• 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

Guy Incognito said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now, thats the wildest interpretation I've yet. :lamo
 
apdst said:
Now, thats the wildest interpretation I've yet. :lamo
Click to expand...

Guy is always wildly incorrect about his interpretations.
 
Henrin said:
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.



Obviously saying the federal government can make you buy something IS setting a precedent.
Click to expand...

The problem is that everyone has HC coverage in the emergency room and alot aren't paying for it. The Govt. is saying you have to pay for something you already have. I know you think we should all have free HC but it is just not practical. Your "pie in the sky" thinking has made us broke.
 
Cephus said:
They shouldn't be exempt either. A law is a law. It covers everyone or no one.
Click to expand...

They're exempt for two reasons:

1) they made a closed door deal with the Obama admin.
2) the Obama admin is scared these players will take it all the way and know they have a case. By giving them exemptions, lessens the chance of those exemptions becoming options under the law.
 
Guy Incognito said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not true Guy. What the heck did you think the mandate debate was all about? At some point a fine will be associated for not being insured.
 
clownboy said:
That's not true Guy. What the heck did you think the mandate debate was all about? At some point a fine will be associated for not being insured.
Click to expand...
No, it's a tax that you can get a credit on if you buy insurance. Why on earth is this so hard to understand? It is partisan hackery (refusing to admit that it's constitutoonal just because you dont like it, ie dishonesty) or sheer stupidity (an inability to understand the distinction between being forced to buy something and getting a tax credit for buying something)?

Either way I am very tired of explain this very simple stuff.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
the problem is that everyone has hc coverage in the emergency room and alot aren't paying for it. The govt. Is saying you have to pay for something you already have. i know you think we should all have free hc but it is just not practical. your "pie in the sky" thinking has made us broke.
Click to expand...

wtf??
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, it's a tax that you can get a credit on if you buy insurance. Why on earth is this so hard to understand? It is partisan hackery (refusing to admit that it's constitutoonal just because you dont like it, ie dishonesty) or sheer stupidity (an inability to understand the distinction between being forced to buy something and getting a tax credit for buying something)?

Either way I am very tired of explain this very simple stuff.
Click to expand...

Because it's a distinction without a difference. We've already settled whether the mandate is constitutional - it is according to the SCOTUS, and thus operationally, it is constitutional. Doesn't make it right.

Back to the thread topic, HL is doing nothing wrong here. They are asking for an exemption based upon what they perceive as their First Amendment right. Their case I believe is bolstered by the fact that others are given exemptions for lesser (non-constitutional guarantee) reasons.

Also, as I've stated, I believe they have a cause of action because the service at issue here is and has always been, voluntary and separate from health care.
 
Last edited:
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...

nope they arent being told to go against their beliefs, they are free to practice their beliefs for themselves all they want.
Theres no violation of their religion at all because their religious freedom does NOT allow them to impose their religions on others outside of the religious realm. They have ZERO authority outside the religious realm in THIS case. No violation at all. The violation is them trying to impose thier religion on others because they ADMITTED making a choice solely based on their religion.

Just like St Lukes hospital couldn't deny visitation rights to husband/wife that were not married per the religion of the hospital. If the owner, ceo, administration of the hospital doesnt believe the couple is married in their religious views they have zero rights to stop the wife/husband from visitation, why? because a hospital has nothing to do with religion and has to play by the same rules as everyone else.
 
Objective-J said:
nope they arent being told to go against their beliefs, they are free to practice their beliefs for themselves all they want.
Theres no violation of their religion at all because their religious freedom does NOT allow them to impose their religions on others outside of the religious realm. They have ZERO authority outside the religious realm in THIS case. No violation at all. The violation is them trying to impose thier religion on others because they ADMITTED making a choice solely based on their religion.

Just like St Lukes hospital couldn't deny visitation rights to husband/wife that were not married per the religion of the hospital. If the owner, ceo, administration of the hospital doesnt believe the couple is married in their religious views they have zero rights to stop the wife/husband from visitation, why? because a hospital has nothing to do with religion and has to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Click to expand...

They're being forced to directly participate in something they consider to be immoral. So, no, they're not being allowed to practice their beliefs as they wish.

It would be the same thing as a soldier being denied his right to concienciously object to killing people, for religious reasons. That soldier wouldn't denied to practice his religion freely.

In short, when you force someone to use their own money to pay for contraceptives and they believe it goes against their religious beliefs, then you are most certainly violating their constitutional rights.

The arguments that have been put forth, so far, is that "you" don't feel that paying for contraceptives is immoral. I'm sorry to tell everyone that they can't use the law to force their beliefs on someone else.
 
apdst said:
1.)They're being forced to directly participate in something they consider to be immoral. So, no, they're not being allowed to practice their beliefs as they wish.

2.)It would be the same thing as a soldier being denied his right to concienciously object to killing people, for religious reasons. That soldier wouldn't denied to practice his religion freely.

3.)In short, when you force someone to use their own money to pay for contraceptives and they believe it goes against their religious beliefs, then you are most certainly violating their constitutional rights.

The arguments that have been put forth, so far, is that "you" don't feel that paying for contraceptives is immoral. I'm sorry to tell everyone that they can't use the law to force their beliefs on someone else.
Click to expand...

1.) 100% wrong they dont have to run a business and try to force thier views on people its that simply. They have to play by the same rules. They dont get special treatment.
2.) this is not the same at all since the solder isnt a business providing work to the public and it wouldnt be the solder discriminating
3.) in short its not because they dont have to run a business if their views are so strict they cant play by public rules, see my hospital example that you conveniently choose to ignore
4.) wrong again, i never said anything even close to this, its something you made up in attempt to feel right but you are not

why dont you address my hospital example?
 
Objective-J said:
1.) 100% wrong they dont have to run a business and try to force thier views on people its that simply. They have to play by the same rules. They dont get special treatment.
2.) this is not the same at all since the solder isnt a business providing work to the public and it wouldnt be the solder discriminating
3.) in short its not because they dont have to run a business if their views are so strict they cant play by public rules, see my hospital example that you conveniently choose to ignore
4.) wrong again, i never said anything even close to this, its something you made up in attempt to feel right but you are not

why dont you address my hospital example?
Click to expand...

How are they forcing their religious views on anyone? There's nothing in the 1st Amendment that guarantees you the right to force someone to buy your birth control for you, as a part of your free practice of religion.

Hobby Lobby isn't telling anyone that they can't buy their own birth control.

3.) in short its not because they dont have to run a business if their views are so strict they cant play by public rules,
Click to expand...

So, if they aren't willing to follow laws that violate their religious beliefs, they're welcome not to start their own business? Your sense of freedom is scary!
 
apdst said:
1.)How are they forcing their religious views on anyone?
2.)There's nothing in the 1st Amendment that guarantees you the right to force someone to buy your birth control for you, as a part of your free practice of religion.

3.)Hobby Lobby isn't telling anyone that they can't buy their own birth control.



So, if they aren't willing to follow laws that violate their religious beliefs, they're welcome not to start their own business? Your sense of freedom is scary!
Click to expand...

LMAO i see you totally back away form the other stuff you said since its unsupportable and are trying a new approach, smart

1.) easy they are making employees do something others dont have to based soley on a religious decesion, this is discrimination and the employess are forced to take extra steps. WHy? because HL made a religious decision.

2.) good thing i never said there was, and its also meaningless to the topic

3.) I agree, never said they were and this is also meaningless to the topic

4.) yes this is 100% true, notice the word LAWS, and thats not MY view thats the constitution, rights, liberties, freedoms and laws of AMERICA. Has nothing to do with me.
Im glad my country protects my fellow americans from discrimination.

funny you wont address my hospital example again, i wonder why? because it shows you that you are wrong and religious beliefs/freedoms only go so far
 
Objective-J said:
LMAO i see you totally back away form the other stuff you said since its unsupportable and are trying a new approach, smart
Click to expand...

I didn't address your hospital example because it's an idiotic comparison.

1.) easy they are making employees do something others dont have to based soley on a religious decesion, this is discrimination and the employess are forced to take extra steps. WHy? because HL made a religious decision.
Click to expand...

Their employees aren't being made to do anything.

2.) good thing i never said there was, and its also meaningless to the topic
Click to expand...

What did you mean when you said that Hobby Lobby is forcing their religious beliefs on someone else?

3.) I agree, never said they were and this is also meaningless to the topic
Click to expand...

That's exactly what you said.

4.) yes this is 100% true, notice the word LAWS, and thats not MY view thats the constitution, rights, liberties, freedoms and laws of AMERICA. Has nothing to do with me.
Im glad my country protects my fellow americans from discrimination.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that you would have supported fugitive slave laws, without question? You despise civil disobedience and believe that people who participate in such activity should be fined and/or run out of business?
 
apdst said:
1.)I didn't address your hospital example because it's an idiotic comparison.



2.)Their employees aren't being made to do anything.



3.)What did you mean when you said that Hobby Lobby is forcing their religious beliefs on someone else?



4,.)That's exactly what you said.



Does that mean that you would have supported fugitive slave laws, without question? You despise civil disobedience and believe that people who participate in such activity should be fined and/or run out of business?
Click to expand...

1.) LMAO no its the same, the hospital can NOT solely use its religion to make a decision that effects patients/employes. You denying this fact is meaningless and shows your inability to be honest.
2.) more dishonesty they are if they want birth control that other employes can get in other companies NOT forcing their views on those employees.

so if i dont allow your wife to come to a business part based soley on my religious views are you saying thats not discrimination? you arent being made to do anything right?
if dont allow your wife to be a supervisor solely because my religion says women are lesser are you saying thats not discrimination? she isnt being made to do anything right?

sorry thats irrational broken logic and americna laws and rights disagree with you

3.) exactly what your sentence says, they are forcing thier religious views on others, they admit their decision is based on religion and nothing else

4.) nope not one time, are you just going to resort to lies now?

5.) of course not thats another deflection you are trying to make and failing at lol

do you have ANYTHING factual or logical to offer or ANYTHING actually on topic or related to my stance or the governments stance? you are drowning fast
 
Objective-J said:
1.) LMAO no its the same, the hospital can NOT solely use its religion to make a decision that effects patients/employes. You denying this fact is meaningless and shows your inability to be honest.
2.) more dishonesty they are if they want birth control that other employes can get in other companies NOT forcing their views on those employees.

so if i dont allow your wife to come to a business part based soley on my religious views are you saying thats not discrimination? you arent being made to do anything right?
if dont allow your wife to be a supervisor solely because my religion says women are lesser are you saying thats not discrimination? she isnt being made to do anything right?

sorry thats irrational broken logic and americna laws and rights disagree with you

3.) exactly what your sentence says, they are forcing thier religious views on others, they admit their decision is based on religion and nothing else

4.) nope not one time, are you just going to resort to lies now?

5.) of course not thats another deflection you are trying to make and failing at lol

do you have ANYTHING factual or logical to offer or ANYTHING actually on topic or related to my stance or the governments stance? you are drowning fast
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about a hospital. I'm talking about a private citizen and the assets that he owns.

Don't ever use my wife as an example for anything, again. Thank you.
 
apdst said:
I'm not talking about a hospital. I'm talking about a private citizen and the assets that he owns.

Don't ever use my wife as an example for anything, again. Thank you.
Click to expand...
LMAO how did i know you would dodge all those facts
translation: you have no logical or factual path to take to defend your false stance, thanks but i knew that already as you proved it many posts ago.
 
The Obama administration is clearly overstepping its bounds with this deal. The problem is that there are some on the Catholic right who want to outlaw birth control altogether. So both sides are wrong.
 
Mencken said:
The Obama administration is clearly overstepping its bounds with this deal. The problem is that there are some on the Catholic right who want to outlaw birth control altogether. So both sides are wrong.
Click to expand...

Who are these some?? Sounds like you're just making **** up. Back up your ridiculous statements or don't make them.
 
apdst said:
They're being forced to directly participate in something they consider to be immoral.
Click to expand...

Life's a bitch. I consider paying taxes to support people who pay absolutely nothing to be immoral. Can I stop?
 
Cephus said:
Life's a bitch. I consider paying taxes to support people who pay absolutely nothing to be immoral. Can I stop?
Click to expand...

I stopped years ago. Why are you still doing it?
 
apdst said:
Of course they know. It would be tax evasion, otherwise.
Click to expand...

A better question, do you actually owe taxes and the IRS knows?
 
Cephus said:
A better question, do you actually owe taxes and the IRS knows?
Click to expand...

Yes that is a much more interesting and relevant question than your first one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom