Page 63 of 66 FirstFirst ... 13536162636465 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 656

Thread: Corporations Aren't People

  1. #621
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    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
    my comment:
    4.) But free or covered BC (or plastic surgery) is not a right and lack of free BC is not a violation of another's rights..
    Your response:
    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
    So, if you aren't stating that an employer not providing coverage for birth control due to the religion of the employer is a violation, then you obviously have problems communicating your thoughts. Because I see no other way to take what you said.

    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
    and you did it again. There is no infringement on the liberty of the employee by the employer not providing coverage for unnecessary medical treatments to the employee. The employer can choose any reason - including the reason that has existed for ever, religion. There has been no such judicial challenge to this decision not to offer a specific coverage and none of the judges of the challenges to the current BC mandate have put forth this opinion. If I am wrong, please find the actual decisions - I have already read a couple - and find it for me. You should have zero problem quoting directly from the decision if what you say is true. I'll wait.

    3.) so the answer is no because there isnt any its a failed straw man by HL
    No, the answer is not "no". Providing something to someone with the knowledge that they will use that something to kill someone is abetting. It is not only a crime, but it would also be a sin against God. Examples: Someone purchasing a prostitute for another individual is just as guilty of sin as the individual that makes use of the prostitute. An employer purchasing something for an employee when that something will be used to kill the unborn will also be guilty of sin. I find it baffling that you don't understand this.

    "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?
    It's only a dodge in your mind. So I'll repeat: It makes zero difference. HL is paying and contracting. They can choose any reason - including religion - to not want to cover a certain non-necessary medical treatment. Choosing a religious reason is not an infringement and, while someone can sue for anything, they have no chance of winning.

  2. #622
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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.
    Not only do that not have the benefit of offering insurance to their employees, they still have to pay the fine.

    Now, if they're having problems remaining competitive because they don't offer such a benefit, that's on them.
    It's not really a choice. It's coercion. Either violate your religious beliefs or lose the benefits of offering insurance.

    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.
    Increased compensation, as you suggest, is not as useful in retention as offering beenfits are. Many people work, take and stay at jobs specifically because insurance is part of the equation. Many will take or stay in a lower paying job specifically because insurance is available and may not be in the other.

  3. #623
    I'm kind of a big deal

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

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    my comment:

    Your response:


    1.)So, if you aren't stating that an employer not providing coverage for birth control due to the religion of the employer is a violation, then you obviously have problems communicating your thoughts. Because I see no other way to take what you said.



    2.)and you did it again. There is no infringement on the liberty of the employee by the employer not providing coverage for unnecessary medical treatments to the employee. The employer can choose any reason - including the reason that has existed for ever, religion. There has been no such judicial challenge to this decision not to offer a specific coverage and none of the judges of the challenges to the current BC mandate have put forth this opinion. If I am wrong, please find the actual decisions - I have already read a couple - and find it for me. You should have zero problem quoting directly from the decision if what you say is true. I'll wait.



    3.)No, the answer is not "no". Providing something to someone with the knowledge that they will use that something to kill someone is abetting. It is not only a crime, but it would also be a sin against God. Examples: Someone purchasing a prostitute for another individual is just as guilty of sin as the individual that makes use of the prostitute. An employer purchasing something for an employee when that something will be used to kill the unborn will also be guilty of sin. I find it baffling that you don't understand this.



    4.) It's only a dodge in your mind.

    5.) So I'll repeat: It makes zero difference.
    6.)HL is paying and contracting.
    7.) They can choose any reason - including religion - to not want to cover a certain non-necessary medical treatment.
    8.) Choosing a religious reason is not an infringement and, while someone can sue for anything, they have no chance of winning.
    1.) thank you for going way out of the way to further prove i never made that claim its a strawman you made up and you lack of understanding facts is not my issue. Once again i never made the claim and facts prove that. notice how my first words of the sentences say "never made that claim" lol thank you for completely owning youw own post

    2.) more lies and strawman i love how you just make up an argument that has nothing to do with what i say, pleease continue this its funny, why do you think strawman and lies will work?

    3.) yes it was and still is, nothing you said changed that
    you have no facts to support your claim this hasn't changed, you are free to keep your OPINIONS though but the fact remains the answer is no

    4.) nope its a factual dodge and you dodging it destroys your own post every time, it my favorite part. Its like I ask for your favorite color and you answer people can like colors for any reason they like.

    sorry you are factually dodging the questions and nobody is fooled by the lie that you are not. . . . nobody honest anyway lol



    tell me their exact reason they are using?

    5.) didnt ask this hence you arr factually dodging
    6.) didnt ask this hence you are factually dodging
    7.) didnt ask this hence you are factually dodging
    8.) didnt ask this hence you are factually dodging

    Ill ask AGAIN and i bet anythign you DODGE it again because you know the answer defeats HLs failed stance.

    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

  4. #624
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    Not only do that not have the benefit of offering insurance to their employees, they still have to pay the fine.
    So, we agree HL has an option in this matter; it's not all or nothing. Good. That's progress.

    It's not really a choice. It's coercion. Either violate your religious beliefs or lose the benefits of offering insurance.
    Not coercion; nobody's forcing HL to provide insurance. They have a choice to do it or not, and within those boundaries they do have "wiggle room", i.e., to adjust business practices by taking advantage of the "tax code" as many large corporation have done. (Re: part-time employment OR deny coverage and pay a fine OR (doing the sensible thing) deny coverage and raise salaries so that employees can buy insurance coverage themselves).

    Increased compensation, as you suggest, is not as useful in retention as offering benefits are. Many people work, take and stay at jobs specifically because insurance is part of the equation. Many will take or stay in a lower paying job specifically because insurance is available and may not be in the other.
    Again, corporations sought this fringe benefit as a way to make themselves more marketable for employees. They can't get pissed when they've made the insurance marketplace so unpalatable that the average middle-class wage earner can't afford it. Seems to me corporate owners have a choice: pay their share of health insurance which they sought out to do OR increase wages so employees can buy it themselves. Otherwise, the only alternative is socialized medicine.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 12-07-13 at 08:49 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  5. #625
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) thank you for going way out of the way to further prove i never made that claim its a strawman you made up and you lack of understanding facts is not my issue. Once again i never made the claim and facts prove that. notice how my first words of the sentences say "never made that claim" lol thank you for completely owning youw own post
    Oh, but you did:
    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
    2.) more lies and strawman i love how you just make up an argument that has nothing to do with what i say, pleease continue this its funny, why do you think strawman and lies will work?
    Oh, but you did:
    Thier religion isnt violated and they can not use it to infringe on liberties of others

  6. #626
    I'm kind of a big deal

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

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    You said:




    You said:
    BAM called it, you dodged it again

    correct i said ALL of that and its nothign like the lie you stated
    notice how BC isnt referred to at all and in my very quote i mention your failed straw man and lie

    thank you fro proving it again


    Ill ask AGAIN and i bet anythign you DODGE it again because you know the answer defeats HLs failed stance.

    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

  7. #627
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    correct i said ALL of that and its nothign like the lie you stated
    notice how BC isnt referred to at all and in my very quote i mention your failed straw man and lie
    It's not? Hmm.. Then what coverage is being changed due to the personal religion of the employer if not related to the decision to cover BC in the below sentence?

    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
    The employer's religion isn't violated by being forced to offer what in the below sentence?
    Thier religion isnt violated and they can not use it to infringe on liberties of others

  8. #628
    I'm kind of a big deal

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

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    1.)It's not? Hmm.. Then what coverage is being changed due to the personal religion of the employer if not BC in the below sentence?
    2.) The employer's religion isn't violated by being forced to offer what in the below sentence?
    1.) correct its factually not, religion is the issue not BC, thank you for again proving yourself wrong
    2.) offer doesn't matter how the decision is made does, BAM! you are finally getting it, again you just highlighted the facts that prove your strawman wrong


    Ill ask AGAIN and i bet anythign you DODGE it again because you know the answer defeats HLs failed stance.

    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

  9. #629
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    ]Thier religion isnt violated and they can not use it to infringe on liberties of others
    How are they infringing on the liberties of others in this case if not by declining to offer BC?

    Then, I have to ask, if their religion isn't being violated, why did Obama carve out a religious exemption? If he's carving out a religious exemption when religious issues don't even exist.. Well, hopefully you see the legal issue with that.

    Can you find one single court case, where the decision to not offer medically unnecessary treatment as part of an insurance plan due to religious beliefs of the employer (such as not offering BC for treatments not medically necessary), was part of a successful court challenge. Even in the specific issue we are talking about, not a single court has made that determination - even those that have sided with the government. It seems to only be in your head.

  10. #630
    I'm kind of a big deal

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

    Re: Corporations Aren't People

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    1.)How are they infringing on the liberties of others in this case if not by declining to offer BC?

    2.) Then, I have to ask, if their religion isn't being violated, why did Obama carve out a religious exemption? If he's carving out a religious exemption when religious issues don't even exist.. Well, hopefully you see the legal issue with that.

    3.) Can you find one single court case, where the decision to not offer medically unnecessary treatment as part of an insurance plan due to religious beliefs of the employer (such as not offering BC for treatments not medically necessary), was part of a successful court challenge. Even in the specific issue we are talking about, not a single court has made that determination - even those that have sided with the government. It seems to only be in your head.
    lol watchign you move the goal posts and refram and trying to put words in my posts that factually arent there is hilarious

    1.) already explained this every time you asked me, a decision based on religion that has nothing to do with BC, you fail again

    2.) churches and religious institution that deal directly with worship have different rules this is common sense 101

    its the same reason why a church doesnt have to marry anyone it doesnt want to including straight couples and biracial couples etc

    3.) since this isnt my argument i dont have too, but keep trying to refram and failing its the best part

    since all your lies and reframes and straw men have been destoryed all you will get now is the question you keep dodging, you dont answer it because you know the answer DESTROYS HL.

    Here it again lets see if you answer:

    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

Page 63 of 66 FirstFirst ... 13536162636465 ... 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
  •