Page 93 of 129 FirstFirst ... 43839192939495103 ... LastLast
Results 921 to 930 of 1290

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

  1. #921
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,809

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    A practice the liberals have turned into a science, claiming that all conservatives believe and support some of the dumbest things people say.

    Turn about fair play I guess.
    Fair enough, there are trolls everywhere with nothing better to do. Like I said the good news is Twitchy or whoever is providing someone a job to hunt for tweets with F in them as click bait. Good, productive work.

  2. #922
    Educator Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-01-17 @ 11:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    881

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Most contraception is still covered, and Viagra does not run afoul of any religious doctrine.
    Thing is, the choice of which ones to cover/ not cover was seemingly semantic in nature. Who's to say they won't change their mind several months from now and simply eliminate all coverage? I'm guessing they won't for a disingenuous attempt to appear concerned and honest.

    However, the other issue at hand is that these birth control items, are not only used for birth control. All are Dr. prescribed and some of them, specifically the IUD, are used to prevent several conditions, such as anemia.

  3. #923
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Yes, the extremists who demand that women be able to choose whatever they want and demand that somebody else pay for it just as glibly want to deny others different choices. Why is Citizen A's right to choose what is right for him/her superior to Citizen B's right to choose what is right for him/her if in conflict with what Citizen A wants? Most especially if Citizen B is paying for it and Citizen A is not?
    Your opinion is flawed and based on false information.

    FYI, no one who works gets health insurance for free. Employees 'earn' their health insurance in lieu of higher wages. So if a small to medium sized company doesn't want to provide their employees insurance they have the option to pay the employees a higher wage so they can buy their own insurance from an exchange....or pay a fine that will cover the cost and the employee will get the tax credits instead of the employer.

    Most companies are either subsidized or reimbursed through tax deductions what they spend on an employees health insurance. So all that nonsense about spending 'other peoples money'.....is just that, nonsense.

    The SCOTUS ruling I believe does open the door to more choice. I can see scenarios in which Jehovah Witnesses could refuse to pay for blood transfusions, Christian Scientists could refuses to pay for innoculations, Orthodox Jews could refuse to pay for any medications derived from pork, and we could continue down a very long list.

    Apart from the dishonest and incompetent way it was put together and sold to the people, and the unsustainable expense of it, the most galling part of Obamacare for me is the idea that government is dictating to insurance companies what product they are required to sell if they sell any product, dictating to employers the product they are required to offer their employees, and the people are dictated what product they are required to buy or be fined/taxed.

    In an extremely limited way, SCOTUS, whether intentionally or coincidentally, has restored a tiny smidgeon of choice to we the people.
    The SCOTUS didn't restore anything back to "we the people"....but they did legislate a new law that grants religious rights to corporations. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who introduced the RFRA in 1993, said his law "was not intended to extend the same protection to for-profit corporations, whose very purpose is to profit from the open market."[31] Schumer called the Supreme Court ruling "unprecedented" and "dead-wrong" for expanding the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to cover closely held corporations, like Hobby Lobby,...."

    Supreme Court health insurance decision denounced by New Yorkers - Top News - InsuranceNewsNet.com

  4. #924
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Here's an interesting observation. Hobby Lobby's insurance still covers Viagara. LOL.
    That is interesting. Another interesting observation is that Hobby Lobby provided insurance coverage for the same emergency contraceptives before the ACA mandate and it didn't hinder or restrict their religious liberties one bit.


    Another tidbit...the four birth control methods that HL object to and based their case on are not abortificants and don't cause abortions like they claim.


    The SCOTUS ruling seems to be based more on misinformation, deception and politics than jurisprudence or the law.

  5. #925
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Most contraception is still covered, and Viagra does not run afoul of any religious doctrine.
    Which doesn't change the sentiment. No woman upset about that gives a **** about that.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #926
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    I'm not conversant with the details of the legal evolution of this question, but there's really no point fighting a legal battle that's already lost. "The Constitution means what the judges say it does." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

    Courts can make mistakes and rulings can be overturned and the laws can be changed. - Moot



    Psst....the court based it's ruling on statutory law...not the constitution.

  7. #927
    I am the pretty one.
    TobyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,320

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Do you have a source for that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    That is interesting. Another interesting observation is that Hobby Lobby provided insurance coverage for the same emergency contraceptives before the ACA mandate and it didn't hinder or restrict their religious liberties one bit.


    Another tidbit...the four birth control methods that HL object to and based their case on are not abortificants and don't cause abortions like they claim.


    The SCOTUS ruling seems to be based more on misinformation, deception and politics than jurisprudence or the law.

  8. #928
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,299

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Leftists are not strong on comprehension skills.
    Especially right wing dumb fuck stories.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    You have no empirical evidence backing up your false assertion. You are simply conjecturing based on a whim...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    Or maybe "We now understand why women provoke men into hitting them".
    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    . Losing insurance does not mean losing healthcare. .

  9. #929
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,299

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Leftists are not strong on comprehension skills.
    Which means they are eons smarter than righties. See how easy this is?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    You have no empirical evidence backing up your false assertion. You are simply conjecturing based on a whim...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    Or maybe "We now understand why women provoke men into hitting them".
    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    . Losing insurance does not mean losing healthcare. .

  10. #930
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Nonsense. A healthy employee is a productive and happy employee and don't cost nearly as much as someone who can't control their alcohol or bad eating habits or bad driving habits.
    And you expect simple health insurance to cover any of that?

    This is getting ridiculous. We're talking about the damn pill, not life saving medicine here.

    It has virtually no impact on employee health or productivity whatsoever.

    Frankly, where the lower rungs of the work force are concerned, it's a lot cheaper to simply swap employees out than subsidize their healthcare anyway. They are essentially wholly expendable unskilled labor, who can be replaced at any moment's notice.

    But they don't have a right to decide what the best remedy for your personal health problems are.
    No, but they most certainly do have the right to decide which treatments their money will or will not go towards paying.

    The idea that employer provided healthcare is any kind of "right" in the first place is simply absurd.

    If a doctor says an IUD is the best remedy for a woman who can't take hormonal drugs to prevent pregnancy then who is the employer to say otherwise? Who are you to judge a woman who might die if she gets pregnant and needs to prevent getting pregnant from her husband? Why is that even your business at all?
    Again, if it's not your money, it's not your decision what it does or does not get spent on.

    If you happen to have an employer who, out of the goodness of their heart, is willing to pay for any treatment under the sun, more power to you. However, do not imagine that it is anything to which you are entitled as a matter of objective "right."

    It is a privilege and a luxury, and a rather unnecessary one at that.

    If it were my business, I wouldn't shell out a single dime for any of it.

    Likewise on your vasectomy and Viagra.
    As has already been established, neither of those things are "free," nor should they be.

    They aren't very reliable methods.
    Not my problem.

    Actually, I think you are suggesting that married men should abstain from sex unless it's to get their wife pregnant. Unless you want the employers to pay for the man's sex life outside the marriage and run the risk of getting STDs and passing it on to his wife and children. That would be quite a burden on the employers bottom line too, don't cha think?
    I don't give a damn what they do with regard to their personal lives. That is why the thing is known as a "personal life" in the first place.

    I'm simply saying that there's no reason why any employer should be forced to subsidize someone else's lifestyle.

    Apparently, the SCOTUS agrees.

    Business and labor are a two way street and work best when there is an equilibrium. Currently, the equilibrium is out of balance.
    I disagree, and so does the Supreme Court.

Page 93 of 129 FirstFirst ... 43839192939495103 ... 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
  •