Stone holm Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Not at all. Hobby Lobby convinced the SCOTUS that the busybodies in the D Caucus in House and the Senate [who, by the narrowest margin and, to some [should be all], most despicable of tricks was able to push through ACA over the objection of most of the populace] had wrested the liberty and free exercise rights of individuals and closely held businesses not to be party to the savage murder of genetically unique human organisms, and those liberty and free exercise rights should be restored.If we are going to use the term "busybody" wouldn't that terms usage be more appropriate to an employer getting involved in an employees family planning decisions?
USU78 Posted July 1, 2014 Author Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) If we are going to use the term "busybody" wouldn't that terms usage be more appropriate to an employer getting involved in an employees family planning decisions? You want me to pay for your sixpack and smokes, you involve me in your extracurriculars. Edited July 1, 2014 by USU78 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) If we are going to use the term "busybody" wouldn't that terms usage be more appropriate to an employer getting involved in an employees family planning decisions?Heh! "Just shut up, pay for my birth control and stay out of my family planning decisions." Reminds me of a humorous book title I saw several years ago: "Get Out of My Life! But First, Can You Drive Me and Cheryl to the Mall?" A Parents Guide to the New Teenager. Edited July 1, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 3
Walden Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Why laughable? Is it the distinction being made between the closely-held corporation and the public corporation? Is it the exception based upon liberty and free exercise clauses from the employer mandate in ACA? Or do you just not like those of a conservative, noninterventionist bent? My disdain for those of a "conservative, noninterventionist bent" aside , I find the decision laughable for a few reasons. As stated in Ginsburg's defense, this opinion essentially means that "the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs." Does this mean that I am to ask a potential employer's religious affiliation and/or beliefs at my next job interview, so that I can determine which laws and/or privilegdes will apply to me at this job, as opposed to my previous job? If I go to work for a company that is owned by a Muslim family (as I once did), am I bound by Sharia law? Why then would I be bound by Christian beliefs if i work for a Christian? Likewise, as Ginsburg again pointed out, "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." When it comes to the availability of birth control, why is the Mennonite view of the use of birth control (the Mennonite family that owns Conestoga Wood Specialties believe that certain kinds of birth control are akin to abortion) given precedence over my non-believing views on the availability of birth control? This same company cannot legally discriminate against my religous beliefs in their hiring practices, yet they can discriminate against my relgious or non-religious beliefs after they hire me....and this is protected by the Supreme Court? The LDS faith believes that consumption of alcohol is morally wrong....does this mean that insurance plans offered by LDS-owned businesses will now preclude alcoholism treament options from insurance coverages that they provide to employees?.
Calm Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) Your religious practices do not directly impact them untill they are required to pay for them. Edited July 1, 2014 by calmoriah 1
USU78 Posted July 1, 2014 Author Posted July 1, 2014 My disdain for those of a "conservative, noninterventionist bent" aside , I find the decision laughable for a few reasons. As stated in Ginsburg's defense, this opinion essentially means that "the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs." Does this mean that I am to ask a potential employer's religious affiliation and/or beliefs at my next job interview, so that I can determine which laws and/or privilegdes will apply to me at this job, as opposed to my previous job? If I go to work for a company that is owned by a Muslim family (as I once did), am I bound by Sharia law? Why then would I be bound by Christian beliefs if i work for a Christian? Likewise, as Ginsburg again pointed out, "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." When it comes to the availability of birth control, why is the Mennonite view of the use of birth control (the Mennonite family that owns Conestoga Wood Specialties believe that certain kinds of birth control are akin to abortion) given precedence over my non-believing views on the availability of birth control? This same company cannot legally discriminate against my religous beliefs in their hiring practices, yet they can discriminate against my relgious or non-religious beliefs after they hire me....and this is protected by the Supreme Court? The LDS faith believes that consumption of alcohol is morally wrong....does this mean that insurance plans offered by LDS-owned businesses will now preclude alcoholism treament options from insurance coverages that they provide to employees?. Yes, she hand-wrings and whines and proves yet again she is a mindless kneejerking antireligionist Socialist.
mormonnewb Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) DELETED Edited July 2, 2014 by mormonnewb
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 CFR that the cost of the abortifacients that Hobby Lobby does not offer as part of their plan, "costs hundreds, if not thousands of dollars." You have still failed to show how denying abortifacients is imposing their religion upon the employees. The Pill is not an abortifacient. It prevents ovulation. The USSC made no ruling on effectiveness of The Pill or means of contraception of any birth control method. What do not understand in the fact that medical benefits are just part of a total compensation plan? Before I retired my medical plan cost a little over $1000 a month, it is part of my wage contract I signed when I went to work. The Green's whom own HL now have the right to say which birth control method their employees medical benefit will pay for. The USSC also left in place lower court rulings that allow other corporations to deny medical benefits to their employees because of religious reasons.SEE http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014837367
Calm Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) It does not prevent ovulation in all cases, especially with lower estrogen doses. In the case of the rare ovulation, it also decreases the chance of fertilization. In the rarer case of fertilization, it decreases the likelihood of implantation which then also rarely aborts the fertilized egg. Sometimes it won't even do that.Given the huge number of women using the pill and the amount of months in their lifetimes that they are on it, even with a very low probability for each person, it results in a significant number of aborted embryos. But then the body's own natural process aborts huge numbers of embryos so that in itself does not make the Pill a bad thing, imo. For those who see it as stepping between God, I don't think it is right to pretend it doesn't happen just because the probability is low.You keep saying it prevents ovulation and ignoring the info I put up. Edited July 2, 2014 by calmoriah
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 It does not prevent ovulation in all cases, especially with lower estrogen doses. In the case of the rare ovulation, it also decreases the chance of fertilization. In the rarer case of fertilization, it decreases the likelihood of implantation which then also rarely aborts the fertilized egg. Sometimes it won't even do that.Given the huge number of women using the pill and the amount of months in their lifetimes that they are on it, even with a very low probability for each person, it results in a significant number of aborted embryos.But then the body's own natural process aborts huge numbers of embryos so that in itself does not make the Pill a bad thing, imo. For those who see it as stepping between God, I don't think it is right to pretend it doesn't happen just because the probability is low.You keep saying it prevents ovulation and ignoring the info I put up. I never said it did. No medication is 100% effective in 100% of people. You're swallowing the camel while gagging on the gnat. I guess God is the primary abortionist. I'm not ignoring it. I've confirmed it. Using the exact same site you linked to.
Calm Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) You keep saying "The Pill is not an abortifacient" but just because that is not its primary function, if it still operates at times to cause an abortion, it can be labeled "abortifacient" in its action, especially given it is prescribed with the understanding that at times it interferes with pregnancies through triggering an abortion when it has failed to prevent ovulation and fertilization. Edited July 2, 2014 by calmoriah
ELF1024 Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) The Pill is not an abortifacient. It prevents ovulation. The USSC made no ruling on effectiveness of The Pill or means of contraception of any birth control method. If you are referring to "The Pill" as the normal taken daily birth control pill... then I agree with you. If you are referring to RU486, aka Mifepristone, then I totally disagree as it is labeled as an abortifacient. To be clear, once again for the cheap seats who seem to have issues with reading comprehension. Hobby Lobby offers up over a dozen varieties of Birth Control options. However, they chose not to include drugs classified as " abortifacient". Their employees are still free to purchase and use said drugs, but it will not be paid for by Hobby Lobby. Frankly, I do believe that you are making a mountain out of an molehill; and purposefully missing the point. You can keep parroting Rachel MadCow... but it isn't going to change the truth. Edited July 2, 2014 by ELF1024 1
mnn727 Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 If you want the corporation out of your bedroom, then don't make them pay for the results of your bedroom antics. 4
Stone holm Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Heh! "Just shut up, pay for my birth control and stay out of my family planning decisions." Reminds me of a humorous book title I saw several years ago: "Get Out of My Life! But First, Can You Drive Me and Cheryl to the Mall?" A Parents Guide to the New Teenager.My personal preference would have been to cut the linkage between healthcare and employment, and to have gone with a single payer system which would have eliminated this nonsense, but no Washington had to go with the Rimneycare model in order to not put the health insurers out of business. 3
guerreiro9 Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 My personal preference would have been to cut the linkage between healthcare and employment, and to have gone with a single payer system which would have eliminated this nonsense, but no Washington had to go with the Rimneycare model in order to not put the health insurers out of business.There are much better solutions than what the ACA mandates and what single payer would provide, but effective solutions require a functioning legislative body which we currently don't have and won't for the foreseeable future.-guerreiro9
MorningStar Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 My personal preference would have been to cut the linkage between healthcare and employment, and to have gone with a single payer system which would have eliminated this nonsense, but no Washington had to go with the Rimneycare model in order to not put the health insurers out of business.So we can have VA/military quality health care? 1
BCSpace Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 True, but the issue is is it religious freedom to force others to not buy a legal product with their own money? Yes I am by forcing others to pay for my care when I become sick or injured.
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 You want me to pay for your sixpack and smokes, you involve me in your extracurriculars. False Equivalency. Plus the only six pack I drink is root beer. Spread out over a week or two. I don't smoke. But YES I do expect you to pay taxes to fund hospitals in chance that both of us will at some time in our lives need a doctor. Are you by chance the Senator from Utah Mike Lee that yesterday compared women having sex and wanting contraceptives to sluts?
BCSpace Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) Are you by chance the Senator from Utah Mike Lee that yesterday compared women having sex and wanting contraceptives to sluts? Do you support this statement: “Childbearing [should be) a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. . . . All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”David Brower, Founder: Sierra Club, Trashing the Planet, by Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo, 1990, page 169 Or this one: “The Family is a concept derived from faulty theoretical premises and an imperialistic logic, which even at its height never served the best interests of women, their children, or even many men. . . . The Family is dead. Long live our families!”Judith Stacey, Professor of Sociology, New York University ??? Edited July 2, 2014 by BCSpace
Scott Lloyd Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) Give Me Your SandwichThat's a great video. I hope bcuzbcuz watches it. It was he who was sermonizing about the U.S. being "the richest nation" and therefore we ought to "be our brother's keeper" and confusing government coercion with voluntarily contributing to the health care of citizens. To wit:I lived 5 of my adult years in the US, and 43 of my adult years in two other countries that have universal medical coverage. So there are probably a miriad of situations in the US that I don't understand, but I just don't get the idea that we aren't our brother's keeper. Shouldn't we willingly contribute for equal medical treatment for all citizens? You see, bcuzbcuz, there is nothing particularly noble, praiseworthy or Christlike about giving to the poor when you're forced to do it. Or about forcing others to do it or being generous with other people's money. Edited July 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Do you support this statement: “Childbearing [should be) a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. . . . All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”David Brower, Founder: Sierra Club, Trashing the Planet, by Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo, 1990, page 169 Nope. What I have consistently said the parenthood is a joy, honor, and deep responsibility. That having children involves sacrifices, and having both eyes open when contemplating having that first child as well as any subsequent ones. Can I enforce that? No and equally no if I could.
BCSpace Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 That's a great video.I hope bcuzbcuz watches it. It was he who was sermonizing about the U.S. being the richest nation and therefore we ought to "be our brother's keeper" and confusing government coercion with voluntarily contributing to the health care of citizens. What I find to be so great about it is that this guy, who is not LDS, has encapsulated what was at stake in the war in heaven. If we lose our agency we lose our ability to progress.
BCSpace Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Nope. Curious as these people represent organizations and movements you have supported in the past.
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 That's a great video.I hope bcuzbcuz watches it. It was he who was sermonizing about the U.S. being "the richest nation" and therefore we ought to "be our brother's keeper" and confusing government coercion with voluntarily contributing to the health care of citizens.To wit:You see, bcuzbcuz, there is nothing particularly noble, praiseworthy or Christlike about giving to the poor when your forced to do it. Or about forcing others to do it or being generous with other people's money. Absolute self serving sophistry. Read the Divinely Inspired US Constitution. Congress has all the powers it needs to lay and collect taxes for what ever purpose they deem necessary.
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Curious as these people represent organizations and movements you have supported in the past. A good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from. As well as a bad idea is a bad idea no matter where it comes from. Moreover I'm not beholden to any organization or movement in everything they and/or their representatives say. The only person I ever always agree with is myself and I'm entitled to change my mind.
Recommended Posts