• 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

This is completely insane. Corporations should not get to pick and choose which parts of the law they want to follow. People don't get to do that. No amount of sincere (or feigned) belief entitles a person to special treatment under the law.

Obama gets to pick and choose what parts of the law he wants to follow and if he doesn't like the law he changes it. Guess corporations are taking the cue from him
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Va is awesome care. Vets by a wide margin like their va care. Its yet another example where conservatives blow holes in effective government programs so they can stick to their mantra of how government doesn't work. Just like theyve done to medicare. Just like they've done to the post office. Its history of the GOP repeating itself.

do you really want to use the post office as a federal entity that is working well?

ATLANTA—The U.S. Postal Service cut costs and boosted its revenue for the first time in five years but still ended its fiscal year with a $5 billion loss and no end in sight to its fiscal woes.

The Post Office saved $1 billion as it consolidated facilities and 20,000 employees took buyouts. That helped it to narrow its operational loss to $1 billion from $2.4 billion.

The agency also boosted revenue by 1.2% to $66 billion in the period ending Sept. 30. The improvement was due mainly to growth in it package-delivery business, which rose 8% to $12.5 billion as postal customers increased their online spending.

In recent years, the Postal Service has teamed up with United Parcel Service UPS +0.08% and FedEx Corp. FDX +0.07% , which will hand off their packages to USPS mailmen to deliver the last mile to homes. That business is expected to continue to grow. "The future of packages—that's seven days a week," said Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe.

Earlier this week, Amazon.com Inc. AMZN +0.16% said that it would tap the Postal Service to deliver orders on Sunday, beginning immediately.

Still, the package business is only about a fifth of total Postal Service revenues. First-class mail revenue fell 2.4% and total mail volume fell nearly 1%, compared to the prior year, even with an uptick in the 2012 election cycle.

The agency is saddled with a congressional mandate that requires it to prefund $5.6 billion annually for health benefits for future retirees. The agency defaulted on the payments for the third time last year, but still has to account for the charge in earnings. It used up its credit line with the U.S. Treasury Department, which means it has no borrowing room.

The agency doesn't receive an annual taxpayer subsidy. It is reimbursed by Congress for services like delivering mail to the blind, and it raises revenue by selling stamps and postal-related products.

Postal Service Records Seventh-Straight Yearly Loss - WSJ


they are inept in so many ways, it isnt funny

not all of that is their fault....a lot of it is because of congress

but efficient? no

well ran? no

just another bloated agency.....another proverbial hole in the boat, we keep floating....just barely
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

People don't get to do that. No amount of sincere (or feigned) belief entitles a person to special treatment under the law.

Tell that to the thousands of illegals streaming across our southern border and the liberals like Nancy Pelosi who are applauding them.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Apparently the only way to clear up acne is with the morning after pill.

Since many on the pro-abortion side consider a fetus nothing more than an unwanted growth, kind of like acne, that seems about right.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I doubt costs were the motivation behind Hobby Lobby at all. This isnt a particularly costly health care line item compared with others.

Totally agree. The lack of the 4 forms of BC in the total offering won't even affect the cost of their insurance.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Bull crap. They made their ruling while standing on partisan pulpits. Hence the usual 5-4 conservative/liberal split.

I agree - You should question why the four liberal justices ruled according to their ideology and not the constitution they are tasked to uphold.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This is completely insane. Corporations should not get to pick and choose which parts of the law they want to follow. People don't get to do that. No amount of sincere (or feigned) belief entitles a person to special treatment under the law.


actually in a lot of cases, they do

a2

titled a common law model for religious exemptions

there are many many cases where because of religion, exemptions have been granted

it is not really that unusual
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Sadly, this decision will probably result in an increase in abortions. Good job Christian lobby group!

If true, why are you sad about that?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I am for Christianity. But I can't stand when so called Christians hide behind the word of God to Shield their true motives.

In this case Hobby Lobby is doing just that.

I think you are very correct that the true motives are hidden. It is so odd that you mention it, because I just had that conversation in "real life" with someone a few hours ago. Nevertheless, the plausible explanation is all we have to go on, and despite what I judge to be their dishonesty, I have to go on the known facts. They are claiming to want this freedom according to their religious beliefs, and the claim must be protected. If their purported personal theology prevents them from paying for abortions, we have no way of proving that it doesn't. Therefore, we must protect their religious right not to be forced by the government to pay.

That I (and apparently you) believe that this is a theology of convenience is not really relevant. While I sympathize with your assessment, I don't think there is anything to be done. As a consolation: Really, they could be telling the truth to themselves and us. We don't really know.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

With all due respect I have to disagree.


The SCOTUS allowed Hobby Lobby to play the religion card in order to get out of paying for mandated item.

No the SCOTUS ruled that the government overstepped it's bounds by forcing a person to violate their religious beliefs and practices something that is protected by the constitution. access to birth control is not a protection of the constitution.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This was a narrow ruling that only affects certain businesses probably non-public corporations and it only applies to the birth control portion and no other medical coverage.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

under a law that bars the government from taking action in certain cases that "substantially burdens" freedom of religion. He noted that fines for one company could total $475 million per year if they did not comply with the ObamaCare rule.

Alito clarified that the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," Alito said

this was a very narrow ruling.

Link? Or do you possess some sort of ESP?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No the SCOTUS ruled that the government overstepped it's bounds by forcing a person to violate their religious beliefs and practices something that is protected by the constitution. access to birth control is not a protection of the constitution.

Neither is access to health care in general.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That doesn't change the fact that their lobbying will mean an increase in abortions as a result.

So now every abortion is the doing of Hobby Lobby. :roll:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Actually the main parts of ACA aren't intact. For those who believe that others should pay for your health care, the most dangerous anti Obamacare ruler is Obama hisself.

By delays, postponements, granting exemptions, playing favorites, he has set back Ocare by tears.

Boo hoo?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I didn't realize Hobby Lobby had US constitutional rights that extended to China. Do you also believe that all other American companies who do business in China, the Middle East, Africa, etc. should cease because the cultures and politics in those lands are contrary to the Judeo-Christian values that America was founded on?

C'mon. If they REALLY believed that god does not want them to pay for contraception and abortion, they simply wouldn't own a business in China, period. Is it suddenly not sin for them to pay for abortion and contraception because they want to own a business in China and the law there requires businesses to pay for it? You REALLY think that their theology would be consistent and permit this?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'm sorry - would you like to provide a link for me that indicates that Hobby Lobby both has ownership of companies in China and that those companies are required to provide the certain forms of contraceptives listed in Hobby Lobby's statement as a requirement of doing business in China?


Hong Kong Connections Ltd.


Start on page 7 in the PDF link below

http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/37ChinaB_YFINAL.pdf
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Seems about right. Now waiting for the justification from both sides on their views of it. On the base, I think there is great concern on how far that religious freedom of a company can go. If there is a Jehova Witness run company, can they outlaw paying for certain procedures, etc. And does a company now have the right to not serve people based on religious holdings?
Exactly. If a company is a person, I say next time there is a draft for war include them too.

I find it weird that a company can be a person but a person can't be a company. Does not a person go out and go to work and try to provide itself a profit? My goodness. I too would just love to hit the subtraction button on my calculator until it breaks every year before April 15th. Man that would rule! :rock
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I think you are very correct that the true motives are hidden. It is so odd that you mention it, because I just had that conversation in "real life" with someone a few hours ago. Nevertheless, the plausible explanation is all we have to go on, and despite what I judge to be their dishonesty, I have to go on the known facts. They are claiming to want this freedom according to their religious beliefs, and the claim must be protected. If their purported personal theology prevents them from paying for abortions, we have no way of proving that it doesn't. Therefore, we must protect their religious right not to be forced by the government to pay.

That I (and apparently you) believe that this is a theology of convenience is not really relevant. While I sympathize with your assessment, I don't think there is anything to be done. As a consolation: Really, they could be telling the truth to themselves and us. We don't really know.


Dezaad, you are absolutely correct. However, The SCOTUS has just went down a very dangerous road that will come back and bite them on the butt. This will fuel many organizations to hide behind their fake desires to uphold their religious beliefs.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Dezaad, you are absolutely correct. However, The SCOTUS has just went down a very dangerous road that will come back and bite them on the butt. This will fuel many organizations to hide behind their fake desires to uphold their religious beliefs.

Unless you're a fascists then the SCOTUS made the right call......

Obamacare is fascism -- it's a simple form of dictation.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Dezaad, you are absolutely correct. However, The SCOTUS has just went down a very dangerous road that will come back and bite them on the butt. This will fuel many organizations to hide behind their fake desires to uphold their religious beliefs.

I doubt it. The Court ruling was evidently very narrow. The relief is only for contraceptives and only when the company is closely held by a family or individual.

Though there maybe some wiggle room in what is defined as "closely held" (can a stock company be "closely held"? If so, what percentage is needed to owned by the objecting individual?), I dont think there is going to be any reprecussions.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Exactly. If a company is a person, I say next time there is a draft for war include them too.

I find it weird that a company can be a person but a person can't be a company. Does not a person go out and go to work and try to provide itself a profit? My goodness. I too would just love to hit the subtraction button on my calculator until it breaks every year before April 15th. Man that would rule! :rock

A company is a "person" for taxation........ You have a better solution besides socialism?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Obama should apologise to those American citizens who will be adversely effected by this ruling, the SCOTUS has thrown it back to him, and he can find another way to provide this service that Hobby Lobby will deny, and now too probably Little Debbie and other businesses owned by religious extremists.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Obama should apologise to those American citizens who will be adversely effected by this ruling, the SCOTUS has thrown it back to him, and he can find another way to provide this service that Hobby Lobby will deny, and now too probably Little Debbie and other businesses owned by religious extremists.


Pot meet kettle.

What SCOTUS did was to tamp down the efforts of the true extremist who would via executive action and or law restrict the Constitutional rights of American Citizens.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Pot meet kettle.

What SCOTUS did was to tamp down the efforts of the true extremist who would via executive action and or law restrict the Constitutional rights of American Citizens.

Wrong again. I accept the SCOTUS ruling though I disagree with it. There's other means of providing this needed service that the owners of HL will be denying their employees.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Blood on their hands? You are making zero sense.

This is all coming from emotion and not reality. This won't increase abortions. There isn't less access to contraceptives. You can get them from any doctor. Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay for 4 specific contraceptives, and that was the entire case.

By the way, you can only have blood on your hands when discussing abortion if you believe abortion is murder. Do you?

To say that this ruling will not result in an increase in abortions defies logic.
 
Back
Top Bottom