• 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

polgara said:
:agree: Did you notice that they have now dragged Sandra Fluke out again? Unbelievable!

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Happy Monday Pol! I hope you are well my friend.

Sandra Fluke I think actually started all of this.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

But Alito held that in the case before the court, the religious objections cited were legally legitimate, under a law that bars the government from taking action in certain cases that "substantially burdens" freedom of religion. He noted that fines for one company could total $475 million per year if they did not comply with the ObamaCare rule.
Click to expand...

Wow!!!
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, calling a loon a slut is just like advocating the bombing of a business (purely out of concern for its employees, of course). ;)
Click to expand...

What exactly makes Sandra Fluke a "loon"? Are we going to start mischaracterizing all of her statements yet again?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
I am diabetic, and I do take insulin. I have posted about it on here elsewhere. And PS, my insurance - Cadillac by ACA defintion, does not cover every single form of insulin on the market, and in fact, I had to work with my endocrinologist when she told me I needed to start taking insulin a few months ago so she could prescribe the ones covered by my plan.

I can NOT believe you actually equated the problems of a diabetic with someone not getting 4 of 20 types of birth control paid for. Insulin is keeping me alive.
Click to expand...

They're both medical prescriptions, as well. Of course, I was not intentionally targeting you - hopefully you understand that. Are you T1 or T2?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
Happy Monday Pol! I hope you are well my friend.

Sandra Fluke I think actually started all of this.
Click to expand...

Sandra Fluke wouldn't have "started" anything if she hadn't been invited to speak in front of Congress on the issue.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

poweRob said:
I can see gearing different laws, boundaries and rules to different sized companies for various reasons but the whole gearing it to a specific religion in a specific way... that's damn creepy and very unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

She just said family owned which violate their religious views. Now I am trying to remember some of the specifics, I was trying to listen and the wife was talking and she was expecting me to listen to her which I was trying to ignore her and listen to the radio. I do not think it applied to a specific religion. But maybe it did as the lawyer did say it was a narrow decision that only a few other family owned companies could fall under it. I don't know.

I suppose none of really knows all the repercussions as each of us is going by what was reported on TV, the radio or what they read in an article somewhere.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Kobie said:
So what? She's a political candidate now, and was pretty high profile on this issue fairly recently. What's the big deal if she gets to write some op-ed?



:roll:
Click to expand...
She's a candidate? BWHAAAAA! for what? Lead clown in the tiny car?

This is why progressivism is about to go down in flames as it should.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

zgoldsmith23 said:
They're both medical prescriptions, as well. Of course, I was not intentionally targeting you - hopefully you understand that. Are you T1 or T2?
Click to expand...

T2, and my son gets an acne prescription from his pediatrician, but he won't die or get sick if he doesn't get it.

You weren't targeting me, but you equated diabetes with birth control, and I'm sorry but that isn't a serious discussion and as a diabetic, I resent the comparison.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

j-mac said:
She's a candidate? BWHAAAAA! for what? Lead clown in the tiny car?

This is why progressivism is about to go down in flames as it should.
Click to expand...

She's running for California state senate.

Your "contribution" to the thread is duly noted.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Kobie said:
So what? She's a political candidate now, and was pretty high profile on this issue fairly recently. What's the big deal if she gets to write some op-ed?



:roll:
Click to expand...

A candidate for what? I hadn't heard about that.

Greetings, Kobie. :2wave:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Kobie said:
What exactly makes Sandra Fluke a "loon"? Are we going to start mischaracterizing all of her statements yet again?
Click to expand...

If pain medications and insulin are not supplied at no additional out of pocket cost then why should birth control prescriptions be? The idea that "my preferred stuff" should be included in everyone's premiums but not "your preferred stuff" is loony.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
FFS Rob. Be honest. You just mentioned China in the post I responded to.

I don't want to get infracted so I have to move on from you.
Click to expand...

Why are you ignoring my posts about constitutionality? You even "LIKED" a guy's post who quoted one of my posts on it's constitutionality and still ignored my post. I'm making the constitutionality argument over and over in here. In fact, the only time I'm not talking about the constitutionality issue is when you keep putting me on the defensive to have me explain my very first post that really briefly mentioned china. That is all.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Moderator's Warning:
The baiting, trolling and personal comments need to end. Please return to the topic, which NOT China, Bush, the Post Office or each other. There are some ping-pong matches under way, so those need to stop as well. Do not bring forward with quotes, any post that is off-topic.

Moderation is also pending for some posts prior to this warning.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

ttwtt78640 said:
If pain medications and insulin are not supplied at no additional out of pocket cost then why should birth control prescriptions be? The idea that "my preferred stuff" should be included in everyone's premiums but not "your preferred stuff" is loony.
Click to expand...

I don't think Sandra Fluke ever argued that pain meds and insulin should not be supplied at no additional out of pocket cost. If you can find where she did, please feel free to link to it.

polgara said:
A candidate for what? I hadn't heard about that.

Greetings, Kobie. :2wave:
Click to expand...

California state senate.

Hello, Polgara.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

poweRob said:
Why are you ignoring my posts about constitutionality? You even "LIKED" a guy's post who quoted one of my posts on it's constitutionality and still ignored my post. I'm making the constitutionality argument over and over in here. In fact, the only time I'm not talking about the constitutionality issue is when you keep putting me on the defensive to have me explain my very first post that really briefly mentioned china. That is all.
Click to expand...

I didn't like every post in this thread, Rob. There are over 500 of them now.

I'm glad you're looking to talk about constitutionality. That's what this thread is about.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

poweRob said:
Or you could try to find out why your boys refuse to rule on precedent and instead just fabricates one time bias laws from the bench. Then you can actually begin to understand how a nation of laws is supposed to work and therefore learn what is and isn't unconstitutional instead of doing these throw-away non sequiturs.
Click to expand...

I'll respond to your original post. You took a shot at someone's boys, stating that they refused to rule on precedent and fabricated a one time bias law.

I asked which precedent? Now I'll ask what fabrication?

The remainder of your post speaks for itself.

BTW, I'm referring to 444, 449, and 475
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Perotista said:
She just said family owned which violate their religious views. Now I am trying to remember some of the specifics, I was trying to listen and the wife was talking and she was expecting me to listen to her which I was trying to ignore her and listen to the radio. I do not think it applied to a specific religion. But maybe it did as the lawyer did say it was a narrow decision that only a few other family owned companies could fall under it. I don't know.

I suppose none of really knows all the repercussions as each of us is going by what was reported on TV, the radio or what they read in an article somewhere.
Click to expand...

From Ginsburg's dissent:

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

link...​
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

jimbo said:
I'll respond to your original post. You took a shot at someone's boys, stating that they refused to rule on precedent and fabricated a one time bias law.

I asked which precedent? Now I'll ask what fabrication?

The remainder of your post speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

The fabrication is making a ruling favoring a specific religion and that the law won't apply to others across the board. Your repeated lack of addressing that in my previous posts speaks for itself.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
Happy Monday Pol! I hope you are well my friend.

Sandra Fluke I think actually started all of this.
Click to expand...

There are "Carrie Nation" types in every movement, I guess. And they all seem to have that same disgruntled unhappy aura about them, too, like life gave them lemons instead of roses. Weird...
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Kobie said:
I don't think Sandra Fluke ever argued that pain meds and insulin should not be supplied at no additional out of pocket cost. If you can find where she did, please feel free to link to it.



California state senate.

Hello, Polgara.
Click to expand...

The bolded above is my point exactly. She was squawking over her pet issue at the time and ignoring the bigger picture. That is why it is bad news for the gov't to try to micromanage "private" medical care insurance provisions. Why does age affect premium rates but not obesity?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
I didn't like every post in this thread, Rob. There are over 500 of them now.

I'm glad you're looking to talk about constitutionality. That's what this thread is about.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I didn't say you "liked" every post in this thread. I said you liked a post of a guy where in that post he quoted me... a quote of a post of mine you ignored. You liked his post... and his post was even agreeing with mine. What are you talking about?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

ttwtt78640 said:
The bolded above is my point exactly. She was squawking over her pet issue at the time and ignoring the bigger picture. That is why it is bad news for the gov't to try to micromanage "private" medical care insurance provisions. Why does age affect premium rates but not obesity?
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

ttwtt78640 said:
If pain medications and insulin are not supplied at no additional out of pocket cost then why should birth control prescriptions be? The idea that "my preferred stuff" should be included in everyone's premiums but not "your preferred stuff" is loony.
Click to expand...

She never once said "not your preferred stuff." She was going to bat for HER pet cause. That makes her a "loony"? If she had gotten in front of Congress and said "cover birth control, but DO NOT cover pain meds," that would have been loony. But she didn't.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
T2, and my son gets an acne prescription from his pediatrician, but he won't die or get sick if he doesn't get it.

You weren't targeting me, but you equated diabetes with birth control, and I'm sorry but that isn't a serious discussion and as a diabetic, I resent the comparison.
Click to expand...

I do see it as a serious discussion. If there was a more inclusive, or 'better' insulin, would you not want that?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

poweRob said:
From Ginsburg's dissent:

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

link...​
Click to expand...

Perhaps as I said, what we are going on is what each one of us heard, Ginsburg may be on to something or she just might be hyperboling a descending point of view. Time will tell. But the first amendment is pretty specific:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Perhaps the SCOTUS will have to rule on exactly prohibiting the free exercise thereof and what exactly is free exercise thereof.

You got me.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

poweRob said:
The fabrication is making a ruling favoring a specific religion and that the law won't apply to others across the board. Your repeated lack of addressing that in my previous posts speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

I'll address it. The decision was narrow by design, but I don't see any fabrication. I did not see the specific religion thingy. Did the ruling state only Christians? I thought it only addressed closely hold corporations. Does not the law apply to other closely held corporations? Perhaps with differing religious belief's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom