assets to pay for insurance on behalf of the employees (in effect out of their wages) which goes into a fund which is required to cover a set of procedures among which are a few the owners of the property may object to. The insurance does not belong to the owners of the company, it is part of the required minimum compensation due to their employees. Now that piece of property has a competitive advantage because it is able to reduce it's labor cost as it no longer has to pay for what every other company is required to cover.

    And why is women's reproductive health care a choice but your health care isn't?

  8. #818
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,312

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    But many companies are already getting the go ahead from the SC to not cover traditional birth control methods. HL was just a named party, the effect goes far beyond HL.
    Citation?

  9. #819
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,541
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    You'll notice that the bulk of the discussion is about the impact of this ruling on other cases.

    For example, could a Buddhist company object to the 40% of their taxes which go towards the military because they're pacifists?
    No, because the state has a compelling interest in funding the military with taxes. A waver for religious objections would be denied. This sort of thing has come up many times before. No, you can't avoid paying income taxes because of your religious beliefs.

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

  10. #820
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,541
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
    The Contraception policy was a presidential mandate, not a tax for the legislative branch.

    So, yes, if a President ever decides to mandate that Buddhists need to buy ammunition and then deliver it to soldiers at a national guard armory, I bet they can refuse.
    Wrong. Wavers for religious objections are routinely denied if the state has a compelling interest in doing so.

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

Page 82 of 129 FirstFirst ... 3272808182838492 ... 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
  •