• 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

Dezaad said:
Freedom from the government discriminating against you is a Constitutional right in regard to specific things. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents an employer from discriminating against you. Anti-Discrimination laws are all legislation- normal statutory law.
Click to expand...

How is not paying for 4 forms of birth control considered "discrimination"?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Ray410 said:
The phrase "the worker" has never been an American descriptor of individuals. It's an Eastern bloc, dehumanizing reference that Americans have always rejected in favor of our traditional emphasis on self-actualization. Probably useful to the more extreme Obama supporters and socialist Europeans, however.
Click to expand...

O Brother! :roll: :lamo :roll:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Jack Fabulous said:
The KKK's beliefs are based on hatred. Neither hatred nor the KKK has any relevance to the topic but why let that stop you from trying to project a false association in an attempt to establish "guilt by".
Click to expand...

The KKK members beliefs are based on their interpretation of the Bible. It is a theology. That it is what the rest of us believe to be a hateful theology is irrelevant. I most certainly am not 'attempting' anything. I have already stated I completely agree with the ruling, I have zero motivation for vilifying what you perceive to be my opposition, because I don't think the outcome of the ruling should be changed.

I do believe the court has opened up the right of KKK members to discriminate. Nevertheless, it is still probably the correct ruling.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
Hobby Lobby's plan isn't actually relevant, past or current, it was just interesting they were soooo burdened by covering two of the 4 that they did cover them for years without noticing.

But the specific plan of HL doesn't matter, because now thousands of businesses can not cover any or some or all, depending, and it's unreasonable to think in this economy those at the bottom can just change jobs till they get perfect coverage. So it will affect access, we just have to decide whether and how much we care, if any.
Click to expand...

My SIL works for Cigna and she told me that most of her customers started scrutinizing their insurance offerings once the ACA passed, so HL investigating what their group insurance sales rep sold them isn't out of the ordinary.

And again, SCOTUS doesn't care about that. Their only job is to apply the Constitution.

Just curious how many females select their employer based on what birth control coverage is offered in the employer's insurance plan? I'm guessing that number to be somewhere around zero. So the idea that women will change jobs over birth control coverage seems pretty ridiculous, and if someone is "at the bottom" I would think they have bigger worries than if their insurance covers the $20 a month birth control pill or not.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
How is not paying for 4 forms of birth control considered "discrimination"?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you think that is relevant. In both cases it would be about a person objecting to obeying a law based on their theology. One law is a law requiring the employer to provide something the employer doesn't want to do. The other would be about the employer not wanting to employ the person at all. Why should one law be treated differently than another law, in this case?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
The ruling applies to ALL employers, not just Hobby Lobby.
Click to expand...
And the insurance coverage is for the employees of ALL employers and their dependents. So I don't know how poor are all the employees of all employers and all of those employees' dependents.

But I'd assume the Hobby Lobby hourly workers and their dependents run the gamut from dirt poor to wealthy. What's your point?
Click to expand...


Nope. It doesn't. Where'd you hear that?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

DB20 said:
Speaking of children, something tells me that in about 20 years my children who will be gainfully employed productive members of society will be paying to support your lazy, unemployed, welfare collecting, drug addicted bastard kids.
Click to expand...

When I read stupid **** like this I hope there is some lazy, unemployed, welfare-collecting, drug-addicted bastard somewhere spending your tax money on crack and a two bit whore. :lamo

How old are your kids? Have you already taught them how to use an EBT card?
Click to expand...

I'm sure your offspring will learn to use one. :lol:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Dezaad said:
I don't understand why you think that is relevant. In both cases it would be about a person objecting to obeying a law based on their theology. One law is a law requiring the employer to provide something the employer doesn't want to do. The other would be about the employer not wanting to employ the person at all. Why should one law be treated differently than another law, in this case?
Click to expand...

Because there are laws to stop people from discrimination in the workplace. It's also addressed in the 14th Amendment.

There is no law that says a woman is entitled to free birth control courtesy of her employer. So there is no discrimination, and no laws are being broken.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Dezaad said:
I don't understand why you think that is relevant.
In both cases it would be about a person objecting to obeying a law based on their theology.
Click to expand...
One law is a law requiring the employer to provide something the employer doesn't want to do. The other would be about the employer not wanting to employ the person at all. Why should one law be treated differently than another law, in this case?
Click to expand...

To be more accurate it's about objecting to a regulation that wasn't in the law but was created by an unelected bureaucrat.
There's a lot of that going around lately.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

TheNextEra said:
Well like I said in another post here, how far does that religious freedom of a company go. Can they claim that a procedure such as a transfusion, etc. shouldn't be paid for because it goes against their religion?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't have to pay for insurance, period.

It shouldn't have even gotten to the point of religious freedom. How about freedom in general?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:
To be more accurate it's about objecting to a regulation that wasn't in the law but was created by an unelected bureaucrat.
There's a lot of that going around lately.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the reality is that the Supreme Court didn't object to it on that basis, is my understanding. They seem to recognize that Congress can cede authority to bureaucrats, for some reason, though I don't think The Constitution gives that authority. In this context, that contention doesn't seem relevant either.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Ray410 said:
It would be different in your country because your country is primarily Socialist. The people exist based on government largess, which is also their expectation when they come here.
Click to expand...

What? I never heard anyone speak of Texas this way before.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

DB20 said:
Self hatred?

Ah yes you wouldn't be a good liberal unless you served up a heaping helping of condescension toward those who disagree with you in a smug, smarmy manner would you.

I've done fine all my life without being in a union. I have a nice home, two children a decent job and can manage my finances and I don't need a union for any of this.

If you're unable to function and succeed as an individual and need thuggish unions to act on your behalf please don't assume everyone else shares your inferior life skills.
Click to expand...

You do realize much of what have is due to unions (though I'm nit sure why you leap to up unions here).
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Ray410 said:
The phrase "the worker" has never been an American descriptor of individuals. It's an Eastern bloc, dehumanizing reference that Americans have always rejected in favor of our traditional emphasis on self-actualization. Probably useful to the more extreme Obama supporters and socialist Europeans, however.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Dezaad said:
Perhaps, but the reality is that the
Supreme Court didn't object to it on that basis
Click to expand...
, is my understanding. They seem to recognize that Congress can cede authority to bureaucrats, for some reason, though I don't think The Constitution gives that authority. In this context, that contention doesn't seem relevant either.
Click to expand...


For sure ... they did not.
But that makes it worse.
I wish they had, because had someone made a challenge on that ground the S.C. could have gutted the whole mess given how the law was changed on the fly after it was passed.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:
For sure ... they did not.
But that makes it worse.
I wish they had, because had someone made a challenge on that ground the S.C. could have gutted the whole mess given how the law was changed on the fly after it was passed.
Click to expand...

For the SCOTUS to do that, it would have to gut so much of the law that is out there on countless other matters, it would collapse the government. The SCOTUS has explicitly recognized the authority of Congress to cede its authority to bureaucrats, and Congress does it routinely in every government agency in existence. That cat is out of the bag, and it can't be rescinded on this law without rescinding it on the whole government. If there ever was a case for stare decisis, this would be it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I believe this is a great victory for us who are pro life. It is significant that the 5 justices who voted in the majority were Roman Catholic. God bless them.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
My SIL works for Cigna and she told me that most of her customers started scrutinizing their insurance offerings once the ACA passed, so HL investigating what their group insurance sales rep sold them isn't out of the ordinary.

And again, SCOTUS doesn't care about that. Their only job is to apply the Constitution.
Click to expand...

First, if you don't bother to check what contraception is covered for years, it's a good indication it's not a central concern of the employer. It became one for some reason....

And this case was more applying the law than the Constitution. There was no 1st Amendment claim made or ruled on.

Just curious how many females select their employer based on what birth control coverage is offered in the employer's insurance plan? I'm guessing that number to be somewhere around zero. So the idea that women will change jobs over birth control coverage seems pretty ridiculous, and if someone is "at the bottom" I would think they have bigger worries than if their insurance covers the $20 a month birth control pill or not.
Click to expand...

Sure they do, but that just reinforces the point that the ruling will affect access. And it might be more than $20 a month, depending on the type their doctor says is best.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Between the hobby lobby and the Harris v Quinn decisions today liberals are going out of their minds. They have more froth around their mouths than usual.

I'm loving every second of it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:
Nope. It doesn't. Where'd you hear that?
Click to expand...

What doesn't? The ruling applies to all employers. The SC said it's unlikely for big employers to file a claim based on religious grounds, but they don't limit their holding to closely held corps or define them, that I saw. If you can find it in the ruling, please point it out.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
Bush v Gore isn't being discussed either.

Please show evidence that the SCOTUS judges who ruled against HL took into account HL's business dealings in China when handing down their dissent.

Also, please show me evidence that SCOTUS is supposed to weigh in on or rule on the morality of the plaintiff when they hand down a decision.
Click to expand...

What's with you being the self appointed thread nazi?

1) I never said China had any bearing or anything to do with the ruling. Not once did I mention how plantiff morality did or did not have bearing on the ruling. I was making a remark on Hobby Lobby's hypocritical intent when bringing the suit in the first place.

2) There are similarities to the Bush v Gore which is why I brought it up in that the conservatives justices want to completely throw out precedent as a way to make their judgements and opted to, as they love to put it, be activist judges instead where they admittedly want to make a ruling that creates a law that only applies once or just one way which is unequal and unjust when it comes to law.

If you don't really want to discuss case and law just so you can control the discussion then you are being completely disingenuous in your argument and your intent to control the topic with a stranglehold.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Ray410 said:
No it's true. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Origin don't mean ****. Your using it to sidestep the issue. It's a cheap trick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom