|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Hobby Lobby /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1404139478 Message started by WebsterMark on 06/30/14 at 07:44:38 |
|
Title: Hobby Lobby Post by WebsterMark on 06/30/14 at 07:44:38 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women. I think that makes Hopey's record with the Supreme Court 1-13. For a former 'Constitutional Law Professor', that's pretty pathetic. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by Paraquat on 07/01/14 at 06:17:28 The best thing I saw on Facebook was: "Isn't working at Hobby Lobby contraceptive enough?" --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 07/01/14 at 06:47:36 This is a very narrow decision, that applies only to closely held corporations, not those that are publicly traded. That's a huge difference that is not being recognized by media reports. The essence of the decision is that in a closely help corporation, the beliefs of the owners trump those of the gov't. There is no analogy to large publicly traded corps. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by Pine on 07/01/14 at 07:34:17 To add to what jerry said... not only is this very narrow... but according to news ( yeah well so do your own homework) ACA forced corps to support 20 out of 20 birth control pills. Of those 20, 4 are "morning after pills" ie they TERMINATE a fertilized egg. The decision only applied to such pills; so 4 out of 20. All the other 16 ARE covered by ACA. Given this tidbit ( that most folks are NOT saying) I think I firmly approve the decision. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/01/14 at 09:09:57 Yes,the media are reporting this as if it means some companies won't be required to pay for birth control. Lies, lies and more lies.. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by WebsterMark on 07/01/14 at 10:15:56 "It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health-care plan because her employer doesn't think she should be using contraception,” she said. "We're always going to argue about abortion, It’s a hard choice and it’s controversial, and that’s why I'm pro-choice, because I want people to make their own choices.” So says Hilary Clinton. This is an out and out lie. Hard to say who the bigger liar is, her or Obama. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by verslagen1 on 07/01/14 at 11:28:50 I object to this as it is the 1st government approved toe hold that allows a corporation to control the lives of their workers. Does this allow them to discriminate against new hires because of religion? All they have to do is mention it during an interview. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by WebsterMark on 07/01/14 at 13:18:29 How does this mean corporation controls the lives of their workers? This has to do with the benefit that they voluntarily pay for their employees. They are not preventing their employees from getting any type of birth control pill. They are just not going to pay for four specific types. You are doing exactly what we are saying the media is doing. What you said they have done is completely inaccurate. You might as well say 2+2 = 5. That statement and your first statement are both equally false. As far as an interview process, there are already very strict things you can and cannot ask. No one is suggesting this court case now gives hobby lobby the right to ask a woman if she intends on having an abortion if she gets pregnant. As Jerry mentioned, this is a very limited decision. Making an employer pay for an abortion is quite a bit different than making an employer pay for a broken arm because somebody participates in a risky hobby like skateboarding or motorcycle riding even. Religious organizations and religious people have a long-standing objection to abortion. To make them pay for one just does not seem right. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/01/14 at 14:39:51 No,Verslagen, it doesn't. Explain why you think it does, then I'll explain why it doesn't. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by Serowbot on 07/01/14 at 14:41:09 47585E5944437242724A58541F2D0 wrote:
;D ;D ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by raydawg on 07/01/14 at 16:45:11 It really is simple folks........ BUY SOME FEAKIN CONDOMS !!!!!! We are on such a path to nonsensical reasoning as repair to all that is not fair in this world. Gang, I am an upbeat pragmatic optimist, and I live for the moment, as that is all I really have..... but goodness me, I can't recall in my lifetime of 61 years, how we worry, and fret, putting our joy, and happiness, in the hands of others, they must approve and affirm us, our I can't live my life as such :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by MnSpring on 07/01/14 at 18:24:34 77647C61647262050 wrote:
That's basically it, in a nut shell. It's PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ! I, am NOT, responsible for some nut case. I am, NOT, responsible to, 'FIX', that person. I, AM, Responsible for MY Actions. Me, and me alone. If someone says they use a particular tire on their LS-650/S-40, then I use the same one, and get in a crash. That would be, MY, fault. NOT theirs! If someone said: "They Always drive 70 on this road". Then I drive 70 on that road, and get a ticket. Do, THEY, Pay for it. ????????????? If someone says: "They only use a, (new modern) type of oil in their MS". And it has a melt down, do we ALL chip in and BUY them a new MS ?????? It's real simple, "Buy A Fricken Condom". Get as much knowledge as you can, on a subject. Then, Make YOUR Decision ! And if the decision YOU made, is wrong, it is NOT, the other guys fault !!!!!!!! In reference to the store that started this thread. That store, (and others), are not saying their employes, can or can not do something. They are FREE to do what they want. They are just saying, they will not PAY, for a thing, that they don't want. It is, Exactly the same, as a store, which has a sign on the door: "No Guns Allowed". I am NOT Forced to do business their. I have the Freedom of Choice, to go down the road to another store. (Well, maybe not, if you live in Italy) :-[ |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by WebsterMark on 07/02/14 at 04:15:19 4C5A4D50485D504B3F0 wrote:
;D ;D ;D...[/quote] What are you laughing at censor-boy? Jog has the balls to say out loud what all of us, including you (especially you) do whenever we comment with a different point of view on someone's post. If we didn't think someone was wrong, we would comment with an opposing point of view. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/02/14 at 06:59:54 I guess he just can't put it in words. Why is it hard to see that forcing someone to PAY for something they view as immoral infringes on their ability to freely exercise their faith? How about we tax atheists to build churches And old Baptist women to build bars? |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by verslagen1 on 07/02/14 at 07:44:19 As I said it is the first toe hold When those nut jobs that don't believe in surgery come into play do they get a pass not to pay? And when this becomes a rape case will a victims group pay? |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/02/14 at 08:30:48 Soooo, because of some fear someone MAY one day fight against something wrong headedly we should ignore the right and reasonable position of today's plaintiffs? |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by WebsterMark on 07/02/14 at 08:32:23 As I said it is the first toe hold Guess you agree with those who say the same thing about gay marriage... |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by verslagen1 on 07/02/14 at 08:57:59 What about it? |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/02/14 at 10:39:24 You saw the scrutiny this went through. There is no killing in a transfusion. I've seen nothing in the Bible against it. I've seen no corporation that is closely held that is against it. It's a silly argument to justify stepping on the true and right religious position H.L. has taken. Remember, they DO as they SAY they believe. Closed on Sunday. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by Dane Allen on 07/02/14 at 18:28:26 Historically, health insurance has been a benefit chosen and offered by a company as way to attract and retain the talent they want. Just like vacation, profit sharing and such it is the company's choice what to offer and to whom. If the quality of health coverage is an issue then employment seekers can focus their job search on those businesses that offer the best coverage. My company offers three different versions. As for the closely held corporation and partnership issue, the heart of the case, it is not Hobby Lobby (the ficticious person) that provides the abortion/contraceptive coverage, rather, it is the family or the 4-5 people who are the business owners that provide it. How can the government pick 4-5 people and demand they violate their Constitutionally protected freedom of Religion to provide free abortions/contraceptives in violation of their conscience? The real travesty here is that this cluster F of a law ever made it through the process. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by MnSpring on 07/02/14 at 19:20:43 I have lived where I am now, for 35 years. When I first moved here, 2-3 times a year, I had the Jehovah’s Witnesses, ‘Bugging Me”. Then one very Hot Muggy Summer day, I was cutting up a tree, which blew down in the last nights wind. In drove a NEW Buick, with two ladies, and two men, Perfectly and smartly dressed, and out they popped, All talking, and waving their, ‘Watch Tower” info pamphlets. I Shut off the chain saw, sat on the log, Lit a cig, and said: “Ya know, I think you got got something going their, if only you didn’t SUPPORT, the KILLING, of children” They all talked at once telling me that is not true. Then I said: “You Don’t Vote Right” They meekly said, ‘yes’. Then I said: “Well, because you, “do NOT’, vote, As a religious group, then, you, Have Voted FOR, ‘Abortion”, IN ANY shape or form, and for Any Reason” One said: “Well Cezar upon Cezar”. I said: “What the hexx does, what someone said over 2,000 years ago, have to do with KILLING un born Children today have ANY influence on what you do” They were silent. I said: Come back, when you actually take part in the process, which influences the government, of the country, you are living in. Until then, NEVER come down this drive again” They left, ‘meekly’. They have not been back, in 30 years !!!!!!! The HL people, ARE, partaking in, Voicing their, RIGHT, to Their Opinion ! |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/02/14 at 21:17:45 Dane pretty much nailed it. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by WebsterMark on 07/03/14 at 05:02:41 5E4D5A5B44494F4D4619280 wrote:
One of the arguments against gay marriage is that at it's heart, it removes the core foundations of marriage and replaces it with marriages that are created simply because two people say their relationship should be defined as a marriage. Once this concept is established, then what is the rational behind any further limitations? Why limit it to only two people? That makes no sense if three people now say they can only be fulfilled if they are married? Why couldn't siblings get married? Now that procreation and historical father/mother raising their own children has been removed as the basis of a marriage, why not a brother and sister, or two brothers or two sisters? That is the slippery slope of gay marriage and I agree with you to an extent, there is a potential slippery slope now in effect because of Hobby Lobby. However, since I agree with the Hobby Lobby decision and I likely would agree with going down that slope further, I'm okay with that slope being created. Unlike gay marriage, the media and entertainment culture will not actively promote it. The Hobby Lobby decision is solely about limiting abortions and further promoting the concept of life. I'm in favor of anything that does that. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/03/14 at 05:10:56 Good points, Mark. And no, they won't be speaking highly of this,p The media is a tool,used to sway attitudes. Conservative attitudes are NOT on the agenda. |
|
Title: Re: Hobby Lobby Post by verslagen1 on 07/03/14 at 11:32:06 I'm not against gay/lesbian "marriage", they have the right to be as (un)happy as the rest of us. But the sole crux of the matter is equality, if g/l-M was legally equal as M then there wouldn't be an issue. But currently you can't put significant other as spouse on any legal forms and they aren't recognized as such. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |