• 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

These people don't believe in science so when science says that they
are not abortive measures they simply say they don't believe it.
This USSC decision is the first in a string that will lead to completely overturning Roe v. Wade.
They have now set precedent on a corporation's religious belief that abortion occurs the day/the moment after sex occurs .
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This USSC decision is the first in a string that will lead to completely overturning Roe v. Wade.
They have now set precedent on a corporation's religious belief that abortion occurs the day/the moment after sex occurs .

:scared: OMG They're going to overturn Roe v. Wade!!! :scared:

<enter astro-turf protestors and SEIU goons>
 
Not going to lie...I'm a conservative and think it's funny as hell how twisted people are over this. As an employer the Hobby Lobby is a progressives wet ****ing dream. The paid $6 an hour over minimum wage and provided health care with 16 different forms of contraception authorized. They were the model of what leftists believed business should be. Let them choose to not cover an abortion pill and watch the left lose their ****ing minds. Hell yes...it's kinda hilarious.

Let's concede that HL is a decent employer because by all accounts they really ARE. Good for them!

But that doesn't matter because the opinion isn't limited to HL and it's not limited to the four types of BC that HL didn't cover. It has a MUCH broader reach than that, covers employers good and bad, who might cover 0 or 3 or 18 of the BC options.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Your post is an example of why Democratic voters are more geared up for this election than Republicans, especially women.
Please continue with your sarcasm treating women as second-class citizens.
Meanwhile, your own Republican party is divided on every issue, including this one .
:scared: OMG They're going to overturn Roe v. Wade!!! :scared:

<enter astro-turf protestors and SEIU goons>
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

the cfo probably had an idea

the hr director probably also

the owner...not so much (at least imo)

there is only so much detail i give to the owner....the rest is just superfluous

i want him concentrating on bringing in revenue....not watching what we do and dont insure on a policy

that is why you hire guys like me....i take care of all those details

and we were self insured at one time....really bad decision on previous cfo's part

unless you have thousands of employees, the contingent liability will eat you alive

but when the ACA was passed, a lot of people got very aware of what they had to cover at that point

why? well, because never before had our government mandated certain coverages

and when you open people's eyes to what the law actually read, that is when people starting making waves

I think the point about HL's case (and it's sort of irrelevant to the big picture) is if providing a basic healthcare package that includes BC poses a 'substantial burden' on you free exercise of religion, and that's what HL claimed, then someone should surely have spent the 5 minutes to check whether their plan pre-ACA covered abortion pills. The fact that they didn't care enough to ASK provides a decent window into how important the BC coverage was to their exercise of religion, not much at all. But post-ACA, what they didn't care enough to ask about is now sufficiently burdensome that they can nullify a law of general applicability because to comply with it poses a substantial burden on their religion? It's tough to believe.

Like I said it doesn't matter because other employers DID care enough to ask, and they in fact refused to cover ANY, pre and post ACA. So HL are hypocrites, but that doesn't matter - take HL off the list of named parties and insert another and we get the same ruling.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I think the point about HL's case (and it's sort of irrelevant to the big picture) is if providing a basic healthcare package that includes BC poses a 'substantial burden' on you free exercise of religion, and that's what HL claimed, then someone should surely have spent the 5 minutes to check whether their plan pre-ACA covered abortion pills. The fact that they didn't care enough to ASK provides a decent window into how important the BC coverage was to their exercise of religion, not much at all. But post-ACA, what they didn't care enough to ask about is now sufficiently burdensome that they can nullify a law of general applicability because to comply with it poses a substantial burden on their religion? It's tough to believe.

Like I said it doesn't matter because other employers DID care enough to ask, and they in fact refused to cover ANY, pre and post ACA. So HL are hypocrites, but that doesn't matter - take HL off the list of named parties and insert another and we get the same ruling.


and if the ACA was never passed, those 4 items would still be available to their employees

unintended consequences strike again
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Your post is an example of why Democratic voters are more geared up for this election than Republicans, especially women.
Oh yeah, really geared up!

Please continue with your sarcasm treating women as second-class citizens.
Meanwhile, your own Republican party is divided on every issue, including this one .

While going after the IQ of 84 and below might be liberals move now (you wouldn't know obviously because you're a "moderate"....) most people have already heard and are tired of the "war on women". Liberals are much too interested what goes in and around women's vaginas. Perhaps women can think for themselves without looney toon progressives making hysterical chicken little claims about Roe v. Wade.

Trust me, I'm amused at all the foaming mouths and gnashing teeth. Someone should sell tickets.
 
Let's concede that HL is a decent employer because by all accounts they really ARE. Good for them!

But that doesn't matter because the opinion isn't limited to HL and it's not limited to the four types of BC that HL didn't cover. It has a MUCH broader reach than that, covers employers good and bad, who might cover 0 or 3 or 18 of the BC options.
It wouldn't be a relevant issue AT ALL had the government not passed legislation that imposed this on others.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Oh yeah, really geared up!
That's from a Republican pollster--so you bet oh yeah?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

While going after the IQ of 84 and below might be liberals move now
The 84 IQ card from a Libertarian right--ironic.
(you wouldn't know obviously because you're a "moderate"....)
and then the "attack the lean" card from a Libefrtarian right--more irony.
Yes I am a moderate, especially compared to what you bring to the forum .
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

and if the ACA was never passed, those 4 items would still be available to their employees

unintended consequences strike again

Actually only two - the old plan covered abortion pills (in their view) but not IUDs.

And if the ACA never passed, millions of women at 10s of thousands of other employers would have higher copays and less coverage. So I'm not sure the 'unintended consequences' are all that bad with ACA in general.
 
It wouldn't be a relevant issue AT ALL had the government not passed legislation that imposed this on others.
Well now you have a government not passing any legislation so you should be happy.
Just eliminate the federal gov't altogether since they are completely worthless .
 
It wouldn't be a relevant issue AT ALL had the government not passed legislation that imposed this on others.

I'm not sure what your point is. The ACA 'imposed' a lot of things. Are we assuming the overall impact on women is bad? You'll have to explain.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Wait, what the actual ****?

That is far from "as a rule," amigo. Plenty of liberals agree with the right to free speech or to bear arms, and who the hell are you to say we don't?

I don't think that is what Maquiscat was saying though. But I don't think he went far enough with his thought or he might have phrased it differently.

Most of the left/liberals for instance have no problem with hitting the taxpayer up for funding for an artist who then produces something offensive to many Americans or for funding the organization that exhibits it. That is, in a sense, forcing others to fund a form of 'free speech'. Many on the left doggedly support federal funding of NPR and PBS, both of whom they approve, but that forces others to finance those organizations that they may never listen to or might dissaprove. The liberal support for government control and criminalization of so-called 'hate speech' is also a way of using everybody's government to suppress the speech of some in the name of political correctness.

And there is a small but persistent push for Congress to reinstate funding for gun violence research (translation: support for more regulation of guns.) That funding was suspended I believe in 1996.

The point is that the Founders never intended the federal government to have any say in the regulation or use of guns and that was a matter to be left up to the individual, the states, and local communities.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

what i know is that liberals are misrepresenting what the ruling means.

see this thread.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/198350-mediamatters-montage-hobby-lobby-ruling.html

the ruling allows companies to maintain the same policy they had before the administration, not congress, decided to mandate ALL companies provide for free ALL forms of approved forms contraception under ACA.

NO i'm not mistaken.

Actually...you are mistaken. The ruling allows more than "allowing companies to maintain the same policy". It allows companies owned by religious groups to exclude from coverage, that which they deem "offensive" to their beliefs.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

And rather than write a Law that is explicit they left the dirty details to a bunch of bureaucrats at HHS (Kathleen Sebelius fer crissake) to come up with their mandated list of subjective dream coverage items.

Anyone with any sense should at this point realize that we wouldn't be going through any of this if Obama had kept his promise about keeping your coverage and had instead focused on covering the un-covered.
As a liar, the man is very proficient and slick.

Yes, it was a blatant, deliberate, and hurtful/hateful lie from the get go, and his base continues to defend it. Which is why I think as the great experiment, the USA has now failed. We who love and value liberty were too busy tending to business to notice the enemy within that has now eroded almost all our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities that they make us believe are still ours but which they can now allow or take away with impunity.

The Hobby Lobby case is just the tip of the iceberg as the left will continue to try to tighten the vise until all our rights are assigned to us by somebody else and we will have no right to be who are what we are or any choice in our own destinies.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Actually...you are mistaken. The ruling allows more than "allowing companies to maintain the same policy". It allows companies owned by religious groups to exclude from coverage, that which they deem "offensive" to their beliefs.

No, it POTENTIALLY allows for it. And before you pull the bull**** "read the rulings", I have. The verdict is specific to this case. While it's POSSIBLE that it could be used at a future time for other issues, it is not a certainty or a guarantee and presenting it as FACT is simply incorrect.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Actually...you are mistaken. The ruling allows more than "allowing companies to maintain the same policy". It allows companies owned by religious groups to exclude from coverage, that which they deem "offensive" to their beliefs.

The companies had the right to provide or exclude any coverage they saw fit before the mandate and that is exactly what mtm1963 just said.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Actually...you are mistaken. The ruling allows more than "allowing companies to maintain the same policy". It allows companies owned by religious groups to exclude from coverage, that which they deem "offensive" to their beliefs.

As well it should. The federal government should have no right to tell any private company what product(s) they must offer, what products they are required to make available to their employees, or what products the employees are required to by. Its bad enough if the federal government forbids the manufacture or sale of certain products known to be harmful to everybody, but I can live with that. But to tell them they HAVE to buy what the government says they should have is just wrong.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Actually...you are mistaken. The ruling allows more than "allowing companies to maintain the same policy". It allows companies owned by religious groups to exclude from coverage, that which they deem "offensive" to their beliefs.

these companies like hobby lobby are NOT changing their coverage on contraception because of this ruling. they will maintain what have already in place.

stop pushing the false narrative that these companies are going to cancel contraception coverage in their insurance policies they now provide for their employees because of this ruling.

hobby lobby covers 16 of 20 contraception methods approved by the FDA.

why would they suddenly change and say no to ALL contraception coverage?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The 84 IQ card from a Libertarian right--ironic.
I'll chalk that up to ignorance of Libertarians.

and then the "attack the lean" card from a Libefrtarian right--more irony.
Yes I am a moderate, especially compared to what you bring to the forum .

Some people believe they are Abraham Lincoln too.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The problem is that it puts a precedent of using religion to ignore law. The bigger problem is the "narrowing" aspect of a rulings. Its trying to flaunt law by making it apply only for the few. That is what is unconstitutional.

nope it upholds the law read the RFRA. that was a laws signed 20 years ago.

nope it doesn't apply to a few and the courts issue narrow rulings all the time.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Yes, it was a blatant, deliberate, and hurtful/hateful lie from the get go, and his base continues to defend it. Which is why I think as the great experiment, the USA has now failed. We who love and value liberty were too busy tending to business to notice the enemy within that has now eroded almost all our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities that they make us believe are still ours but which they can now allow or take away with impunity.

The Hobby Lobby case is just the tip of the iceberg as the left will continue to try to tighten the vise until all our rights are assigned to us by somebody else and we will have no right to be who are what we are or any choice in our own destinies.

Your insurance has been regulated for decades, with minimum coverage requirements, all kinds of rules about employer plans. Since 2000 there has been a contraception 'mandate' etc. Regulations are as old as the republic, so there's nothing new here except a black muslim kenyan is in the WH and now everything that happens that right wingers don't like is the end of the world as we know it. It's pretty funny.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

these companies like hobby lobby are NOT changing their coverage on contraception because of this ruling. they will maintain what have already in place.

stop pushing the false narrative that these companies are going to cancel contraception coverage in their insurance policies they now provide for their employees because of this ruling.

hobby lobby covers 16 of 20 contraception methods approved by the FDA.

why would they suddenly change and say no to ALL contraception coverage?

And they are on the record that they have no problem of any kind with contraceptives that prevent pregnancy from occurring and have no objection to those being on their policy--it was just the four that they believe cause an abortive process that they reject on moral/religious grounds. But even if they DID object to contraceptives in general--say they were devout Catholics who obeyed the church's official position on that (which few Catholics do)--it should be their right to not to have to use their money to provide contraceptives to others.

Liberty requires that people be who and what they are no matter how many of us might disagree with their choices about that.
 
Back
Top Bottom