SB1062, Hobby Lobs...Religious Exemptions Q: Do Corporations have Religious Beliefs?

[Plasmaball]

Never before have for-profit corporations been afforded religious exemptions.

NEVER.

Is this ever a can of worms

Can you imagine the precedent it sets?

It certainly does.

Imagine the Supreme Court ruling that the New York Times, as a for profit corporation, is not able to declare that it has freedom of speech and the press. The resulting upheaval would probably destroy the country.

Neat...this wont destroy the nation

 

[Mustang]

I have a question:

Has HL posted a sign in front of their stores saying that if you (the person approaching the entrance) are having sex outside of wedlock and/or if you're using birth control, they just plain and simple don't want your business because, you see, they have values. Actually, they're MORE than just values. They're principles. No, they're more than that too. They're religious convictions. So, just take your business elsewhere!

I have a question.

What makes you think your question is in any way applicable to the discussion?

Because it calls into serious questions their supposed so-called values. Said plainly, I seriously doubt that HL has any problem at all when it comes to TAKING money from the very kind of people who they would deny providing benefits to. So, I say if they want to prove they walk the talk, put up a sign like the one I suggested. As for me, I think their religious conviction argument is nonsense because they're not even a religious institution. They're a business. And AS a business, they'll likely take money from anyone, period. If HL was a church, or a fraternal organization of some kind, it would be different. But it's a profit-driven enterprise which provides goods and services to the general public. They're just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First of all. It is the ACA (Obamacare) that provides the mandate to cover birth control

Actually, it doesn't. That mandate came from HHS, not Congress. One is a law, the other is a regulation. If you don't understand the difference, I suggest you go back to school and study civics.

The government has a compelling interest to ensure that low cost birth control is available to its citizens. Unwanted and unplanned children are a burden on society

That is only part of what the government has to prove, they also have to porve that the mandate is the least intrusive way to supply birth control. Unless you adress that issue, you aren't actually addressing the issues.

How does Hobby Lobby demonstrate its compelling interest in denying birth control coverage to employees when it stocks it's shelves with products from China? China has mandatory abortion. Hobby Lobby can enforce morality on its employees but not it's suppliers?

Excuse me? Why does Hobby Lobby need to show a compelling interest in anything? Are you pulling a Clayton and trying to argue that the Constitution limits the power of people?

 

[dblack]

So you can decide to not pay your taxes or not follow child labor laws, or safety regulations if you claim it is a part of your faith?

No, idiot.
The state must show a compelling interest in over riding religious objections. There are none here, of course.

The state has a compelling interest to ensure affordable birth control is available to its citizens.

What is "compelling"about that "interest"?

 

[dblack]

First of all. It is the ACA (Obamacare) that provides the mandate to cover birth control

Actually, it doesn't. That mandate came from HHS, not Congress. One is a law, the other is a regulation. If you don't understand the difference, I suggest you go back to school and study civics.

The government has a compelling interest to ensure that low cost birth control is available to its citizens. Unwanted and unplanned children are a burden on society

That is only part of what the government has to prove, they also have to porve that the mandate is the least intrusive way to supply birth control. Unless you adress that issue, you aren't actually addressing the issues.

How does Hobby Lobby demonstrate its compelling interest in denying birth control coverage to employees when it stocks it's shelves with products from China? China has mandatory abortion. Hobby Lobby can enforce morality on its employees but not it's suppliers?

Excuse me? Why does Hobby Lobby need to show a compelling interest in anything? Are you pulling a Clayton and trying to argue that the Constitution limits the power of people?

Yep

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is this ever a can of worms

Can you imagine the precedent it sets?

It certainly does.

Imagine the Supreme Court ruling that the New York Times, as a for profit corporation, is not able to declare that it has freedom of speech and the press. The resulting upheaval would probably destroy the country.

Neat...this wont destroy the nation

I always knew you weren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, I didn't know you were actually a spoon.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It certainly does.

Imagine the Supreme Court ruling that the New York Times, as a for profit corporation, is not able to declare that it has freedom of speech and the press. The resulting upheaval would probably destroy the country.

Neat...this wont destroy the nation

I always knew you weren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, I didn't know you were actually a spoon.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have a question:

Has HL posted a sign in front of their stores saying that if you (the person approaching the entrance) are having sex outside of wedlock and/or if you're using birth control, they just plain and simple don't want your business because, you see, they have values. Actually, they're MORE than just values. They're principles. No, they're more than that too. They're religious convictions. So, just take your business elsewhere!

I have a question.

What makes you think your question is in any way applicable to the discussion?

Because it calls into serious questions their supposed so-called values. Said plainly, I seriously doubt that HL has any problem at all when it comes to TAKING money from the very kind of people who they would deny providing benefits to. So, I say if they want to prove they walk the talk, put up a sign like the one I suggested. As for me, I think their religious conviction argument is nonsense because they're not even a religious institution. They're a business. And AS a business, they'll likely take money from anyone, period. If HL was a church, or a fraternal organization of some kind, it would be different. But it's a profit-driven enterprise which provides goods and services to the general public. They're just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Umm, what?

Perhaps you should take the time to actually learn what, exactly, Hobby Lobby is objecting to. They have no problem providing contraceptives, like the Pill, they are objecting to drugs that are abortifacients. You know, the very thing that Obama signed an executive order saying would not happen?

Besides, not paying for abortions, and treating people who have abortions like trash, are two separate issues. Only an intolerant asshole scumbag would ever insist that everyone in the world agree with him on every issue.

Wait, that is you, and you hate it when people point out that you are an intolerant asshole scumbag. My suggestion to you, stop being an intolerant asshole scumbag. Until you do, tough ******* shit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is wrong with contraception. Please explain.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with contraception (if that is your choice). However, it is not MY responsibility to pay for it. Why is it so damned hard to understand that simple logic?

It's your responsibility to obey the law. Is that hard to understand?

 

[Plasmaball]

It certainly does.

Imagine the Supreme Court ruling that the New York Times, as a for profit corporation, is not able to declare that it has freedom of speech and the press. The resulting upheaval would probably destroy the country.

Neat...this wont destroy the nation

I always knew you weren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, I didn't know you were actually a spoon.

Its ok...youll be dead soon.

 

[The Rabbi]

I doubt the OP's argument is what hobby lobby owners are trying to make. Corporations are run by humans and humans shouldn't be force to allocate corporate funds to pay for abortions. Humans on behalf of the corporation shouldn't have to agree with those ugly Obamacare rules. It violates their religious beliefs.

Please feel free to make this ‘argument’ before the Court.

And once again we see the ignorance of the law common to most on the right.

The primary focus of this provision of the ACA is to ensure that working Americans have comprehensive and affordable access to healthcare, not to interfere with religious practice. Moreover, because the provision does not manifest a substantial burden to exercising a person’s religious beliefs, no religious liberty is being ‘violated.’ And the provision is Constitutional as it indeed pursues a compelling government interest.

Consequently, opposition by conservatives to the Act’s provision is purely partisan, having nothing to do with the merits of the ACA or the Constitution and its case law.

Which is why the Supreme COurt agreed to hear the case, right? Because they like wasting their time.
The primary focus of ACA is to exert government control over every aspect of our lives. The owners of Hobby Lobby applied for an exemption on relgiious grounds, an exemption already given to non-profit church organizations.
Being for profit does not negate the fact that Hobby Lobby has deep religious beliefs and objections to being forced to do something.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have a question.

What makes you think your question is in any way applicable to the discussion?

Because it calls into serious questions their supposed so-called values. Said plainly, I seriously doubt that HL has any problem at all when it comes to TAKING money from the very kind of people who they would deny providing benefits to. So, I say if they want to prove they walk the talk, put up a sign like the one I suggested. As for me, I think their religious conviction argument is nonsense because they're not even a religious institution. They're a business. And AS a business, they'll likely take money from anyone, period. If HL was a church, or a fraternal organization of some kind, it would be different. But it's a profit-driven enterprise which provides goods and services to the general public. They're just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Umm, what?

Perhaps you should take the time to actually learn what, exactly, Hobby Lobby is objecting to. They have no problem providing contraceptives, like the Pill, they are objecting to drugs that are abortifacients. You know, the very thing that Obama signed an executive order saying would not happen?

Besides, not paying for abortions, and treating people who have abortions like trash, are two separate issues. Only an intolerant asshole scumbag would ever insist that everyone in the world agree with him on every issue.

Wait, that is you, and you hate it when people point out that you are an intolerant asshole scumbag. My suggestion to you, stop being an intolerant asshole scumbag. Until you do, tough ******* shit.

They aren't paying for abortions, or birth control, or vasectomies, or brain surgery. They are paying their employees in compensations that can be used for such.

If they paid them in magic beans that could be traded for the cost of an abortion it wouldn't be any different.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because it calls into serious questions their supposed so-called values. Said plainly, I seriously doubt that HL has any problem at all when it comes to TAKING money from the very kind of people who they would deny providing benefits to. So, I say if they want to prove they walk the talk, put up a sign like the one I suggested. As for me, I think their religious conviction argument is nonsense because they're not even a religious institution. They're a business. And AS a business, they'll likely take money from anyone, period. If HL was a church, or a fraternal organization of some kind, it would be different. But it's a profit-driven enterprise which provides goods and services to the general public. They're just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Umm, what?

Perhaps you should take the time to actually learn what, exactly, Hobby Lobby is objecting to. They have no problem providing contraceptives, like the Pill, they are objecting to drugs that are abortifacients. You know, the very thing that Obama signed an executive order saying would not happen?

Besides, not paying for abortions, and treating people who have abortions like trash, are two separate issues. Only an intolerant asshole scumbag would ever insist that everyone in the world agree with him on every issue.

Wait, that is you, and you hate it when people point out that you are an intolerant asshole scumbag. My suggestion to you, stop being an intolerant asshole scumbag. Until you do, tough ******* shit.

They aren't paying for abortions, or birth control, or vasectomies, or brain surgery. They are paying their employees in compensations that can be used for such.

If they paid them in magic beans that could be traded for the cost of an abortion it wouldn't be any different.

And the Moon is made of green cheese fermented from unicorn excrement.

 

[dblack]

Because it calls into serious questions their supposed so-called values. Said plainly, I seriously doubt that HL has any problem at all when it comes to TAKING money from the very kind of people who they would deny providing benefits to. So, I say if they want to prove they walk the talk, put up a sign like the one I suggested. As for me, I think their religious conviction argument is nonsense because they're not even a religious institution. They're a business. And AS a business, they'll likely take money from anyone, period. If HL was a church, or a fraternal organization of some kind, it would be different. But it's a profit-driven enterprise which provides goods and services to the general public. They're just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Umm, what?

Perhaps you should take the time to actually learn what, exactly, Hobby Lobby is objecting to. They have no problem providing contraceptives, like the Pill, they are objecting to drugs that are abortifacients. You know, the very thing that Obama signed an executive order saying would not happen?

Besides, not paying for abortions, and treating people who have abortions like trash, are two separate issues. Only an intolerant asshole scumbag would ever insist that everyone in the world agree with him on every issue.

Wait, that is you, and you hate it when people point out that you are an intolerant asshole scumbag. My suggestion to you, stop being an intolerant asshole scumbag. Until you do, tough ******* shit.

They aren't paying for abortions, or birth control, or vasectomies, or brain surgery. They are paying their employees in compensations that can be used for such.

If they paid them in magic beans that could be traded for the cost of an abortion it wouldn't be any different.

So why in the hell does it matter? Why does the state need to be involved at all?

 

[The Rabbi]

What hobby lobby should do is exclude the "religious" aspect and just say they don't want to pay for something they don't want to pay for. It's called being honest. Perhaps they should try it. I really don't believe they care one way or the other if any of their employees are on the pill. In fact, according to the way American businesses complain, (I mean whine and cry like babies) about their employees missing work, they should be happy that a baby doesn't interfere with their employees ability to stock their shelves.

You dont get it.
According to them birth control and abortions constitute a sin. They don't expect others to agree with their views, thus they hire employees regardless. But they do expect, rightly, others to respect their views. And in their view if they provide abortions via medical insurnace they are going against their conscience.
This is a difficult concept for liberals to grok because they have no conscience, no morals, no ethical standards at all. Evyerthing is situational, everything subject to revision and "growth", depending on what is convenient, cheap, or feels good.
But some people actually cling to old time values and dont want others dictating what they should and should not do.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have a question:

Has HL posted a sign in front of their stores saying that if you (the person approaching the entrance) are having sex outside of wedlock and/or if you're using birth control, they just plain and simple don't want your business because, you see, they have values. Actually, they're MORE than just values. They're principles. No, they're more than that too. They're religious convictions. So, just take your business elsewhere!

I have a question:
Do you think with your ass or just sit on it?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, idiot.
The state must show a compelling interest in over riding religious objections. There are none here, of course.

The state has a compelling interest to ensure affordable birth control is available to its citizens.

What is "compelling"about that "interest"?

It has none. He made that up. Nutsucker makes up shit and then runs away when called on it.
The state has no interest in ensuring affordable burth control is available. There has never been any suggestion of that. Nor is it true.
Thus the state has no compelling interest in forcing HL to provide something that violates their conscience.

 

[rightwinger]

No, idiot.
The state must show a compelling interest in over riding religious objections. There are none here, of course.

The state has a compelling interest to ensure affordable birth control is available to its citizens.

What is "compelling"about that "interest"?

What is compelling is that more abortions and unwanted children result from unplanned parenthood. The state has to provide more social services for unwanted children

Modern societies recognize the benefits of birth control. It is only religious fanatics who oppose it.

 

[dblack]

The state has a compelling interest to ensure affordable birth control is available to its citizens.

What is "compelling"about that "interest"?

What is compelling is that more abortions and unwanted children result from unplanned parenthood.

Modern societies recognize the benefits of birth control. It is only religious fanatics who oppose it.

So? What does this have to do with the purpose of government?

 

[rightwinger]

I have a question:

Has HL posted a sign in front of their stores saying that if you (the person approaching the entrance) are having sex outside of wedlock and/or if you're using birth control, they just plain and simple don't want your business because, you see, they have values. Actually, they're MORE than just values. They're principles. No, they're more than that too. They're religious convictions. So, just take your business elsewhere!

Better yet.....tell the public that they do not welcome the business of any woman who has had an abortion. Put your money where your mouth is Hobby Lobby. Rather than taking your religious views out on your employees....take it out on your customers and suppliers (China)