Page 62 of 66 FirstFirst ... 12526061626364 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 656

Thread: Corporations Aren't People

  1. #611
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    1.)There was zero double talk. An employer can choose to not cover circumcision for religious purpose if they so want (or any reason at all). The Jewish employee that can not get the free/covered circumcision had zero rights infringed upon. Just like the case of BC.

    2.)In fact, you've now tried a few times, and failed each time, to name a treatment that is not medically necessary that is required to be covered. The only one? BC. And that may not be for long... at least in the case of employees that have a religious objection.

    3.)The one and only argument that your side really has is whether the employer has 1st amendment rights.

    4.) While I believe they should and do, the SC will decide.

    5.) The only rights that can be infringed upon in this argument, are those of the employer who would have to violate their religion to provide free BC to their employees.

    6.)The rights of the employee can not possibly be violated in anyway regardless of the outcome.
    1.) no they can not this is why the religion argument complete fails and i said they would have been better lying. If religion is used and in this case very stupidly admitted its infringment

    just like i can hire, fire, promote not promote you based on CLAIMED or REAL performance but if i use religion im screwed

    it seems the owners of HL are morons in this regard.

    2.) this is a lie ive never tried that lmao, ive never made that claim ever its the straw man you kept bring up and failed, should i qoute myself pointing that out each time, jeez now youve gone from strawman and deflections to straight lies

    if you disagree please please qoute me one time saying that I provided an example of that

    3.) no that not an argument at all the employer has those and they remain intact the whole time, them providing coverage for thier employees does NOT violated that in any way its BS

    4.) see #3 its a none issue to me, i believe the do also

    5.) false this does not happen at all and has a christian i laugh at something so stupid and such a mentally retarded claim (by HL not saying you)

    6.) false they will have the owners religion forced on them in a way they infringes they liberties

    question you keep dodging because they destroy HL

    "if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

    they (employees) would be denied coverage of BC under their policy based on what?

    will you ever answer these?

    the religious angle is a complete loss and you haven't changed that one bit im still waiting for one piece of logic or facts that support it,. so far you got nothing. Still waiting.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #612
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) no they can not this is why the religion argument complete fails and i said they would have been better lying. If religion is used and in this case very stupidly admitted its infringment
    Yes, they can. I have been in insurance nearly 20 years, including a long stint in claims and quite a few industry designations. An employer can choose not to purchase coverage for any number of non-medically necessary things. He can make that determination for any reason he wants.

    just like i can hire, fire, promote not promote you based on CLAIMED or REAL performance but if i use religion im screwed
    Again, not the same. No matter how much you try to shoe-horn it in. It is discriminatory and a violation of rights to fire someone for religious beliefs. It is not discriminatory to not offer circumcision insurance to all of your employers even if you make that decision based on religious beliefs. If it were, this would have been settled in courts a long time ago.. As many religious employers did not provide BC coverage specifically for religious reasons..

    5.) false this does not happen at all and has a christian i laugh at something so stupid and such a mentally retarded claim (by HL not saying you)
    Disagree, if an employer believes that their religion is against BC, forcing them to provide BC to their employees is an infringement. It's not that far off from forcing a Jewish employer from providing pork to their employees or a Muslim employer from providing Alcohol to their employees.

    6.) false they will have the owners religion forced on them in a way they infringes they liberties
    False, a company not purchasing circumcision, birth control, or any of the other examples you've tried providing, is not an infringement of any right. The liberty of the employee to do as they will (prurchase their own circ, BC, etc) still exists. The only missing piece is that the employer is not paying for it.

  3. #613
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    1.)Yes, they can. I have been in insurance nearly 20 years, including a long stint in claims and quite a few industry designations. An employer can choose not to purchase coverage for any number of non-medically necessary things. He can make that determination for any reason he wants.

    2.)Again, not the same. No matter how much you try to shoe-horn it in. It is discriminatory and a violation of rights to fire someone for religious beliefs. It is not discriminatory to not offer circumcision insurance to all of your employers even if you make that decision based on religious beliefs. If it were, this would have been settled in courts a long time ago.. As many religious employers did not provide BC coverage specifically for religious reasons..


    3.)Disagree, if an employer believes that their religion is against BC, forcing them to provide BC to their employees is an infringement. It's not that far off from forcing a Jewish employer from providing pork to their employees or a Muslim employer from providing Alcohol to their employees.



    4.) False, a company not purchasing circumcision, birth control, or any of the other examples you've tried providing, is not an infringement of any right. The liberty of the employee to do as they will (prurchase their own circ, BC, etc) still exists. The only missing piece is that the employer is not paying for it.
    1.) nope laws and rights disagree, once its said to be religion theres court cases that can be had, you working in the field has no impact to that

    2.) the only thing show horned in is how you try and fail to reshape my actual statement lol the debate is religion being forced on others coverage

    3.) you can disagree but you are factually wrong, they can believe what ever they want they have to be able to defend it they just cant "say it" HL is complete idiots for trying to sell this, nothing in the bible makes this true they are morons.

    why not just make up anything

    4.) as already shown thats false it does infringe hence your continue dodging of my questions which is VERY TELLING and quite hilarious but i wont stop asking them


    question you keep dodging because they destroy HL

    "if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

    they (employees) would be denied coverage of BC under their policy based on what?

    will you ever answer these?
    good move backing off the other lies too

    the religious angle is a complete loss and you haven't changed that one bit im still waiting for one piece of logic or facts that support it,. so far you got nothing. Still waiting.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #614
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) nope laws and rights disagree, once its said to be religion theres court cases that can be had, you working in the field has no impact to that
    Nope, court cases and reality disagree with you.
    First a court has already upheld HL.
    Second, even the decisions against (such as Conestoga Wood Specialties V Seelius) do not make such a claim - that when they don't offer a coverage due to religious reason they are violating rights of employees.
    Third, you have already acknowledged that religious organizations - even if they employ some non-Christians - are not required to offer BC coverage.
    Last, I only point out my experience, to let you know I have real world experience with this, and it has gone on for a very long time with no successful challenges.

    2.) the only thing show horned in is how you try and fail to reshape my actual statement lol the debate is religion being forced on others coverage
    While firing an employee due to religious differences is forcing, choosing to not offer covered BC, circumcision or vasectomy due to religious reasons is not. There has not been a single successful challenge showing that it is.

    3.) you can disagree but you are factually wrong, they can believe what ever they want they have to be able to defend it they just cant "say it" HL is complete idiots for trying to sell this, nothing in the bible makes this true they are morons.
    Not understanding what you are attempting to get across, as the bible is clearly against abortificants and the interference with life. I can only imagine you are trying to say something different... very unclearly.

    question you keep dodging because they destroy HL
    I haven't dodged anything. There are questions I might skip because the replies become way too large and the conversation has become tiring.

    "if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"
    You keep asking this question which has already been answered. That you do not like the answer is your own issue. HL are providing the coverage, signing the contract and paying the premiums... They can make a choice of whatever optional coverage (non-medically necessary) they want for any reason that they want - including religious.

    good move backing off the other lies too
    Really didn't back off, just gets too long and boring.

  5. #615
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    1.)Nope, court cases and reality disagree with you. First a court has already upheld HL. Second, even the decisions against (such as Conestoga Wood Specialties V Seelius) do not make such a claim - that when they don't offer a coverage due to religious reason they are violating rights of employees.
    2.) Third, you have already acknowledged that religious organizations - even if they employ some non-Christians - are not required to offer BC coverage.
    3.) Last, I only point out my experience, to let you know I have real world experience with this, and it has gone on for a very long time with no successful challenges.


    4.)While firing an employee due to religious differences is forcing, choosing to not offer covered BC, circumcision or vasectomy due to religious reasons is not. There has not been a single successful challenge showing that it is.


    5.)Not understanding what you are attempting to get across, as the bible is clearly against abortificants and the interference with life. I can only imagine you are trying to say something different... very unclearly.



    6.)I haven't dodged anything. There are questions I might skip because the replies become way too large and the conversation has become tiring.


    7.)You keep asking this question which has already been answered. That you do not like the answer is your own issue. HL are providing the coverage, signing the contract and paying the premiums... They can make a choice of whatever optional coverage (non-medically necessary) they want for any reason that they want - including religious.



    8.)Really didn't back off, just gets too long and boring.
    1.) nope this is in court now and they will lose in the end ill take bets on that if you are interested
    2.) you keep repeating this like it means something, it doesnt
    3.) which again doesnt affect anythign
    4.) weird so you dodge the reshape and just make a random statement
    5.) really factually prove this LMAO factually prove that it will be a sin for HL to provided coverage, please stop, that claim is absurd when has a christian it has no effect on me
    6.) you factually dodged them and you keep doing it i have repeated them probably 10 times and asked why you dont answer, thats a dodge

    ill aks again
    ""if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

    7.) thank you for factually proving you are not answering the question, what is in number 7 is not an answer at all an nobody honest buys the lie. Nobody asked you HOW decesions are made or what they COULD be based on according to your OPINION the question is very specific and you dodging it is VERY telling

    Ill repeat the question again just for fun but you will dodge it and run from it AGAIN
    """if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

    8.) yes you did unless of course you can provide the proof i asked for of the lie you posted?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #616
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) nope this is in court now and they will lose in the end ill take bets on that if you are interested
    They may lose. They will not lose due to the reason you cite - an employer not providing free BC is infringement of any rights of the employee.

    5.) really factually prove this LMAO factually prove that it will be a sin for HL to provided coverage, please stop, that claim is absurd when has a christian it has no effect on me
    If the bible calls termination of a pregnancy (abortion) a sin, and I would allege that it does, and HL is being asked to provide free pills that can cause the abortion of the unborn, then HL is involved in the sin also.

    ""if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

    7.) thank you for factually proving you are not answering the question, what is in number 7 is not an answer at all an nobody honest buys the lie. Nobody asked you HOW decesions are made or what they COULD be based on according to your OPINION the question is very specific and you dodging it is VERY telling

    Ill repeat the question again just for fun but you will dodge it and run from it AGAIN
    """if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"
    As stated numerous times the basis for HL deciding on what is in the coverage is that they are signing the contract and paying the premiums... They can make a choice of whatever optional coverage (non-medically necessary) they want for any reason that they want - including religious.

    I'm still waiting for you to provide just a single court case after all these years that cites religious freedom of the employee for forcing the employer to provide coverage for any non-medically necessary treatments. Of course, you'll just dodge and ignore the cases that have already cone down that made zero such claim.

  7. #617
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    1.)They may lose.
    2.)They will not lose due to the reason you cite - them not providing free BC is infringement of any form of rights.


    3.)If the bible calls termination of a pregnancy (abortion) a sin, and I would allege that it does, and HL is being asked to provide free pills that can cause the abortion of the unborn, then HL is involved in the sin also.



    4.)As stated numerous times the basis for HL deciding on what is in the coverage is that they are signing the contract and paying the premiums... They can make a choice of whatever optional coverage (non-medically necessary) they want for any reason that they want - including religious.
    1.) so no bet?
    2.) never said it was but keep posting this lie you might get somebody to believe it
    3.) so you do or do not have FACTUAL prove that owning a businesses and providing healthcare coverage is a sin?
    4.) BOOM! dodged again

    ill repeat the question since you never answer it directly

    ""if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

    simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #618
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    2.) never said it was but keep posting this lie you might get somebody to believe it
    You get boring, but you have. Multiple times. One such example:
    4.) never maid the claim it was but changing coverage based on personal religion is subjecting me to YOUR RELIGIONS and ignoring my own which is a violation, BAM you nailed it
    What is the specific reason you believe that HL will ose the court case?

    3.) so you do or do not have FACTUAL prove that owning a businesses and providing healthcare coverage is a sin?
    Do I have factual proof that a Christian providing abortion causing medications to a pregnant woman so that her unborn can die is a sin? No. Guess you'll just have to use the old common sense.


    ""if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"
    And i'll answer again. It will be based on them contracting for the coverage, paying the coverage and getting to make decision on what medically non-necessary treatments are covered. They can make that decision for any number of reasons, including religious.
    Last edited by buck; 12-07-13 at 04:31 PM.

  9. #619
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    2.)You get boring, but you have. Multiple times. One such example:


    2.)What is the specific reason you believe that HL will ose the court case?


    3.)Do I have factual proof that a Christian providing abortion causing medications to a pregnant woman so that her unborn can die is a sin? No. Guess you'll just have to use the old common sense.




    And i'll answer again. It will be based on them contracting for the coverage, paying the coverage and getting to make decision on what medically non-necessary treatments are covered. They can make that decision for any number of reasons, including religious.
    1.) nope thisis a bold face lie and a strawman you made up that was never claimed by me once, if you disagree simply quote me, you will fail

    and your quote of me doesnt mention BC anywhere thanks for proving me right again but please keep trying your failed strawman

    2.) Because of the use of their religion which is a complete failure in this regard. Thier religion isnt violated and they can not use it to infringe on liberties of others

    3.) so the answer is no because there isnt any its a failed straw man by HL

    4.) BAM ANOTHER dodge so i will ask again

    every time you dodge it your failed position is further exposed nobody honest is falling for your dodge

    ill repeat the question since you never answer it directly

    ""if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

    simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?

    tell me their exact reason they are using?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #620
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    Not agreeing, but a personal choice.. like if one wants to take BC or not?
    That's right...a personal choice, not a part of doing business or following local, state or federal regulations. Just because the owners/majority shareholders of Hobby Lobby objects to the idea that health care plans contain a birth control provision (which is no different than said plan containing an abortion provision) and that they must adhere to the law and provide said health care policies to their employees does not mean that the corporate owners bare any harm here. They still have a choice to absolve themselves of this moral dilemma: not offer insurance to their employees and pay the fine.

    You see, either way the corporation would've been out of money. But what's being argued here isn't that they'd have to pay any more towards health care cost than they already do. The argument is are Hobby Lobby's religious rights being violated? The answer is NO! because Hobby Lobby isn't a religious entity. Moreover, they aren't being forced to participate in the administration of health insurance to their employees; they can opt out by simply paying the fine.

    For the sake of argument, if employee chooses not to participate, you may be right..

    but, as already stated, both hiring and retention are improved when a company offers benefits. Not being able to offer the benefit (otherwise contradicting religious beliefs) is harming the company. paying the fine, does not make up for the harm to the employer's retention and hiring abilities. reduced retention and hiring is... is that not harm?
    Considering that employers have been arguing for quite some time that their two biggest operating expenses have been: 1) taxes and, 2) insurance, I don't see them as being harmed here as much as I see it as a business choice. Now, if they're having problems remaining competitive because they don't offer such a benefit, that's on them. Moreover, you're arguing the theoretical, not the actual. But even if employees discover that a company doesn't offer certain benefits such as insurance, the employer could easily compensate for not having that lure by increasing hourly wages. Therefore, your argument doesn't hold water.

    The only harm the employer faces in this case is that which he imposes on himself by not creating an incentive package that peeks the potential employee's interest OR doing enough (salary wise) to retain his employees (because he took a benefit from them OR increased that portion which the employee now has to pay). And before you say that the PPACA is fostering such retentive behavior, I'd argue that employers are only doing what they always do - use the tax laws to benefit themselves. As such, some companies are artificially keeping their employment numbers low because they made the decision to reduce operating costs, i.e., cutting employee hours down to part-time so as not to pay health insurance cost. You could argue that employers are doing that in some industries because of the law, but there are corporations in other industries that have passed on the cost to their employees to make up the difference (while also weeding out low performing employees).

    You can't have it both ways here.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 12-07-13 at 05:08 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

Page 62 of 66 FirstFirst ... 12526061626364 ... 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
  •