If Hobby Lobby wins...

[boedicca]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?

False dilemma, bub.

Hobby Lobby is not telling its employees they can't use contraceptives. They just don't want pay for them. It's the government that is using force.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You've never read the Heritage proposal. You've only read mindless hate points from ThinkProgress, then you come here and misrepresent ideas you never read from biased bullshit off of a hate site.

You're not really expecting to have credibility, are you?

Thats not a rebuttal

Yeah, it actually is;

{We would include a mandate in our proposal–not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households–to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families. That would have to include, by federal law, a catastrophic provision in the form of a stop loss for a family’s total health outlays. It would have to include all members of the family, and it might also include certain very specific services, such as preventive care, well baby visits, and other items.}

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate - Forbes

You are talking shit, based on hate points from one of the whackjob sites you frequent - and have NO IDEA what the actual proposal was.

If you click your heels it will become true. Now which part did I get wrong again or do you want to cry more about...whatever the **** you're crying about. You need a goddam hug

 

[Spiderman]

Example:

I'm an employer
Supporting abortion in any way is contrary to my religion.
The law forces me to pay my money which I labored for to pay for abortion contrary to my religious beliefs.
Being forced to pay for arbotion takes away my ability to freely oppose supporting abortion.

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE HERE.

I've given you the perfect rationalization for that. Religious people rationalize all the time and cherry pick the sins they wish to take a stand on.

The employee premium contributions more than cover the "sinful" coverage so the employer is not funding them the employee is.

If an employer has no issue with paying a gay adulterer money that supports his life style why would that employer have a problem letting the employee's premium contribution pay for the sinful coverage?

Youre wrong. People dont have to work for a company, dont like it leave. Why do YOU want to impose your lifestyle on others......there is a phrase called, its none of your business.....think about it

It's not an imposition because no one is forcing people to use the miniscule part of the insurance policy that covers "sin"

 

[Spiderman]

They are not paying for abortion.

They have refused, which has you totalitarians up in arms.

They are paying for insurance.

False, they are mandated to pay for maintenance plans. It has nothing to do with insurance.

Because it is a health maintenance plan, the payer has every right to decide what they will or will not have included.

The employee is also paying for that insurance.

Irrelevant.

Therefore the employee is funding the extremely small portion of the policy that provides coverage for abortion.

Your desperation has left your spewing absurdity.

You know you have no basis for your demands that HL be forced to provide abortions. Your war on civil liberty is failing.

You fail to understand that I am not for obama care at all. I see no validity in the "sin" argument because it doesn't hold up.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hows it feel Spiderman to keep trying to make your point and the idiot RW'ers keep trying to put you into the "liberal box" because they cant argue your positions?

 

[dblack]

Hows it feel Spiderman to keep trying to make your point and the idiot RW'ers keep trying to put you into the "liberal box" because they cant argue your positions?

Libertarians are used to that.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You fail to understand that I am not for obama care at all. I see no validity in the "sin" argument because it doesn't hold up.

you mean there is no morality to be found in business....?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You fail to understand that I am not for obama care at all. I see no validity in the "sin" argument because it doesn't hold up.

There is no "sin" argument - it is a straw man created by you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hows it feel Spiderman to keep trying to make your point and the idiot RW'ers keep trying to put you into the "liberal box" because they cant argue your positions?

Your position is simply, you want to used the implied violent force of the state to force Hobby Lobby to fund abortion against their will. You have no legal standing to do this, but demand that they comply anyway.

They have refused. You are left with no way to force the issue.

 

[TooTall]

Maybe this is another case where we hear dont care about science based on the scientist

You didn't give a link to your 'scientific' explanation, but it appears to be just some opinions of a couple of Doctors. Here is your correction because you are wrong.

Read this:

Medical Abortions, also known as RU486 or "the abortion pill", are safe and effective methods of non-surgical abortions for women less than 9 weeks pregnant. Medical abortions are completed through taking two sets of pills, which result in a miscarriage-like abortion.

How it works
RU486 abortions are completed through combining two medications, Mifeprex and Misoprostol. The first pill, Mifeprex, is taken in the medical office, and blocks the action of progesterone, a hormone needed to continue the pregnancy. 12-48 hours after taking Mifeprex, a woman will take the second set of tablets, Misoprostol, at home. Misoprostol works to gently soften and open the cervix, so that the discontinued pregnancy can pass through.

Effectiveness
Medical abortions are 95-98% effective in completely terminating a pregnancy. Rates of effectiveness can depend on the treatment regimen and length of pregnancy. Though most medical abortions are successful, incomplete abortions are safely completed with additional medication or a surgical D&C procedure.

Benefits to choosing medical abortion
Most women who choose medical over surgical abortions do so to avoid having surgery. These women often express that a medical abortion seems less invasive, that they feel more in control, and that they prefer to have their abortion experience at home. Many women also state that the medical abortion process seems to be more "natural" because it produces a miscarriage-like experience.

Abortion Clinic : Medical Abortion / RU486

Why are you talking about the abortion pill everyone agrees is an abortion pill and not the plan B pill which is the topic of debate?

Of course it says something different we are talking about 2 different pills

I stand corrected. After reading the media matters article and the objections of Hobby Lobby, they may well lose in the SC. If they decide to quit paying for all of their employees health insurance and pay the fine, my guess is their employees lose as well.

 

[candycorn]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?

Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?

Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

All of that is true too but more to the point of the religious leanings; what if you get divorced and the owner decides that it is anti-Christian to get divorced? If you exercise your right to terminate a pregnancy...is that grounds for dismissal? If you have side-effects from the procedure, can they argue they shouldn't have to pay your medical bills through insurance or sick time?

It's why they'll lose. No way the three female justices opens this door in my view.

Except this case isnt about an employer forcing an employee to do something. It's about the government forcing an employer to do something.

Which is something that has been going on for 100+ years.

The fact that your employer doesn't pay for your contraceptive does not at all impede your ability to get contraceptive. The fact that an employer doesn't pay for your abortion doesn't stop you from obtaining an abortion.

And it could be argued that if an employer doesn't pay for your diabetes medication, that doesn't impede your ability to get it, right?

You really think employers go around asking their employees whether they use contraception or not? do you really think they care? Do you really think they could prevent anyone if they could? How do you think they are going to prove an employee is using contraception?

As for the former, it could happen tomorrow. As for the latter, any number of ways. Thanks, in part, to the GOP there are more right to work states than ever so the employee can be fired at any time for no reason at all. Can you not see that if a father and daughter work for the same company and pop realizes that his little girl is on the pill one day, he'll "teach her a lesson" by simply reporting it to an employer sympathetic to his point of view? Oh, sorry, that doesn't fit into your Leave it to Beaver view of the world .

It happens.

This is why you guys will lose. You can't even be honest with yourselves about what the issues are. You have to pretend it's some other issue. You win an argument when you don't understand it to begin with.

Not sure about winning or losing. I can't see the 3 female justices thinking it's fine to persecute female employees for having sex which is what this is all about anyway; old white men being in total control of things.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Libertarians are used to that.

Yes we are.

We have a situation where the left seeks to impose totalitarian edicts, and are outraged that someone would resist their totalitarian demands.

Hey, they only want to crush every last breath of liberty out of the nation...

 

[koshergrl]

Persecuting them for having sex?

By refusing to purchase birth control and abortion pills for them?

That's idiotic. Persecution would consist of throwing them in jail for daring to voice their opinions on why they don't want to be responsible for providing those things for OTHER people. Not for just refusing to provide.

Persecution is an ACTION. It's not a refusal to pay for something that the people can get anyway.

"
Definition of PERSECUTION

1
: the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook

2
: the condition of being persecuted, harassed, or annoyed"

So the people being harassed and persecuted are actually the businesses and owners who are being persecuted, harassed and annoyed because they refuse to fund abortion and birth control that violates their religious beliefs.

So I guess there is persecution.

But it isn't of the women who are perfectly free to pick up birth control and abortion pills at the corner pharmacy or health clinic.

It's against the business owners who refuse to be held hostage by people who are trying to force them to deny their faith, and act against their beliefs.

Persecution - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[koshergrl]

All of that is true too but more to the point of the religious leanings; what if you get divorced and the owner decides that it is anti-Christian to get divorced? If you exercise your right to terminate a pregnancy...is that grounds for dismissal? If you have side-effects from the procedure, can they argue they shouldn't have to pay your medical bills through insurance or sick time?

It's why they'll lose. No way the three female justices opens this door in my view.

Except this case isnt about an employer forcing an employee to do something. It's about the government forcing an employer to do something.

Which is something that has been going on for 100+ years.


And it could be argued that if an employer doesn't pay for your diabetes medication, that doesn't impede your ability to get it, right?

You really think employers go around asking their employees whether they use contraception or not? do you really think they care? Do you really think they could prevent anyone if they could? How do you think they are going to prove an employee is using contraception?

As for the former, it could happen tomorrow. As for the latter, any number of ways. Thanks, in part, to the GOP there are more right to work states than ever so the employee can be fired at any time for no reason at all. Can you not see that if a father and daughter work for the same company and pop realizes that his little girl is on the pill one day, he'll "teach her a lesson" by simply reporting it to an employer sympathetic to his point of view? Oh, sorry, that doesn't fit into your Leave it to Beaver view of the world .

It happens.

This is why you guys will lose. You can't even be honest with yourselves about what the issues are. You have to pretend it's some other issue. You win an argument when you don't understand it to begin with.

Not sure about winning or losing. I can't see the 3 female justices thinking it's fine to persecute female employees for having sex which is what this is all about anyway; old white men being in total control of things.

Lol...

Buy me a ******* mars bars. I want it NOW.

If you don't, then you're persecuting me and I'm going to report your flagrant disregard for my right to get as fat as I want!

 

[dblack]

Libertarians are used to that.

Yes we are.

We have a situation where the left seeks to impose totalitarian edicts, and are outraged that someone would resist their totalitarian demands.

Hey, they only want to crush every last breath of liberty out of the nation...

Exactly. What I find so appalling about this is that it ever got to the point of being argued as a freedom of religion issue in the first place. Because in stark reality, it's a far more fundamental freedom that we should be able to take for granted - the liberty to act on matters of conscience free from arbitrary state mandates. ie we shouldn't have to follow the orders of the government merely for the convenience of others. The fact that we think that's ok at all, regardless of whether it conflicts with religious values, tends to make me think of freedom as a lost cause in the U.S.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Persecuting them for having sex?

By refusing to purchase birth control and abortion pills for them?

That's idiotic. Persecution would consist of throwing them in jail for daring to voice their opinions on why they don't want to be responsible for providing those things for OTHER people. Not for just refusing to provide.

If these liberals were restricted to telling only the truth about these issues, they'd have nothing to say at all.

That would be terrible, wouldn't it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?

Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?

Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

They don't want to be forced to provide birth control.

But to ******* morons that go off the ******* deep end, the tyranny comes from the employer.

leftist are just that ******* dumb

all of you, not one leftist would support any freedom if their leaders told them not to.

CC

You are a complete and utter tool, free of any actual thoughts of your own.

 

[Google]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?

Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?

Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

Yeah and if Chick-fil-A can close on Sundays, WHAT stops them from forcing their employees to convert to Baptists?

You are the deep, intellectual type huh?

 

[boedicca]

Libertarians are used to that.

Yes we are.

We have a situation where the left seeks to impose totalitarian edicts, and are outraged that someone would resist their totalitarian demands.

Hey, they only want to crush every last breath of liberty out of the nation...

Exactly. What I find so appalling about this is that it ever got to the point of being argued as a freedom of religion issue in the first place. Because in stark reality, it's a far more fundamental freedom that we should be able to take for granted - the liberty to act on matters of conscience free from arbitrary state mandates. ie we shouldn't have to follow the orders of the government merely for the convenience of others. The fact that we think that's ok at all, regardless of whether it conflicts with religious values, tends to make me think of freedom as a lost cause in the U.S.

The only freedom the moonbats care about is their freedom to be hypocrites.

 

[bucs90]

Lefties just can't stand the thought of someone having the FREEDOM to exercise CHOICE. Ironic huh?

Oh....

You mean like a private citizen seeing a private doctor for an abortion?
Or like a private citizen seeing a private farmer to buy some weed that grew out of the ground...next to his tobacco crop?
Or like a private couple who see a religious priest who agrees to marry them under their God, even if they are both men/women (gay)?

For lovers of CHOICE, you right wingers sure use the government to limit the choices of things you don't agree with.