• 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

Cephus said:
Even the people who disagreed with slavery were bound by laws to return escaped slaves or face the consequences thereof. You don't get to ignore the law just because you don't like it.
Click to expand...

Poor example. That was one of the most ignored laws in the history of the Republic. Even after the Compromise of 1850, its enforcement was still spotty. So not sure what you meant by "bound .......... or face the consequences", as for every time there were "consequences" there were dozens of times when there were not.
 
Grant said:
1.)Since when is obligating one person to pay for another person's birth control measures freedom, liberty, discrinination, or roghtsd infringements. It seems clear ehre that ypou must be treferring to Hobby Lobby.

2.)Also the cornerstone of Western Human Rights is equality before the law. We have seen dozens of companies who are excempt from these laws while others, like Hobby Lobby, are being forces to oblige against their will and their protected religious liberties.

3.)Supplying birth control devices to employees was never a condition of employment when the workers began their jobs and the government should not be allowed to make these conditions retroactive.
Click to expand...

1.) what does this opinion have to do with anything and can you point out where i said any of this? because i never did.
are you against all insurance?
2.) this is meaningless to the debate also unless you have information why these companies are exempt and that religion played a factor. If there is something shady going on though i will agree that its not right but it doesnt change what HL is guilty of.
3.) why? when the laws changed and women and minorities couldnt be fired simply for being a minority or women was that wrong?
 
Objective-J said:
.........
6.) night, when you wake up let me know if you have anything factual to add
Click to expand...

The rest of us are waiting for you to get a clue instead of just polluting the thread with drivel. You clearly do not understand "rights" and "discrimination". as has been pointed out just about every time you use such terms.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
This is absurd. The Courts will not rule based on "discrimination" by the employer upon the employees. There is not basis for that, and your willy-nilly use of the words "rights" and "discrimination" is a deterent to reasoned discussion here.

The issue will be the rights of the employer.
Click to expand...

you are free to have that opinion but again its reality and how the courts see it

the rights of the employer are in tact
 
Eighty Deuce said:
The rest of us are waiting for you to get a clue instead of just polluting the thread with drivel. You clearly do not understand "rights" and "discrimination". as has been pointed out just about every time you use such terms.
Click to expand...

the rest of you? LMAO
you mean the ones that have been proved wrong or have not logic or facts to back up thier claims and who the courts disagree with? those "us"

ill stick with facts, reality and the courts thanks, you are free to keep crying though and deflecting, may be better if you just tried to actually defend your opinion with logic, reality and something factual that is actually being discussed :shrug:
 
Objective-J said:
1.) what does this opinion have to do with anything and can you point out where i said any of this? because i never did.
Click to expand...

You said this.
Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
nope its the government protecting its citizens' freedoms, rights liberties and from discrimation and rights infringement
Click to expand...

are you against all insurance?
Click to expand...
In general, of course not.


2.) this is meaningless to the debate also unless you have information why these companies are exempt and that religion played a factor. If there is something shady going on though i will agree that its not right but it doesnt change what HL is guilty of.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that companies can be exempt only if religion is not a factor? The fact that these companies are exempt, dozens pof them, clearly demonstrates that the government can decide who must follow the law, or pay a million dollar a day fine, and who can ignore it.
3.) why? when the laws changed and women and minorities couldnt be fired simply for being a minority or women was that wrong?
Click to expand...

Nobody is being fired here. No one.
 
Grant said:
1.)You said this.

In general, of course not.




Are you saying that companies can be exempt only if religion is not a factor? The fact that these companies are exempt, dozens pof them, clearly demonstrates that the government can decide who must follow the law, or pay a million dollar a day fine, and who can ignore it.


Nobody is being fired here. No one.
Click to expand...

1.) yep that is exactly what i said and its not what you said at all :shrug:
2.) just the stuff you dont like then, great
3.)no thats not what im saying, i said its worth looking into and to see why they are except but its doesnt change the HL is wrong.
4.) LMAO who said there were people being fired? i just simply showed you why your broken logic about retro active conditions is meaningless

if you like change the example to women or minorities being promoted LOL, the example proves your logic wrong it had nothing to do with being fired.
 
Cephus said:
They still have no choice if the laws require insurance providers to cover contraceptives. Hobby Lobby is certainly welcome not to offer any form of health insurance to their employees, but if they want to provide insurance, this is the kind of insurance they will have to provide. Pick one.
Click to expand...
Actually, they have at least a third option: challenge the law -- it's the American way!

And, that appears that's what they are doing.

Indeed, even on religious grounds, they have a strong case that the law is infringing on their private corporation right to conduct business within the guidelines of their faith.

But, tossing religion out of the equation, they would be presenting a great test case to the SCOTUS of just how far the government can reach into the business practices of private corporations .. which may also eventually extend to public corporations.

This is potentially a most interesting case.
 
danarhea said:
Your argument breaks down when you say "immoral". This is not abortion. It is contraception. There is NO pregnancy to begin with. According to what you are posting, 90% of catholic women are baby killers.
Click to expand...
What I believe, or don't believe is irrelevant. The Hobby Lobby honchos claim an objection on religious grounds and nodody, especially the government, can tell them they can't hold that belief.
 
apdst said:
What I believe, or don't believe is irrelevant. The Hobby Lobby honchos claim an objection on religious grounds and nodody, especially the government, can tell them they can't hold that belief.
Click to expand...

nobody says they cant "hold" that belief, they are still free to hold any beliefs they please
 
Ontologuy said:
Actually, they have at least a third option: challenge the law -- it's the American way!
Click to expand...

By all means, challenge the law. That does not mean IGNORE the law.
 
Objective-J said:
nobody says they cant "hold" that belief, they are still free to hold any beliefs they please
Click to expand...

They're being tild that they have to go against those beliefs and pay for it with their money. It's a violation of the 1st Amendment that guarantees the free practice of religion. Hell, even the army allows conciencious objection.
 
apdst said:
They're being tild that they have to go against those beliefs and pay for it with their money. It's a violation of the 1st Amendment that guarantees the free practice of religion. Hell, even the army allows conciencious objection.
Click to expand...

hmm - interesting point.

Does a non-entity have freedom of religion?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
hmm - interesting point.

Does a non-entity have freedom of religion?
Click to expand...

The people who own the coporation--i.e. the people that the money belongs to and who will be signing their name to the check--have freedom of religion.

Let me put it another way: people are being forced, by law, to perform an act they believe violates their religious convictions.
 
apdst said:
The people who own the coporation--i.e. the people that the money belongs to and who will be signing their name to the check--have freedom of religion.

Let me put it another way: people are being forced, by law, to perform an act they believe violates their religious convictions.
Click to expand...

Yes - the random moral activity police occasionally target EC . . . but they offer **** support for pregnant employees and crap wages.

Yes indeed - they're so totally the ones to preach to me. :roll:
 
j-mac said:
Well, you have a point. It all boils down to when one believes life starts, conception at the earliest stage, or 10 years old. Obviously a religious organization is going to side on earliest stage. So regardless of what Catholic women espouse when taking communion, and what they do once they leave the pews is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No, scientists have confirmed a new human being is created at the moment the sperm and the egg join (fertilization). There is no reason to humor people that want to lie about this so they can say plan b isn't abortion.
 
apdst said:
They're being tild that they have to go against those beliefs and pay for it with their money. It's a violation of the 1st Amendment that guarantees the free practice of religion. Hell, even the army allows conciencious objection.
Click to expand...

It's against my religious beliefs to have gone into Iraq, does that mean I don't have to pay taxes now since my tax money went to support the Iraq war?
 
Henrin said:
No, scientists have confirmed a new human being is created at the moment the sperm and the egg join (fertilization). There is no reason to humor people that want to lie about this so they can say plan b isn't abortion.
Click to expand...

So I guess we should charge every woman that has a miscarriage with murder right?
 
apdst said:
The people who own the coporation--i.e. the people that the money belongs to and who will be signing their name to the check--have freedom of religion.

Let me put it another way: people are being forced, by law, to perform an act they believe violates their religious convictions.
Click to expand...

If companies don't like the new law they can either:

a. fight it through changing the laws.
b. follow the law.
c. get the hell out of the public sector and go work for someone else.

Either way, they're whining at this point. They need to do something about it besides whining, or shut the **** up.
 
Henrin said:
No, scientists have confirmed a new human being is created at the moment the sperm and the egg join (fertilization). There is no reason to humor people that want to lie about this so they can say plan b isn't abortion.
Click to expand...

This is a lie as there is no scientific consensus that a fertilized egg is a person. A fertilized egg can grow into a person, but a fertilized egg has no organs no brain, no capacity to feel or think, etc. At that point it is just two cells.

I don't know what scientists you are talking about, but without consensus they are meaningless, and there is no consensus.
 
hikari said:
This is a lie as there is no scientific consensus that a fertilized egg is a person. A fertilized egg can grow into a person, but a fertilized egg has no organs no brain, no capacity to feel or think, etc. At that point it is just two cells.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about the word "person" nor does it having a brain, or capacity to feel or think have anything to do it either. When the egg is fertilized is when a new human being is created that is completely different from his/her mother. I'm sorry, but your develop argument and your subjective terms mean nothing to this fact.

I don't know what scientists you are talking about, but without consensus they are meaningless, and there is no consensus.
Click to expand...

There is a consensus on this fact.
 
TheNextEra said:
So I guess we should charge every woman that has a miscarriage with murder right?
Click to expand...

I said nothing about legality nor did I use the word murder. Furthermore, miscarriages are the majority of the time unplanned.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Let's not rehash this. Suffice to say the Supreme Court, led by conservative Chief Justice Roberts, disagrees with you. And so does anybody who has even the fainteste understanding of constitutional law.
Click to expand...

People would say I understand constitutional law and the constitution and I have to agree with him. There is nothing in the constitution that would permit the federal government to force you to buy something. I have seen your argument for it Guy and to tell you the truth it's rather pathetic.

No, it doesn't set a precedent for anything because it doesn't relate. The constitution is being upheld just as well as it ever was. Maybe even better. Roberts is a great chief justice.
Click to expand...

Obviously saying the federal government can make you buy something IS setting a precedent.
 
I don't want to get too deep into this tangent but it is obvious that Henrin is, in fact, entirely ignorant of con law. PACA is not the government forcing you to buy insurance, it is the government giving you a tax credit if you do buy it. That is no more forcing you to buy insurance than for in you to take out a mortgage so you can get a mortgage deduction. I won't abide any more of this nonsense from people who are obviously clueless.

And the PACA ruling is not a significan precedent with regard to the first amendment issue. You guys just stay in the kiddie pool on this one, ok? It is clear you have got the ability or education to comprehend the constitutional issues at play here.
 
TheNextEra said:
It's against my religious beliefs to have gone into Iraq, does that mean I don't have to pay taxes now since my tax money went to support the Iraq war?
Click to expand...

Were you forced to take money out of your pocket and directly pay for ammunition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom