• 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!

Corporations Aren't People

buck said:
You said:




You said:
Click to expand...
BAM called it, you dodged it again

correct i said ALL of that and its nothign like the lie you stated :shrug:
notice how BC isnt referred to at all and in my very quote i mention your failed straw man and lie

thank you fro proving it again


Ill ask AGAIN and i bet anythign you DODGE it again because you know the answer defeats HLs failed stance.

if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
 
AGENT J said:
correct i said ALL of that and its nothign like the lie you stated :shrug:
notice how BC isnt referred to at all and in my very quote i mention your failed straw man and lie
Click to expand...

It's not? Hmm.. Then what coverage is being changed due to the personal religion of the employer if not related to the decision to cover BC in the below sentence?

but changing coverage based on personal religion is subjecting me to YOUR RELIGIONS and ignoring my own which is a violation, BAM you nailed it
Click to expand...

The employer's religion isn't violated by being forced to offer what in the below sentence?
Thier religion isnt violated and they can not use it to infringe on liberties of others
Click to expand...
 
buck said:
1.)It's not? Hmm.. Then what coverage is being changed due to the personal religion of the employer if not BC in the below sentence?
2.) The employer's religion isn't violated by being forced to offer what in the below sentence?
Click to expand...

1.) correct its factually not, religion is the issue not BC, thank you for again proving yourself wrong
2.) offer doesn't matter how the decision is made does, BAM! you are finally getting it, again you just highlighted the facts that prove your strawman wrong


Ill ask AGAIN and i bet anythign you DODGE it again because you know the answer defeats HLs failed stance.

if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
 
AGENT J said:
]Thier religion isnt violated and they can not use it to infringe on liberties of others
Click to expand...

How are they infringing on the liberties of others in this case if not by declining to offer BC?

Then, I have to ask, if their religion isn't being violated, why did Obama carve out a religious exemption? If he's carving out a religious exemption when religious issues don't even exist.. Well, hopefully you see the legal issue with that.

Can you find one single court case, where the decision to not offer medically unnecessary treatment as part of an insurance plan due to religious beliefs of the employer (such as not offering BC for treatments not medically necessary), was part of a successful court challenge. Even in the specific issue we are talking about, not a single court has made that determination - even those that have sided with the government. It seems to only be in your head.
 
buck said:
1.)How are they infringing on the liberties of others in this case if not by declining to offer BC?

2.) Then, I have to ask, if their religion isn't being violated, why did Obama carve out a religious exemption? If he's carving out a religious exemption when religious issues don't even exist.. Well, hopefully you see the legal issue with that.

3.) Can you find one single court case, where the decision to not offer medically unnecessary treatment as part of an insurance plan due to religious beliefs of the employer (such as not offering BC for treatments not medically necessary), was part of a successful court challenge. Even in the specific issue we are talking about, not a single court has made that determination - even those that have sided with the government. It seems to only be in your head.
Click to expand...

lol watchign you move the goal posts and refram and trying to put words in my posts that factually arent there is hilarious

1.) already explained this every time you asked me, a decision based on religion that has nothing to do with BC, you fail again

2.) churches and religious institution that deal directly with worship have different rules this is common sense 101

its the same reason why a church doesnt have to marry anyone it doesnt want to including straight couples and biracial couples etc

3.) since this isnt my argument i dont have too, but keep trying to refram and failing its the best part

since all your lies and reframes and straw men have been destoryed all you will get now is the question you keep dodging, you dont answer it because you know the answer DESTROYS HL.

Here it again lets see if you answer:

if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
 
AGENT J said:
lol watchign you move the goal posts and refram and trying to put words in my posts that factually arent there is hilarious
Click to expand...

I'm not. The only thing that is occurring here, is you are trying to change what you previously wrote. Now, let's get back to actually nailing your positions down so there is no confusion on your claims.

1.) already explained this every time you asked me, a decision based on religion that has nothing to do with BC, you fail again
Click to expand...

So, the decision by HL to not offer BC due to their religious beliefs has nothing to with BC. That's an interesting turn. Care to expound?

2.) churches and religious institution that deal directly with worship have different rules this is common sense 101
Click to expand...

Why are they allowed different rules regarding the offering of BC if, as you claim, there is no religious conflict?

3.) since this isnt my argument i dont have too, but keep trying to refram and failing its the best part
Click to expand...

Your argument sure seems to be that HL failing to offer BC due to their religious beliefs is an infringement on the rights of the employees? Please expand, because from what I can tell, that is your exact argument.
 
buck said:
I'm not. The only thing that is occurring here, is you are trying to change what you previously wrote. Now, let's get back to actually nailing your positions down so there is no confusion on your claims.



So, the decision by HL to not offer BC due to their religious beliefs has nothing to with BC. That's an interesting turn. Care to expound?



Why are they allowed different rules regarding the offering of BC if, as you claim, there is no religious conflict?



Your argument sure seems to be that HL failing to offer BC due to their religious beliefs is an infringement on the rights of the employees? Please expand, because from what I can tell, that is your exact argument.
Click to expand...

Here it again lets see if you answer:

if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
 
AGENT J said:
Here it again lets see if you answer:

if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
Click to expand...

I've answered all of your questions. Some multiple times. Now it's your turn. Why not answer the questions I posed.. Is it because you realize you were full of it the entire time? Allow me to repost them for your convenience.

1.) already explained this every time you asked me, a decision based on religion that has nothing to do with BC, you fail again
Click to expand...

So, the decision by HL to not offer BC due to their religious beliefs has nothing to with BC. That's an interesting turn. Care to expound?

2.) churches and religious institution that deal directly with worship have different rules this is common sense 101
Click to expand...
Why are they allowed different rules regarding the offering of BC if, as you claim, there is no religious conflict?

3.) since this isnt my argument i dont have too, but keep trying to refram and failing its the best part
Click to expand...

Your argument sure seems to be that HL failing to offer BC due to their religious beliefs is an infringement on the rights of the employees? Please expand, because from what I can tell, that is your exact argument.
 
buck said:
I've answered all of your questions. Some multiple times. Now it's your turn. Why not answer the questions I posed.. Is it because you realize you were full of it the entire time? Allow me to repost them for your convenience.



So, the decision by HL to not offer BC due to their religious beliefs has nothing to with BC. That's an interesting turn. Care to expound?


Why are they allowed different rules regarding the offering of BC if, as you claim, there is no religious conflict?



Your argument sure seems to be that HL failing to offer BC due to their religious beliefs is an infringement on the rights of the employees? Please expand, because from what I can tell, that is your exact argument.
Click to expand...

Here it again lets see if you answer:

if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
 
AGENT J said:
Here it again lets see if you answer:

if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
Click to expand...

I have already answered your question multiple times. You can't answer mine because you know what it will mean for your claims.
 
buck said:
I have already answered your question multiple times. You can't answer mine because you know what it will mean for your claims.
Click to expand...

nope not one time have you ever answered, posting otherwise is a boldface lie

Here it again lets see if you answer:

if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
 
AGENT J said:
simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
Click to expand...

I've answered in more detail previously, but the short of it is that it doesn't matter. They can pick any reason in the universe for why they don't want to cover non-necessary medical treatments - such as BC (when not medically necessary), circumcision (when not medically necessary), etc. There is not a single reason that would prevent them from being able to reject such coverage for the plans they offer (prior to Obamacare, anyway).

If you feel there is, please expand. While you are at it, show some court decisions to back up your position. Preferably from the most recent cases regarding BC and employer's that have a religious objection.

Your turn:

1.) already explained this every time you asked me, a decision based on religion that has nothing to do with BC, you fail again
Click to expand...
So, the decision by HL to not offer BC due to their religious beliefs has nothing to with BC. That's an interesting turn. Care to expound?

2.) churches and religious institution that deal directly with worship have different rules this is common sense 101
Click to expand...
Why are they allowed different rules regarding the offering of BC if, as you claim, there is no religious conflict?

3.) since this isnt my argument i dont have too, but keep trying to refram and failing its the best part
Click to expand...
Your argument sure seems to be that HL failing to offer BC due to their religious beliefs is an infringement on the rights of the employees? Please expand, because from what I can tell, that is your exact argument.
 
buck said:
I've answered in more detail previously, but the short of it is that it doesn't matter. They can pick any reason in the universe for why they don't want to cover non-necessary medical treatments - such as BC (when not medically necessary), circumcision (when not medically necessary), etc. There is not a single reason that would prevent them from being able to reject such coverage for the plans they offer (prior to Obamacare, anyway).

If you feel there is, please expand. While you are at it, show some court decisions to back up your position. Preferably from the most recent cases regarding BC and employer's that have a religious objection.

Your turn:


So, the decision by HL to not offer BC due to their religious beliefs has nothing to with BC. That's an interesting turn. Care to expound?


Why are they allowed different rules regarding the offering of BC if, as you claim, there is no religious conflict?


Your argument sure seems to be that HL failing to offer BC due to their religious beliefs is an infringement on the rights of the employees? Please expand, because from what I can tell, that is your exact argument.
Click to expand...

nope not one time have you ever answered, posting otherwise is a boldface lie

Here it again lets see if you answer:

if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
 
AGENT J said:
nope not one time have you ever answered, posting otherwise is a boldface lie

Here it again lets see if you answer:

if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
Click to expand...

Funny. You claiming I am the liar, while you have already been caught in multiple lies, which is the exact reason you won't answer the questions I posed. I'll wait for you to finally answer the 3 questions above. If you answer, I'll be back.
 
buck said:
Funny. You claiming I am the liar, while you have already been caught in multiple lies, which is the exact reason you won't answer the questions I posed. I'll wait for you to finally answer the 3 questions above. If you answer, I'll be back.
Click to expand...

facts defeat your post again

Here it again lets see if you answer:

if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"

simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
 
buck said:
Will insurance be more expensive if it covers BC? Of course. The pills are free for the employee, so they are not purchasing it. The cost comes in increased premium, of which the employer is providing a (big) portion.

The difference between BC and other medical procedures, is that BC is a choice and not, in most cases, medically necessary to correct abnormal conditions. In the cases where BC is needed for medical treatment (fibroids, etc) insurance companies are, and always have been, required to cover. To force an employer to purchase the BC for employees when it is not medically necessary is the issue. Employer's have many choices as to what is included in medical coverage (at least related to non-medically necessary treatments) of their employees for whatever reason they want. so... *Shrug*
Click to expand...

I guess the bottom line is what really concerns Persons who claim morals.
 
buck said:
Funny. You claiming I am the liar, while you have already been caught in multiple lies, which is the exact reason you won't answer the questions I posed. I'll wait for you to finally answer the 3 questions above. If you answer, I'll be back.
Click to expand...

Welcome to Agent J Debate Tactics. When you have no argument to make, call the other person a liar.
 
AGENT J said:
facts defeat your post again

Here it again lets see if you answer:

if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"
Click to expand...
Cost

Simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
Click to expand...
Cost .... or his personal preferences. :wink:
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
I guess the bottom line is what really concerns Persons who claim morals.
Click to expand...

Or even what is moral. Is it really moral to provide free abortifacients for non-medically necessary reasons? Is it moral to force people that morally disagree with abortifacient to provide them to others? I guess we have different answers to those questions.
 
Objective Voice said:
Cost


Cost .... or his personal preferences. :wink:
Click to expand...

LOL

exactly "personal preference" something made up

an honest answer wont be given and everybody knows why because an honest answer destroys HL so the question has been dodged for pages and its halarious
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Welcome to Agent J Debate Tactics. When you have no argument to make, call the other person a liar.
Click to expand...

never called him a liar just said he posted a lie then i factually proved it

if you disagree simply prove me wrong, should be very easy, no? thats what i thought
 
buck said:
Will insurance be more expensive if it covers BC? Of course. The pills are free for the employee, so they are not purchasing it. The cost comes in increased premium, of which the employer is providing a (big) portion.



The difference between BC and other medical procedures, is that BC is a choice and not, in most cases, medically necessary to correct abnormal conditions. In the cases where BC is needed for medical treatment (fibroids, etc) insurance companies are, and always have been, required to cover. To force an employer to purchase the BC for employees when it is not medically necessary is the issue. Employer's have many choices as to what is included in medical coverage (at least related to non-medically necessary treatments) of their employees for whatever reason they want. so... *Shrug*
Click to expand...

Babies are more expensive, so I'm not convinced this actually increases costs.
 
Deuce said:
Babies are more expensive, so I'm not convinced this actually increases costs.
Click to expand...

Since I do not work on that side of the business, I can only tell you what insurance companies that responded to a survey indicated. This will result in more pharmaceutical costs then it will save in other costs.
 
AGENT J said:
never called him a liar just said he posted a lie then i factually proved it

if you disagree simply prove me wrong, should be very easy, no? thats what i thought
Click to expand...

If I am posting a lie, that would make me a liar. My God man... Are you even trying?

But, I did not post a lie. Which is why you won't answer the questions I posed.
 
AGENT J said:
LOL

exactly "personal preference" something made up

an honest answer wont be given and everybody knows why because an honest answer destroys HL so the question has been dodged for pages and its halarious
Click to expand...

I did answer your question. Multiple times. I'll do it again... It does not matter the reason. It can be religious, cost or just because the employer had a dream where a talking dog told him not too.

None of those reasons are infringing on anyone else's rights and none of those reasons open the company to a legitimate law suit.

BTW, as I just posted that I did already answer your question (and have posted this response more then once), you are again accusing me of posting a lie - or in other words being a liar. OR did you forget the following:

Agent J said: nope not one time have you ever answered, posting otherwise is a boldface lie
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom