• 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

So, we all get to decide when the Bible is a lame excuse and when it isn't? Is that what you are advocating?
When people justify bigotry and hatred "in the name of God" then, yeah, it's lame. And when others, not too bright, try to associate groups of people who believe in God but do not use that belief to justify hatred with groups like the KKK that DO hide behind God to justify their hatred... well, that's just dishonest.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

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.

I'm not the self appointed thread Nazi. I started this thread. It isn't about China...it's about the SCOTUS ruling.

1. Hypocrisy? Hardly. They don't want to pay for abortions. No hypocrisy there.
2. Why are only the conservative judges activist judges? Hint - they aren't.

The topic of the thread is the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. I know this - because I started the thread. I'm sure lots of people are interested in discussing China & Bush v Gore. Maybe you can start a thread about those topics? I really would just like to discuss this one.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'm not the self appointed thread Nazi. I started this thread. It isn't about China...it's about the SCOTUS ruling.

1. Hypocrisy? Hardly. They don't want to pay for abortions. No hypocrisy there.
2. Why are only the conservative judges activist judges? Hint - they aren't.

The topic of the thread is the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. I know this - because I started the thread. I'm sure lots of people are interested in discussing China & Bush v Gore. Maybe you can start a thread about those topics? I really would just like to discuss this one.

So you once again are going sidestep the whole of my post and what I said. What a ridiculous dodge. As I predicted, you don't want to talk about the topic YOU CREATED, you just want to attempt to use it as a blunt force tool to bludgeon your political opposition with... and I think you know that if you actually address what I actually said you'd not have that weapon anymore.

Oh wells. Dodge away...
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I agree - You should question why the four liberal justices ruled according to their ideology and not the constitution they are tasked to uphold.

Well, let Navy Pride tell it and the other five ruled by their religious convictions not the constitution.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

So you once again are going sidestep the whole of my post and what I said. What a ridiculous dodge. As I predicted, you don't want to talk about the topic YOU CREATED, you just want to attempt to use it as a blunt force tool to bludgeon your political opposition with... and I think you know that if you actually address what I actually said you'd not have that weapon anymore.

Oh wells. Dodge away...

What? The thread isn't about China, Rob. It's about the ruling today. The SCOTUS decision wasn't based on China.

My political opposition to what exactly?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That is such a bs argument. Contraception is easily obtained if needed, many times for free. If an employee of Hobby Lobby wants to not get someone pregnant they can always "pull out" as well. Sadly, such an argument makes people seem dumber than a bag of nails and perhaps, just perhaps --- those that are shouldn't pass on their gene pool. So I agree - Good job Christian lobby group!

You realize, pulling out isn't as effective, right?

So, we all get to decide when the Bible is a lame excuse and when it isn't? Is that what you are advocating?

It makes side stepping easier if something goes wrong (like it has in the past and, probably, will do in the future).

That's exactly what it is.

I disagree. I'm not sure how this is a victory for religious freedom. As this religious freedom also protects those of us who lack any religion from those who have a religion and this ruling does not do that. It's a victory for those with religion but a loss to those without religion, so I'm not sure why you're calling it a victory for religious freedom.


I lol'd. :lol:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Thanks to Soccerboy I now have the correct term, closely held corporations is what this ruling applies to. Or as I stated family owned business with deeply held religious views. Not your publicly traded corporations like GE.

Correct.

And furthermore, it is my understanding that the ruling is applicable to 2 or 3 specific to post conception, abortion inducing medications. Contraception medication is still covered by these businesses, in spite of the deranged, false reporting and fear mongering by the Biased Lame Stream Media that women's contraception or women's reproductive healthcare are being denied. No they are not. Neither is true. Cast a jaundiced eye at what the agenda driven idiots of the Biased Lame Stream Media are spouting.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I disagree. I'm not sure how this is a victory for religious freedom. As this religious freedom also protects those of us who lack any religion from those who have a religion and this ruling does not do that. It's a victory for those with religion but a loss to those without religion, so I'm not sure why you're calling it a victory for religious freedom.

I don't have any religion. But I respect that the Constitution protects people's rights to hold religious beliefs and practice them without being incumbered by the US government.

As someone without any religious beliefs, how would this ruling impact me personally? It wouldn't.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

You either rule by referring to similar cases of government and corporate issues (not just contraception related) OR in some cases where there isn't you have to realize that you are creating precedent. This is what they did.

Mind you that Scalia has in the past wailed against using precedent to make his rulings because he declares himself a "textualist" which is his fancy way of saying, "I just want to make **** up as I go."

So, should the SC have ruled by using precedent, or should they have ruled setting precedent? If the former, then what precedent? If, as you contend, they made a one time biased ruling which sets precedent, please explain.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I don't have any religion. But I respect that the Constitution protects people's rights to hold religious beliefs and practice them without being incumbered by the US government.

As someone without any religious beliefs, how would this ruling impact me personally? It wouldn't.

It gives someone / something with religion the decision-making power over those who might be a follower of a different religion or even someone who is non-religious. Sure, HL can practice their beliefs, no one is forcing them to take BC (last I checked ;) ). But, how is it in their right to tell someone else they cannot because it will not be paid for?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

In no way does precedent mean you have to have exactly the same case prior to refer to. That's just a dodge.

But in no way does a court have the right to make a law or a ruling on a law that applies singularly... unlike laws are intended to do. We are all supposed to live by the same laws... so for them to say that only this brand of Christianity in this case does this ruling apply. That is bogus crap.

It's creating a precedent for future cases where no structure need apply to rulings. Therefore creating a nation of men instead a nation of laws.

But what about the laws we already have on the books? The Justices cited the federal law, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) that the abortion pill mandate was in violation. This law was aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion. And for the record the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

When people justify bigotry and hatred "in the name of God" then, yeah, it's lame. And when others, not too bright, try to associate groups of people who believe in God but do not use that belief to justify hatred with groups like the KKK that DO hide behind God to justify their hatred... well, that's just dishonest.

No, what is dishonest, and not too bright, is to try to justify applying a principle only to those with whom you agree. We're done.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

In my Hobby Lobby, a voice over the loudspeaker said;

attention female employees, may we have your attention please,

chastity belts are now 50% and are in aisle number six, while supplies last!

attention male employees!

you'll need to keep it in your pants now because of the SCROTUS ruling!

I bet ya that the scrapbookers could make some pretty awesome pasties!!!!But they probably should not hold them in place with a hot glue gun, glue dots would probably suffice.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

What? The thread isn't about China, Rob. It's about the ruling today. The SCOTUS decision wasn't based on China.

My political opposition to what exactly?

I dropped the China thing after my very first post aside from telling you flat out that my china comment was about Hobby Lobby bringing the case and not about the ruling today. I freegin' agreed with you on that... and yet you are the one that keeps drudging it up and beating me over the head with it several posts in a row now so as to avoid anything I've said since then.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

It gives someone / something with religion the decision-making power over those who might be a follower of a different religion or even someone who is non-religious. Sure, HL can practice their beliefs, no one is forcing them to take BC (last I checked ;) ). But, how is it in their right to tell someone else they cannot because it will not be paid for?

But they never said someone can't take birth control, so I'm not sure what that means.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I dropped the China thing after my very first post aside from telling you flat out that my china comment was about Hobby Lobby bringing the case and not about the ruling today. I freegin' agreed with you on that... and yet you are the one that keeps drudging it up and beating me over the head with it several posts in a row now so as to avoid anything I've said since then.

Good, then we're done talking about China.

My political opposition to what though?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Correct.

And furthermore, it is my understanding that the ruling is applicable to 2 or 3 specific to post conception, abortion inducing medications. Contraception medication is still covered by these businesses, in spite of the deranged, false reporting and fear mongering by the Biased Lame Stream Media that women's contraception or women's reproductive healthcare are being denied. No they are not. Neither is true. Cast a jaundiced eye at what the agenda driven idiots of the Biased Lame Stream Media are spouting.

Yes, I noticed that as I was watching CNN during supper.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

It gives someone / something with religion the decision-making power over those who might be a follower of a different religion or even someone who is non-religious. Sure, HL can practice their beliefs, no one is forcing them to take BC (last I checked ;) ). But, how is it in their right to tell someone else they cannot because it will not be paid for?
People can still go out and purchase their contraceptives with their own money. The general idea here is that people are equal in their rights. If I as your employer have some religious objection to abortion, it is perfectly within my right to not provide coverage that includes abortion. It is perfectly within your right to work elsewhere if this imposes some burden upon you.

The simple truth here is that democrats injected this poison into the legislation for purely political reasons. Contraceptives are cheap and easily accessable to everyone. There is no reason whatsoever to make them part of health insurance.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

But they never said someone can't take birth control, so I'm not sure what that means.

It means what it says. It gives the religious (in this case, HL) the control over someone else who may / may not share that belief. This doesn't appear to be a victory for religious freedom, but a blow to it. :shrug:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

It means what it says. It gives the religious (in this case, HL) the control over someone else who may / may not share that belief. This doesn't appear to be a victory for religious freedom, but a blow to it. :shrug:

It means what it said? But the problem is, what you said never happened. Hobby Lobby never told anyone that he/she couldn't take or use birth control.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

People can still go out and purchase their contraceptives with their own money. The general idea here is that people are equal in their rights. If I as your employer have some religious objection to abortion, it is perfectly within my right to not provide coverage that includes abortion. It is perfectly within your right to work elsewhere if this imposes some burden upon you.

The simple truth here is that democrats injected this poison into the legislation for purely political reasons. Contraceptives are cheap and easily accessable to everyone. There is no reason whatsoever to make them part of health insurance.

Sure it does. IIRC, BC costs about $10+ less per month with insurance (at least). Of course, to get these you have to have exams and undergo a check. This isn't free, either. That is where insurance comes in. Again, how's this equal rights? I don't see how that's in your right. It's my medical insurance. Maybe include paying a bit more? But to deny me access to a medical procedure / prescription seems asinine. And yes, working elsewhere is perfectly viable for someone who is looking for a job or just started. But if I have seniority at this job, then that's a different story, too - at least, IMO.

Some contraceptives are while others are not quite as easy.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

So, should the SC have ruled by using precedent, or should they have ruled setting precedent? If the former, then what precedent? If, as you contend, they made a one time biased ruling which sets precedent, please explain.

You are supposed to rule on precedent if there is a similar case you can refer to. I don't have one that I can put out there. So, if there isn't one then you basically create a precedent for future cases to refer to. This isn't a bad thing... it does happen sometimes when there isn't a precedent to refer to. The one off that they did was to say that this only applies to this specific religion in this specific way. To say that basically created a precedent for future cases to not need precedent any more.

Apparently they were presented with a slippery slope argument and they basically did away with it by saying, this law only applies to this case where the religion of this size company and smaller can use their executive's religion as an excuse not to provide this part of an existing law... BUT it cannot apply to another religion who wants exemption (like Jehovah's Witnesses) to opt out of health care coverage because of their opposition to blood transfusions.

Because this ruling does not apply across the board then it backs a specific religion's specific issue and therefore this ruling is making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

1st Amendment...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I guess it doesn't matter when it's the scotus making the law.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom