• 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!

Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Whatever. :roll:

Last time I heard, it was "we, the people," not "I, the person."

Settle down. You knew what I meant the first time.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Meh, just keep your religious nonsense out of my government and my schools.

I'm not even religious, I just despise people like you who worship the federal government.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Too bad. Another hit against the worker.

The worker?

I'm a worker and I've done just fine without a union representing me.

There's a reason that the private workforce s less than 7% unionized.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'm not even religious, I just despise people like you who worship the federal government.

The federal government IS their religion. It's pitiful.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I don't need to do this to prove that the individual mandate has conservative roots and was embraced by some conservatives prior to Obama adopting it.


And if the left hadn't seen fit to throw all kinds of ideological crap that challenged individual religious beliefs and severely limited healthcare choices and regulations out the wazoo then the mandate might not have been such a bitter pill to swallow for a lot of people.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Unless I'm mistaken, the original idea was a federal mandate, which the (former) Speaker of the House endorsed prior to Obama.

So then you support Newt Gingrich now? I suggest you pay attention to what Newt actually said and not what you want to believe. Now do you know the difference between a Federal Mandate and a state mandate?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Other Supreme Court rulings have been overturned and I believe that this one may face that fate eventually.

It appears to violate the 1st Amendment.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

GREAT JOB HOBBY LOBBY !!!

You stood up for Christian values again. Just like when you stop importing products from China.

Oh Wait I forgot Profit > Christ
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The worker?

I'm a worker and I've done just fine without a union representing me.

There's a reason that the private workforce s less than 7% unionized.

Self hatred is common. There were slaves fine with slavery and women who though they should keep their place. But this does effect the worker, limiting their compensation. That's just a fact.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Settle down. You knew what I meant the first time.

No, I didn't. There is a difference between singular and plural pronouns, and "my" is very different from "our." Further, "we, the people" is a commonplace; if that were your intended meaning, you would've used "our."
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Self hatred is common. There were slaves fine with slavery and women who though they should keep their place. But this does effect the worker, limiting their compensation. That's just a fact.

Self hatred?

Ah yes you wouldn't be a good liberal unless you served up a heaping helping of condescension toward those who disagree with you in a smug, smarmy manner would you.

I've done fine all my life without being in a union. I have a nice home, two children a decent job and can manage my finances and I don't need a union for any of this.

If you're unable to function and succeed as an individual and need thuggish unions to act on your behalf please don't assume everyone else shares your inferior life skills.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I reject Christianity, and despise anti-abortionists. However, with regard to "closely held" companies like Hobby Lobby, which this ruling seems to be limited to, I agree with this decision. If it had been a corporation, (traded on a stock exchange), I would not support the decision.

I am for Christianity. But I can't stand when so called Christians hide behind the word of God to Shield their true motives.

In this case Hobby Lobby is doing just that.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Self hatred is common. There were slaves fine with slavery and women who though they should keep their place. But this does effect the worker, limiting their compensation. That's just a fact.

The phrase "the worker" has never been an American descriptor of individuals. It's an Eastern bloc, dehumanizing reference that Americans have always rejected in favor of our traditional emphasis on self-actualization. Probably useful to the more extreme Obama supporters and socialist Europeans, however.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

So then you support Newt Gingrich now?

I never said I even supported the mandate. Just pointing out that he endorsed it. What good is a conservative think tank if it doesn't produce conservative ideas?

I suggest you pay attention to what Newt actually said and not what you want to believe.

This clip really should dispel once and for all any questions over Gingrich's support for a national health-insurance mandate. Somewhat strangely he's never really denied supporting the mandate, and in fact as late as May of last year reiterated essentially the same position on Meet the Press. Yet throughout the campaign he has said repeatedly that it is "clearly unconstitutional", and more recently claimed absurdly that he has only ever supported state level mandates. Well, here you have it: not only has Gingrich been a long-standing proponent of a federal health insurance mandate, he clearly and unequivocally called for it as part of the White House health reform initiative in May 2009. Mission accomplished then.



Edit: I would just like to point out that the video and the clip do not necessarily go together. The original 'clip' was an audio of Gingrich supporting the federal mandate (but was too clunky to post). The clip I used was a substite I found on Youtube which said the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That would be pretty cool. The STFU part. But let's not let the facts get in the way. When you say "You guys", I'll assume you are referring to me as one of those who oppose this move. And yes I do. I loathe organized religion. I loathe the idea that your delusional beliefs in a book of fairy tales is influencing my life or that of my children. And as to the other religions, keep them the **** out of my government.


Speaking of children, something tells me that in about 20 years my children who will be gainfully employed productive members of society will be paying to support your lazy, unemployed, welfare collecting, drug addicted bastard kids.

How old are your kids? Have you already taught them how to use an EBT card?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I am for Christianity. But I can't stand when so called Christians hide behind the word of God to Shield their true motives.

In this case Hobby Lobby is doing just that.

In your opinion what is Hobby Lobby "true motive?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I am taking a middle of the road approach.

1) The Supreme Court decision only affects companies in which 5 members of the same family own more than 50% of the stock. In an instance like this, I can agree with the decision, in that the owner's religious views must be respected. So, good decision.

2) This will not affect women obtaining contraceptives, since there is going to be an administrative fix in which contraceptives will be subsidized by Obamacare. I also agree with this. Women will not have religious views forced down their throats, and at the same time, the owners of Hobby Lobby will not be forced to pay for something that is against their religion.

All in all, I call this a win-win situation.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

So did Roe v. Wade.

I doubt you'd suggest this argument would be a legitimate one against Roe v. Wade because you feel that Roe v. Wade was protecting ones essential liberty in regards to the right to privacy, and thus even though it would result in "an increase in abortions" that is ENTIRELY okay to you.

Well...I'm sure to many that even if your assumption is the case (Which is really speculative in nature as it's requiring a lot of assumptive leaps to reach as opposed to Roe v. Wade which was DIRECTLY about abortion), that doesn't preclude that some may feel that ones essentially liberty in regards to the right to religious freedom must not be ignored simply because of the possible poor choices (in those peoples opinions) other people can make.

You don't support violating the constitution because the side effects of that makes you feel sad. Well, most people don't...perhaps you do.
You are absolutely correct...and its not a matter of using as an argument for/against. Its simply just stating the facts. Roe v. Wade absolutely resulted in an increase in abortions the same as this latest decision will result in an increase in abortions.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

You are aware that this case was only about the morning after pill and not regular oral contraception aren't you?

Oh wait your profile says liberal so it's asking way too much for you to be aware of and understand the facts of this case.

Nevermind.

If you were following along, you would see that this had already been addressed. The reality is that despite the specific facts of this case, the ruling has broader implications.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I never said I even supported the mandate. Just pointing out that he endorsed it. What good is a conservative think tank if it doesn't produce conservative ideas?







Edit: I would just like to point out that the video and the clip do not necessarily go together. The original 'clip' was an audio of Gingrich supporting the federal mandate (but was too clunky to post). The clip I used was a substite I found on Youtube which said the same thing.


Interesting, did you even listen to the clip? No where did he promote national healthcare but rather a voucher system allowing individuals to purchase insurance within their state. How does Obamacare do that? Newt did not say what you want to believe
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Perhaps. Or maybe if more people took the stand that Hobby Lobby does, abortion would again become something mostly necessary and rare. Do you really think responsible people are going to have abortions because somebody doesn't provide them with free contraceptives? Millions and millions of us lived, had kids, and dealt with life before government demanded that insurance companies provide contraceptives. We bought our own contraceptives out of our own pockets and thought nothing of it.

Do you think irresponsible people are going to behave differently or more responsibly just because Hobby Lobby pays for four additional contraceptives in addition to the dozens they don't object to?

I want to SCREAM when I hear people think that people have no responsibility for their choices and behavior if government doesn't provide all they need to be responsible.

Your arguments don't address the point. It has nothing to do with responsible v. irresponsible or what people did in the past. I agree that people should have responsibility for their choices and behavior. However, it does not change the bottom line that limiting access to contraceptives will result in an increase in unwanted pregnancies....that is just stating the obvious. While you and I may not like it....this will in turn lead to increased numbers of abortions. That is just the reality.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

There is nor will there be blood on their hands. People get to make their own decisions still ... if there's blood on anyone's hands it's those who will agree to have abortions. Playing the victim card, so passe.

The reality is that there is blood on both. There are direct and indirect, intended and unintended consequences of this decision....and all parties are going to have to accept it and live with it. Thats just life.
 
Back
Top Bottom