• 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!

Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

Objective-J said:
1.) im fine with anybody trying to challenge anything
2.) yep and i never implied otherwise
3.) i agree but it most certainly has its limits and thats a fact. for example can St. Lukes hospital deny visitation of my wife if we werent married by the churches religion? of course not because their religion is meaningless and they cant use it to discriminate outside the religious realm.
4.) actually by default it factually does because your rights end when you try to infringe on mine, see the example above

The solution is simply if you cant play by public rules like everyone else dont get involved in the public realm.
Click to expand...
But what you are saying is that rights, religious or otherwise, cease to exist once a person enters the public realm. That is the only place where rights really matter.
 
Cephus said:
Hobby Lobby is a company. It has no freedom of religion because it has no religion. It's owners might, but they don't get to push their own personal religious biases on anyone through their company. If they don't want to personally use contraceptives, they're more than welcome to refrain from doing so.
Click to expand...
It would seem that all Hobby Lobby has to do is to write in their corporate bylaws that they will not in any way participate, either directly or indirectly, in the killing of humans, in any way, in the course of conducting any aspect of their business.

That will eliminate religion from the issue and make it a corporate bylaw matter.

Because the company is privately held, their chances of success, already fairly good, will thereby increase.
 
Cephus said:
Not so much on the employees, but they are pretending that because they believe in an imaginary friend in the sky, they get to opt out of rules that everyone else has to follow.
Click to expand...

Ok, was the BC portion written in the original law? or was this a mandate by HHS?
 
Fletch said:
But what you are saying is that rights, religious or otherwise, cease to exist once a person enters the public realm. That is the only place where rights really matter.
Click to expand...

no thats not what im saying at all, next time please ask
im saying the public rules/laws/rights of discrimination, unlawful practices (firing/hiring) polices etc are the same for EVERYONE.
 
Grant said:
This is the government getting involved in the private realm.
Click to expand...

nope its the government protecting its citizens' freedoms, rights liberties and from discrimation and rights infringement
 
Objective-J said:
no thats not what im saying at all, next time please ask
im saying the public rules/laws/rights of discrimination, unlawful practices (firing/hiring) polices etc are the same for EVERYONE.
Click to expand...
But Hobby Lobby is not discriminating or violating anyones rights, so why should the state step in and violate theirs?
 
Fletch said:
But Hobby Lobby is not discriminating or violating anyones rights, so why should the state step in and violate theirs?
Click to expand...

they most certainly will be if they discriminate against employes solely based on the religion of the owner, president etc.
and then the state is doing nothing to their rights at all.
 
j-mac said:
What makes you think this approach wins you anything?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about winning you asked a question I replied with facts if you dont like them you can post your arguement with facts. Simple it a debate which you are more than welcome to engage in.
 
Objective-J said:
nope its the government protecting its citizens' freedoms, rights liberties and from discrimation and rights infringement
Click to expand...

But every citizen already has the freedom to purchase birth control, do they not? And HL's employees will still have the right to purchase birth control even if HL doesn't offer a health care plan that covers it, will they not?
 
j-mac said:
What makes you think this approach wins you anything?
Click to expand...

Yeah - Hob Lob doesn't give THAT much of a **** and they need to quit this 'oh but we do' bullcrap.

They're closed on Sundays - fine...done.
 
Objective-J said:
they most certainly will be if they discriminate against employes solely based on the religion of the owner, president etc.
and then the state is doing nothing to their rights at all.
Click to expand...
That doesnt make sense. If I, as your employer, offer a health plan that doesnt cover contraceptives, how is that discriminating against you?
 
The Man said:
1.)But every citizen already has the freedom to purchase birth control, do they not? 2.)And HL's employees will still have the right to purchase birth control even if HL doesn't offer a health care plan that covers it, will they not?
Click to expand...

1.) yes they do but thats meaningless to the issue.
2.) yes they will but they will be forced to buy it on their own or do extra steps to obtain based on somebody else religious views, that would be discrimination and rights infringement.

thats whats key, since HL admits its because of the bosses religious/owners/boards etc beliefs thats where they lose, if you admit that or it can be proven HL loses

ability to get something another way is meaningless
 
The Man said:
But every citizen already has the freedom to purchase birth control, do they not? And HL's employees will still have the right to purchase birth control even if HL doesn't offer a health care plan that covers it, will they not?
Click to expand...
Indeed.

All that HL corporate owners are saying is that they don't want, they the owners themselves, to be in any associated way a witting accomplice to killing prenatal humans, which they would be if they offered a medical plan that subsidizes the morning-after pill.

They are simply taking themselves out of the complict accomplice role, and understandably so in this matter.

They are not telling anyone else what they can and can't do on their own dime and time.
 
Fletch said:
That doesnt make sense. If I, as your employer, offer a health plan that doesnt cover contraceptives, how is that discriminating against you?
Click to expand...

easy because you made your choice based on YOUR religion and it discrimination against mine :shrug:
 
j-mac said:
Explain this.
Click to expand...

it explains itself, please be more specific with your questions.

Do people have a right not to be unfairly discriminated against?
 
Objective-J said:
they most certainly will be if they discriminate against employes solely based on the religion of the owner, president etc.
and then the state is doing nothing to their rights at all.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense ! Do you even know what a "right" is ? The "owner" is not discriminating against his employees, which would require that he selectively deny them something because of their race, color, creed, gender ! He is treating all his employees the same !

At best, insurance-covered contraception is a "privilege". It can be taken away any number of ways by the judiciary or legislature. That means it is not a "right".

Where'd I put my hip-waders ......... BS gettin deep and silly here.
 
Objective-J said:
easy because you made your choice based on YOUR religion and it discrimination against mine :shrug:
Click to expand...
You dont understand discrimination. You are misusing the term.
 
Objective-J said:
it explains itself, please be more specific with your questions.

Do people have a right not to be unfairly discriminated against?
Click to expand...

Hello ......... anybody home ? Your concept of "fairness and discrimination" is not the standard that determines a "right".
 
Objective-J said:
1.) yes they do but thats meaningless to the issue.
2.) yes they will but they will be forced to buy it on their own or do extra steps to obtain based on somebody else religious views, that would be discrimination and rights infringement.

thats whats key, since HL admits its because of the bosses religious/owners/boards etc beliefs thats where they lose, if you admit that or it can be proven HL loses

ability to get something another way is meaningless
Click to expand...

Understood, but HL is challenging the law because they disagree with it, and they can do that. If Obamacare, which is unconstitutional, was upheld by the SCOTUS, I see no reason why they wouldn't side with HL on this. The SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare basically states that the Constitution really doesn't matter. That sets up a scary precedent for the future.
 
Objective-J said:
easy because you made your choice based on YOUR religion and it discrimination against mine :shrug:
Click to expand...
Okay ..

.. Let's say the owner's religious tenet conflicts with your religious tenet, and, as is the topically relevant case, your religious tenet conflicts with the owner's religious tenet.

How do you resolved that conflict between two conflicting tenets of two religions?

You don't.

You, if you're a wise SCOTUS, strip religion from both sides of the argument, and examine the matter at its foundational elements, you examine the substance of the conflict ..

.. And you settle the matter substantively.
 
Ontologuy said:
Indeed.

All that HL corporate owners are saying is that they don't want, they the owners themselves, to be in any associated way a witting accomplice to killing prenatal humans, which they would be if they offered a medical plan that subsidizes the morning-after pill.

They are simply taking themselves out of the complict accomplice role, and understandably so in this matter.

They are not telling anyone else what they can and can't do on their own dime and time.
Click to expand...

It basically just makes themselves feel better. But long as they stock their shelves with products from China they are supporting a country that provides abortions to control the population.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
This is nonsense ! Do you even know what a "right" is ? The "owner" is not discriminating against his employees, which would require that he selectively deny them something because of their race, color, creed, gender ! He is treating all his employees the same !

At best, insurance-covered contraception is a "privilege". It can be taken away any number of ways by the judiciary or legislature. That means it is not a "right".

Where'd I put my hip-waders ......... BS gettin deep and silly here.
Click to expand...

or their religion or his own religion, thanks for playing :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom