PDA

View Full Version : Tuesday is an important day for our freedoms



vb
March 23rd, 2014, 12:41 PM
Tuesday our highest court hears discussions about whether individuals and companies still have the constitutional right of freedom of religion. whether we have the right to decide how we will run our own businesses and whether we can be forced into doing things against our conscience and our will...
just to name a few things they are considering changing.
we also may see hobby lobby close its doors

GM4X4LOVER
March 23rd, 2014, 01:16 PM
Huh?

cheftyler
March 23rd, 2014, 01:18 PM
If I had to guess at the vagueness: this is about allowing bigoted store owners to not sell to people that do things that have zero effect on the store owners.

rubbersidedown
March 23rd, 2014, 01:25 PM
Just cuz. . .


http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080329191425/uncyclopedia/images/c/ca/Bible_fiction.jpg

Gags
March 23rd, 2014, 01:31 PM
Well, when JC was handing out fish to feed people he was allowed not to feed the people who pissed off Daddy.

creepycrawler
March 23rd, 2014, 02:12 PM
If store owners who have certain beliefs and don't want to do anything that may go against those beliefs are bigots, what are people called who call them bigots just because they don't agree with the store owners?

ZappBranigan
March 23rd, 2014, 02:13 PM
No it's about the effect of Obamacare which requires some employers to cover birth control and morning-after pills as part of their health insurance.

Hobby Lobby and others are suing, saying that requiring them to pay for coverage that they're morally opposed to would be a violation of their freedom of religion.

I don't think this court will see it that way, though. The law is the law and they are bound to follow it.

cheftyler
March 23rd, 2014, 02:56 PM
If store owners who have certain beliefs and don't want to do anything that may go against those beliefs are bigots, what are people called who call them bigots just because they don't agree with the store owners?

Terribly sorry, replace bigots with "scaredy cats" better?


No it's about the effect of Obamacare which requires some employers to cover birth control and morning-after pills as part of their health insurance.

Hobby Lobby and others are suing, saying that requiring them to pay for coverage that they're morally opposed to would be a violation of their freedom of religion.

I don't think this court will see it that way, though. The law is the law and they are bound to follow it.

Ah, well then, I was wrong. Does anyone still shop at Hobby Lobby?

creepycrawler
March 23rd, 2014, 02:59 PM
Terribly sorry, replace bigots with "scaredy cats" better?


Either one seems a little hypocritical to me but that's just me. Carry on.

cheftyler
March 23rd, 2014, 03:00 PM
Either one seems a little hypocritical to me but that's just me. Carry on.

Well since it's not what the thread is about :shrug:

creepycrawler
March 23rd, 2014, 03:05 PM
Well since it's not what the thread is about :shrug:

Right. It was just your automatic assumption of what it was about.

Any opportunity to bash religious beliefs will do. :thumbsdown:

Avenger
March 23rd, 2014, 03:11 PM
Disappointed that this isn't a gun or MJ thread.

vb
March 23rd, 2014, 03:29 PM
there have been laws in the past requiring folks to bow to rulers as well.

what our rulers our doing to this country is exactly what our founders fought against

9fngrs
March 23rd, 2014, 03:49 PM
They are not "rulers" they are elected people doing what they are "paid" to do. Nothing more or nothing less...who is paying them is a whole other thread. Just more people trying to carve out their own view of freedom and also trying to carve others view out. It has nothing to do with religious freedom or the lack thereof.

vb
March 23rd, 2014, 04:02 PM
it very much does have to do with freedoms. I have a business... I believe life starts at conception... I believe that its murder to kill the unborn kid..... I do not want to be forced to have a part in the murder of my employees kids.


perty simple

vb
March 23rd, 2014, 04:06 PM
they are our rulers. if it looks like a ruler and walks like a ruler and quacks like a ruler.... there's a good chance that.........

further, I should be FREE to make my own choices about my own health care.

I should also be FREE to decide what sort of benefits to offer those that choose to work with me.

cheftyler
March 23rd, 2014, 04:35 PM
Right. It was just your automatic assumption of what it was about.

Any opportunity to bash religious beliefs will do. :thumbsdown:

I wasn't pulling something out of nothing, what I described has been in the news :shrug: and there are PLENTY of religious people that don't hate on gays, and there are plenty of people who just hate gays and god equally, and don't call birth control murder, so I would relax on the any opportunity to bash religious beliefs BS :shrug: especially since I tend to stay the fawk out of those threads.

vb
March 23rd, 2014, 04:39 PM
I think birth control and morning after and abortion become the fighting lines and the words of which the definitions become the mud

examples of which might be:

is birth control abstaining or a diaphragm or a pill?

is the morning after pill birth control or abortion?

...........

how bout we just make it simple and just say that we are not going to pay for any of that stuff and folks can decide on their own what they want to do. and they can pay for it their own selves

creepycrawler
March 23rd, 2014, 04:56 PM
I wasn't pulling something out of nothing, what I described has been in the news :shrug: and there are PLENTY of religious people that don't hate on gays, and there are plenty of people who just hate gays and god equally, and don't call birth control murder, so I would relax on the any opportunity to bash religious beliefs BS :shrug: especially since I tend to stay the fawk out of those threads.

So the bigots you referred to weren't store owners who didn't want to serve gays for religious or other reasons. Gotcha.

I still don't see the difference between them not liking a persons way of life and you calling them bigots because you don't like their way of life but whatever.

vb
March 23rd, 2014, 04:59 PM
I think he might be bigoted against religion and religious people.. just a hunch

9fngrs
March 23rd, 2014, 05:29 PM
it very much does have to do with freedoms. I have a business... I believe life starts at conception... I believe that its murder to kill the unborn kid..... I do not want to be forced to have a part in the murder of my employees kids.


perty simple

You are free to have a business that is not open to the public...free not to have employees...free not to have healthcare(pay the fine) i really dont care what you think about religion or abortion...it has no effect on me. What others do with thier bodies has no effect on you so what gives you the right to take thier freedom to justify yours?

Sound_Man
March 23rd, 2014, 05:30 PM
Can I smoke in a bar yet?

Quick Draw
March 23rd, 2014, 05:30 PM
What's funny here is that Hobby Lobby's insurance plan covered Plan B before the mandate went into effect. Political hogwash bullshit about "religious freedom" in some back-ass-wards way to try and make a political point. Nothing to see here.

vb
March 23rd, 2014, 06:02 PM
9fngrs... where have I ever said, especially in this thread, anything about taking someone's rights? I even said that folks are free to choose and pay for what ever they choose... where did I loose you?

I didn't post this to talk about abortions any way... i posted to talk of a loss of freedoms. obocare is one tool that our rulers are using to take those freedoms... package something well enough that the majority will vote into and you have what the rulers want. BTW, justice's are appointed not elected. its a lifetime appointment and they can do as they please.

quick draw.
I'd be interested how you know that hobby lobby has already been paying for this?

cheftyler
March 23rd, 2014, 06:30 PM
I think he might be bigoted against religion and religious people.. just a hunch

You'd be wrong, but you should be used to that by now. I'm out.

9fngrs
March 23rd, 2014, 06:42 PM
As I stated you and hobby lobby or any other business are free not to participate in the things you are opposed to. As some are so fond of saying "if you don't like what is on the boob tube...change the channel". If you do not like the rules involved in running your own business then do not have one. Freedom swings both ways. Justices are nominated and approved (elected) by congress. Technically appointed but in reality they have to be approved by congress or there has to be another nomination, we have all seen this play out on television(for those of us who have one). Obamacare is the law at this point so all the pissing and moaning will not make it go away. I don't like stoplights, they just slow me down but they are the law so I have to accept that until a majority of people agree with me and change it. If our "rulers" (see elected officials) have decided that birth control is part of the law then so be it. Elections have consequences, I am positive that there are laws (officials)that you voted for and that I totally disagree with but I accept that and if I want it changed I will work towards changing that in the future.

creepycrawler
March 23rd, 2014, 07:02 PM
Can I smoke in a bar yet?

Bar owners should be able to decide that. Not the freakin' government.

vb
March 23rd, 2014, 07:03 PM
I think that's the point of hobby lobby getting in front of this court.... to try to change those laws

vb
March 23rd, 2014, 07:18 PM
I like smokeless bars... a lot...... but agree with cc... again. more of my point. we are loosing freedoms

9fngrs
March 23rd, 2014, 08:49 PM
We started losing freedoms the minute the ink dried on our constitution. Since no two groups can agree what freedoms we can be responsible for and which ones we can't, we will just have to keep suffering the ebbs and flows of the government we have at the time. Dont worry VB...the rules will keep changing and you might be happier at some point in the future. Until then just keep up the fight for what you believe in! The beauty of our government is it is flexible and can be changed fairly quick if people get fed up enough and vote accordingly.

vb
March 23rd, 2014, 09:00 PM
yes.I agree with you up to the point of thinking things can turn around

redcj7
March 23rd, 2014, 10:13 PM
What's funny here is that Hobby Lobby's insurance plan covered Plan B before the mandate went into effect. Political hogwash bullshit about "religious freedom" in some back-ass-wards way to try and make a political point. Nothing to see here.
You might go read the case. They provided 16 of the 20 drugs but don't want to provide the 4 that they feel violate their religious beliefs.

You seem to be missing a really important point.

creepycrawler
March 24th, 2014, 03:19 AM
You might go read the case. They provided 16 of the 20 drugs but don't want to provide the 4 that they feel violate their religious beliefs.

You seem to be missing a really important point.

Facts. They are not welcome.

Trango
March 24th, 2014, 06:09 AM
Wait, is this a vote for the freedom to impose our beliefs on others? I get that certain hobby lobby people might want to get by on abstinence or the rhythm method, but is the point here that an employers should basically be able to mandate that all employees do the same?

Also, what if i am a vegan, and decide to hire a bunch of people, and then midway through their careers, I decide to stop buying drugs tested on animals or with animal byproducts, right?

These are not just hive-poking questions - I would love to have a clear distinction made here between my absurd examples and what HL is trying to accomplish.

Trango
March 24th, 2014, 06:42 AM
More questions that came to me. I'm happy that we have some strongly-held beliefs here to the contrary, which may help clarify to me why this is a tenable position (since, as it seems to me, this is a very slippery slope to providing à la carte healthcare under reasons that masquerade as "religion").

More examples. Bette Graham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bette_Nesmith_Graham) invented Liquid Paper and formed her own company. As a Christian Scientologist, she probably believed in faith healing. So, what - would Liquid Paper have any reason to completely not offer healthcare to their employees? What about prejudicial treatment towards someone who did seek out healthcare overall - I mean, why not call out all of the private life practices of the employee?


Here's another one. I believe that premarital sex is wrong. Moreover, research shows us that "High-risk HPVs cause virtually all cervical cancers." (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV) So, if I own a company, and one of my employee's unmarried-but-still-insured children gets Cervical Cancer, I can basically assume that she is acting out of accord with my own religious beliefs. As part of my health plan, large individual claims raise my overall expense profile. So, you bet your sweet Bible that I am paying for her harlotism. Frankly, if my employee had been godly as I instructed him, there is a good chance that we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with, what with his child getting a cancer from an STD. Time to drop him/her, right?

Please, educate me. Are we limiting the religious edicts to diagnosis and prophylaxis only, or are we compassionate Christians and we include all forms of treatment, even those for diseases whose etiology runs counter to our beliefs?

Thanks for any input, seriously.

Trango
March 24th, 2014, 06:43 AM
Finally - when I was googling "companies owned by Christian Scientists", this was quite serendipitously in the top 5 of search results:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/11/corporations_are_claiming_personhood_to_block_obamacare_s_contraception.html

It may be worth a read later this morning.

Trango
March 24th, 2014, 06:46 AM
yes.I agree with you up to the point of thinking things can turn around

Puuuuhlease. Pot got basically legalized in Colorado in under 5 years. If ever there were a black swan event demonstrating the amazing vicissitudes and mutability of legislature, that was it.

Willie G
March 24th, 2014, 07:25 AM
A nice editorial from the New York Sun, here: http://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-sulzberger-compromise/88631/

They use the case to take a shot at the New York Times, owned by the Sulzberger family.

If you're interested in a nice summary of the case, then read this by Lyle Denniston, who is something of an authority on SCOTUS: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/argument-preview-religion-rights-and-the-workplace/

TL;DR won't cut it it.

CherryokeeXJ
March 24th, 2014, 07:47 AM
Does anyone still shop at Hobby Lobby?

ME!!!!!!!!!!!

Give them what they want!! Meet their demands!! Just don't let them take away my cheap cross stitching and poof balls!!!! I love poof balls.....they make the finest creatures for any occasion.

Fluffy white bear angels for the Christmas tree, little poofy green frogs with leprechaun hats for St. Patty's, and oh...the possibilities of the fuzzy monsters on Halloween. And I really like the way the place smells. It is my store. The paints, the brushes, the felt, the wood 3D puzzles. If they go out of business...I will lose surreal amounts of joy in my life.

(In the voice of Moses) Let my craft store go. :(

Trango
March 24th, 2014, 08:00 AM
(In the voice of Chris Crocker) LEAVE BRITNAYYYY ALLOONNNNNEEE!

ek cetera ek cetera

CherryokeeXJ
March 24th, 2014, 08:07 AM
ek cetera ek cetera

:flipoff2:

On a serious note, when do we plan on hearing from Chick Fil-A as well??

zillacon
March 24th, 2014, 08:14 AM
Ah, well then, I was wrong. Does anyone still shop at Hobby Lobby?

Yuppers, Had to go there last week for some leather tooling supplies. The place is always packed with Hawtness. Just as killer as Milf Filet. :)

Trango
March 24th, 2014, 08:19 AM
:flipoff2:

On a serious note, when do we plan on hearing from Chick Fil-A as well??

I don't know. What are they against - maybe dental repair?

Psalm 3:7 says: "Arise, O Lord! Save me, O my God! For you strike all my enemies on the cheek; you break the teeth of the wicked." I therefore deduce that all broken, lost, and even damaged teeth are borne of divine justice. Sorry: partials, dentures, broken tooth repair, and even cavities are no longer covered under the Co4x4 dental plan.

CherryokeeXJ
March 24th, 2014, 08:27 AM
I don't know. What are they against - maybe dental repair?

Psalm 3:7 says: "Arise, O Lord! Save me, O my God! For you strike all my enemies on the cheek; you break the teeth of the wicked." I therefore deduce that all broken, lost, and even damaged teeth are borne of divine justice. Sorry: partials, dentures, broken tooth repair, and even cavities are no longer covered under the Co4x4 dental plan.

Didn't they already sustain some scrutiny for being anti-gay or something? The thread on that was 100 years ago and I didn't really care, so forgive me if my assessmemt of what happened is fuzzy.

CherryokeeXJ
March 24th, 2014, 08:29 AM
And Plan B, btw, is NOT abortion. If the egg and sperm have already shaken hands, it won't do a thing. A baby is being had. It merely inhibits the sperms from making acquaintance with the egg.

Trango
March 24th, 2014, 08:35 AM
Didn't they already sustain some scrutiny for being anti-gay or something? The thread on that was 100 years ago and I didn't really care, so forgive me if my assessmemt of what happened is fuzzy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

SamFromCO
March 24th, 2014, 08:39 AM
As I stated you and hobby lobby or any other business are free not to participate in the things you are opposed to. As some are so fond of saying "if you don't like what is on the boob tube...change the channel". If you do not like the rules involved in running your own business then do not have one. Freedom swings both ways.

In other words, you're free to be just like me.

Trango
March 24th, 2014, 08:43 AM
In other words, you're free to be just like me.

IOW you can have a model T in any color as long as it's black.

CherryokeeXJ
March 24th, 2014, 08:45 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

Thats right. Thank you for the refresher.

So Hobby Lobby doesn't want to be obligated to support chit it doesn't believe in. Chick-fil-a wanted the freedom to support chit it did believe in. Chick-fil-a stopped their support to anti-gay institutions and agreed to leave these things to the politicians. I surmise Hobby Lobby will do the same. They're not going to close their doors over birth control. If human nature is predictable (it is), the mighty capitalistic endeavor will trump the little man morals once again.

These businesses have the right idea. I'm not saying I support their agendas but its the way to get attention if you oppose something. However, none of them have the conviction to carry their campaign through even when they lose revenue. I guess none of them realize that can happen until it does....seeing as they're mixing business with morals.

Trango
March 24th, 2014, 08:50 AM
Not ceteris paribus. It would help to call out the legal implications for extracurricular bigotry vs. intrinsic religiosity and exclusion.

The difference is as pronounced as that between two halal grocers, one choosing to not sell pork and another that doesn't allow jews past the threshhold. Each could be construed as religiously defensible, but in this here country, only one is legal. That's the whole point of legal protections. We don't live in a pure capitalistic environment, so please, don't pull up that canard either.

Trango
March 24th, 2014, 08:51 AM
Lucky for you all, I am on a series of calls today and have the brain space to work on something that a) only requires part of my attention b) still doesn't have any dire implications if I screw up. ;)

Steve
March 24th, 2014, 08:56 AM
Fight the good fight Bob. I'll check in occasionally and read your latest thoughts. :thumbsup:

CherryokeeXJ
March 24th, 2014, 09:05 AM
Not ceteris paribus. It would help to call out the legal implications for extracurricular bigotry vs. intrinsic religiosity and exclusion.

The difference is as pronounced as that between two halal grocers, one choosing to not sell pork and another that doesn't allow jews past the threshhold. Each could be construed as religiously defensible, but in this here country, only one is legal. That's the whole point of legal protections. We don't live in a pure capitalistic environment, so please, don't pull up that canard either.

Lol...so hostile. And its only 9am. ;)

Chick-fil-a denied service to no one. They simply funded what they wanted to with their revenue. Aside from funding their opinion, they didnt do anything. :shrug:

So...which one isnt "letting Jews past the threshold"? Hobby Lobby because they're making a stink over what they find as a violation of their rights? They have the right to speak up. And yes...at the end of the day they'll choose money and having employees over no dollars and no employees. Wanna bet? :flipoff2:

ZappBranigan
March 24th, 2014, 09:08 AM
I realize that there are a lot of people who think that being forced to pay for something you disapprove of is somehow an infringement on their liberties, but that's not how it works.

Lots of granola crunching hippies bristle at the notion of paying taxes that pay for B1 bombers or CIA waterboarders, but they still do it.

Living in a free country means you get to have a voice, and you get to participate. It does not mean you always get your way.

As that great philosopher Mick Jagger once said, "You can't always get what you want"

(he also said "I can't get no satifaction" which I think is how the owners of Hobby Lobby are going to feel after the SCOTUS issues their ruling in this case. ;) )

CherryokeeXJ
March 24th, 2014, 09:22 AM
I realize that there are a lot of people who think that being forced to pay for something you disapprove of is somehow an infringement on their liberties, but that's not how it works.

Lots of granola crunching hippies bristle at the notion of paying taxes that pay for B1 bombers or CIA waterboarders, but they still do it.

Living in a free country means you get to have a voice, and you get to participate. It does not mean you always get your way.

As that great philosopher Mick Jagger once said, "You can't always get what you want"

(he also said "I can't get no satifaction" which I think is how the owners of Hobby Lobby are going to feel after the SCOTUS issues their ruling in this case. ;) )

This. :thumbsup:

You're more convincing than me because you didn't begin this talk with poof balls. I've got to remember to refrain from divulging everything.... :D

Trango
March 24th, 2014, 09:25 AM
Lol...so hostile. And its only 9am. ;)

Watch out, world - I actually slept for almost eight hours last night.



Chick-fil-a denied service to no one. They simply funded what they wanted to with their revenue. Aside from funding their opinion, they didnt do anything. :shrug:

I am not sure if you understood the contrast presented in my post. You and I are in complete agreement. Please, read my post again.



So...which one isnt "letting Jews past the threshold"? Hobby Lobby because they're making a stink over what they find as a violation of their rights? They have the right to speak up. And yes...at the end of the day they'll choose money and having employees over no dollars and no employees. Wanna bet? :flipoff2:

None of them are specifically excluding jews ?????? :shrug:

I was highlighting the size of the difference between two separate types of activities in halal shops, not drawing a direct parallel between those shops and either HL or Chick-Fil-A. My sister scenarios were intended to be a citation of the mere size of the differences between activities that are both religiously permissable but are on either side of a very vast legal gulf, rather than a direct comparison to the actual difference in the actions of HL and CFA, or (even further away) some sort of parallel to the actual events. I think what I'm saying is that you are responding on a very different page than my post.

Ta ta,
Bob

CherryokeeXJ
March 24th, 2014, 09:29 AM
Watch out, world - I actually slept for almost eight hours last night.



I am not sure if you understood the contrast presented in my post. You and I are in complete agreement. Please, read my post again.



None of them are specifically excluding jews ?????? :shrug:

I was highlighting the size of the difference between two separate types of activities in halal shops, not drawing a direct parallel between those shops and either HL or Chick-Fil-A. My sister scenarios were intended to be a citation of the mere size of the differences between activities that are both religiously permissable but are on either side of a very vast legal gulf, rather than a direct comparison to the actual difference in the actions of HL and CFA, or (even further away) some sort of parallel to the actual events. I think what I'm saying is that you are responding on a very different page than my post.

Ta ta,
Bob

I was continuing on your metaphor. I think everyone knows that no Jews were harmed in the creation of this thread. ;)

Gags
March 24th, 2014, 11:46 AM
I often feel as if the reason we separated church and state wasn't really to protect religious people but to protect people from religious people.

Abortion is a tricky topic...There is an argument to made that it is murder (in a sense). Not allowing other forms of BC that don't involve abortion...I don't see an argument besides something faith based.

That said, perhaps my biggest issue with this type of thing is that while I truly appreciate many values associated with religions, because they are "faith" based I have a hard time allowing them to deny people things strictly on faith based ideas. That type of thing can get a little out of hand...We've seen through out history and we see it today.

Clod Hopper
March 24th, 2014, 11:55 AM
I often feel as if the reason we separated church and state wasn't really to protect religious people but to protect people from religious people.

My recollection is it was to prevent the government from being controlled by a single religion and excluding all other religions, as was the situation in most European countries at the time.

GM4X4LOVER
March 24th, 2014, 12:01 PM
Up. Thats pretty much it.

ZappBranigan
March 24th, 2014, 12:12 PM
My recollection is it was to prevent the government from being controlled by a single religion and excluding all other religions, as was the situation in most European countries at the time.

If you look at English history for the period between about 1530 and 1700, the reasons are obvious. There was considerable religious conflict during that period between Catholics and Protestants as England swung one way and then another, culminating in the English Civil War, and finally ending with the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The founders of this country were very familiar with all this history and wanted to get away from the possibility of such conflict, hence freedom of religion.

potter
March 24th, 2014, 03:53 PM
I realize that there are a lot of people who think that being forced to pay for something you disapprove of is somehow an infringement on their liberties, but that's not how it works.

Yup, I look forward to this being taken all the way up the chain - only to watch the courts smack these people in the face with this stupidity. If your religion doesn't allow abortion or contraception. Forcing a company to purchase healthcare for it's employees, and that healthcare covering abortions or contraceptives - is in noooooooooooo way a violation to that company's right to freedom of religion. It is such a ridiculous stretch to even try to say so.

creepycrawler
March 24th, 2014, 06:11 PM
Lots of granola crunching hippies bristle at the notion of paying taxes that pay for B1 bombers or CIA waterboarders, but they still do it.

I suspect that most people have given up worrying about shat that their taxes pay for that they don't agree with but didn't the SC already say that Obummercare couldn't be considered a tax therefore it was constitutional?

creepycrawler
March 24th, 2014, 06:18 PM
I often feel as if the reason we separated church and state wasn't really to protect religious people but to protect people from religious people.

Abortion is a tricky topic...

Change that first part to religious legalist and ill agree with you. I try to live a Christian life but fail miserably frequently. I can see where abortion has it's place but I also don't agree with it being used as their primary form of birth control.

ZappBranigan
March 24th, 2014, 07:20 PM
I suspect that most people have given up worrying about shat that their taxes pay for that they don't agree with but didn't the SC already say that Obummercare couldn't be considered a tax therefore it was constitutional?

No, just the opposite. They said it WAS a tax because it fell under the taxing power of the Constitution.

creepycrawler
March 24th, 2014, 07:48 PM
No, just the opposite. They said it WAS a tax because it fell under the taxing power of the Constitution.

Dohhhhh.......

9fngrs
March 24th, 2014, 07:51 PM
In other words, you're free to be just like me.

Has nothing to do with being like me. If you want to own a gas station but you dont want the pumps inspected by the government then you should not buy a gas station. If you buy it then you are obligated to follow the rules and regulations that go along with it. Should the gov inspect the pumps? Doesn't matter, those are the rules and again, if you dont like it...dont buy a gas station.

Gags
March 24th, 2014, 08:01 PM
Change that first part to religious legalist and ill agree with you. I try to live a Christian life but fail miserably frequently. I can see where abortion has it's place but I also don't agree with it being used as their primary form of birth control.

I don't know man...Abortions f-ing suck for women. If there are chicks who use it as their primary form of bc we should let them keep doing it. It will catch up with them. We DO NOT want them actually reproducing. They're clinical-crazy, mate.

And you know what, I too try to live with principles of empathy, compassion, honesty, integrity, forgiveness (all the good parts of growing up Catholic)...I too often fail but I don't go to church so my sins get to stay with me...

Someone earlier mentioned that the situation we're talking about wasn't an issue until bullsh!t "politics" made it one...

That said, I do have some respect people who are against abortion in all forms except saving the mothers life. They think it's murdering an innocent and they wouldn't be totally wrong. Meaning, besides some unforeseen issue, that baby was gonna be born healthy. In my mind, religion has nothing to do with it...But it DOES.

vb
March 24th, 2014, 09:30 PM
I see I've missed much today.... looking forward to seeing how things play out!

Rex Ashton
March 24th, 2014, 10:08 PM
Has nothing to do with being like me. If you want to own a gas station but you dont want the pumps inspected by the government then you should not buy a gas station. If you buy it then you are obligated to follow the rules and regulations that go along with it. Should the gov inspect the pumps? Doesn't matter, those are the rules and again, if you dont like it...dont buy a gas station.Ummm, I think vb's point goes toward the rule changes that take place after he bought the gas station in your analogy.

You can be fully legit (for numerous years) in a business and beyond the point of no-return, and when the rules suddenly change after a long history of "rule stability" (for lack of a better term), simply saying "you shouldn't have chosen that business" isn't an acceptable retort. :thumbsdown:

Sorry, but that was a horrible argument to the topic, IMO.

If we were talking about something newer like medical MJ and/or the legalization of recreational MJ recently, I could see your point.

CruiserAbuser
March 25th, 2014, 06:05 AM
Has nothing to do with being like me. If you want to own a gas station but you dont want the pumps inspected by the government then you should not buy a gas station. If you buy it then you are obligated to follow the rules and regulations that go along with it. Should the gov inspect the pumps? Doesn't matter, those are the rules and again, if you dont like it...dont buy a gas station.

If you want to work at a gas station but the owner doesn't provide Health Insurance (obviously not with standing current BS laws) OR provides Health Insurance that specifically excludes certain types of care ... well .... "Doesn't matter, those are the rules..." if you don't like it go find another job.

Trango
March 25th, 2014, 07:50 AM
If you want to work at a gas station but the owner doesn't provide Health Insurance (obviously not with standing current BS laws) OR provides Health Insurance that specifically excludes certain types of care ... well .... "Doesn't matter, those are the rules..." if you don't like it go find another job.

Ah but the fine wrinkle in this is the reason for the exclusion, which is religious reasons on the part of the employer. That's the whole point of the argument. Either cite the reason as valid reason with corroborating information and then ALSO necessarily address the slippery slope that it takes religion and employment down, or ...... you gloss over it and prove no point.

With zero, zero malice, Cruiser, and with full charity here - you just did the latter. This is what people are missing. This is not about healthcare alone, but rather the extraordinarily large topic of how much impact religion of the employer has on the conditions of employment.

Because, honestly, if you want to advocate for every, say, devout Muslim employer able to force all men wear beards and women hijabs as a condition of employment, go ahead. I suppose we can all just choose not to work for those employers, right? Or, why not force all employees to tithe, as a condition of employment? The torah specifically excludes tattoos - sorry, Charlie - that ink you got on Spring break South Padre Island 1992 makes you unsuitable for this career.

Steve
March 25th, 2014, 07:58 AM
Because, honestly, if you want to advocate for every, say, devout Muslim employer able to force all men wear beards and women hijabs as a condition of employment, go ahead. I suppose we can all just choose not to work for those employers, right? Or, why not force all employees to tithe, as a condition of employment? The torah specifically excludes tattoos - sorry, Charlie - that ink you got on Spring break South Padre Island 1992 makes you unsuitable for this career.

Bob, you were doing so well until this. Surely even you recognize the vast difference between requiring an employee to do something against their wishes and not offering something to an employee that most employees will never use anyway. I mean, really, forcing a man to grow a beard is the same as not offering the morning after pill to the same man?

A good sidebar discussion to this would be why Obamacare requires birth control to be part of health insurance for all employees when it doesn't require much else with any specificity. I mean, is birth control so incredibly important compared to, say, a specific type of cancer medication or treatment? One is required by law while the other isn't mentioned. Why is that?

SamFromCO
March 25th, 2014, 08:14 AM
If the birth control provision, for that matter all of the provisions of Obamacare, are so obviously important to the well being of America then why does Obama keep putting off enforcing the law? Why would he want the nation to suffer any longer?

bsaunder
March 25th, 2014, 08:14 AM
Ok - I have several friends (who don't have kids) that strongly feel that vaccinating kids is wrong and point to multiple things, including their religious choice to back it up.

Should Hobby Lobby win, this opens the door for them to elect to not cover vaccinations. They are also against circumcision, drug assisted child birth, vasectomy, and prescriptions where a diet change and exercise is all that is needed... So their plan would be quite a bit different than the current mandated ones.

Sound_Man
March 25th, 2014, 08:17 AM
The no vac crowd is pretty fu(kin stupid.

Here is the illness and body count of those id10t's

http://jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html

Clod Hopper
March 25th, 2014, 08:19 AM
Jenny McCarthy. Is that the same one I am thinking?

Sound_Man
March 25th, 2014, 08:22 AM
Jenny McCarthy. Is that the same one I am thinking?

Yup. She is the public leader of the no vac crowd and an idiot.

9fngrs
March 25th, 2014, 11:40 AM
Ummm, I think vb's point goes toward the rule changes that take place after he bought the gas station in your analogy.

You can be fully legit (for numerous years) in a business and beyond the point of no-return, and when the rules suddenly change after a long history of "rule stability" (for lack of a better term), simply saying "you shouldn't have chosen that business" isn't an acceptable retort. :thumbsdown:

Sorry, but that was a horrible argument to the topic, IMO.

If we were talking about something newer like medical MJ and/or the legalization of recreational MJ recently, I could see your point.

Really?? Dont building codes change all the time? Saying rules should never change is a little silly to be honest. Everybody likes for the rules that they are in favor of never change and the ones they dont like should change immediately. Age of the law or rule is irrelevent...adaptation is key to prolonged existence. Things change and always will. Gas station rules still apply...

Steve
March 25th, 2014, 11:49 AM
Building codes aren't applied retroactively. If that were the case any building over a few decades old would either have to be gutted and rebuilt or demolished and replaced. Age of a rule or law is completely relevant since very few are applied retroactively. Ask anyone in jail in CO for a minor MJ offense; they'd love the new recreational MJ law to be applied retroactively but it's not.

DaJudge
March 25th, 2014, 11:59 AM
Building codes aren't applied retroactively. If that were the case any building over a few decades old would either have to be gutted and rebuilt or demolished and replaced. Age of a rule or law is completely relevant since very few are applied retroactively. Ask anyone in jail in CO for a minor MJ offense; they'd love the new recreational MJ law to be applied retroactively but it's not.
Maybe and maybe not:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25410897/marijuana-ruling-could-overturn-thousands-convictions-mdash-or

Waifer2112
March 25th, 2014, 12:02 PM
Ask anyone in jail in CO for a minor MJ offense; they'd love the new recreational MJ law to be applied retroactively but it's not.

Marijuana ruling could overturn thousands of convictions — or dozens

By John Ingold
The Denver Post
Posted: 03/24/2014 04:21:42 PM MDT31 comments | Updated: about 3 hours ago



Anywhere from a few dozen to more than 10,000 people could be eligible to have their old marijuana convictions overturned as the result of a landmark Colorado Court of Appeals ruling that applied marijuana legalization retroactively.

Colorado defense attorneys are poring through previous marijuana cases, looking for former clients who might be eligible for such relief, but much depends on how subsequent courts apply this month's ruling. On the surface, the ruling appears to have little reach, but attorneys say it is possible courts could follow the reasoning of the ruling to overturn every marijuana case in the state in which an adult was convicted of a crime that stopped being illegal when the state's marijuana-legalization law went into effect in late 2012.

9fngrs
March 25th, 2014, 12:24 PM
Building codes aren't applied retroactively. If that were the case any building over a few decades old would either have to be gutted and rebuilt or demolished and replaced. Age of a rule or law is completely relevant since very few are applied retroactively. Ask anyone in jail in CO for a minor MJ offense; they'd love the new recreational MJ law to be applied retroactively but it's not.

Could you explain how birth control will be applied retroactive? When I replaced deck I had to make it to code by todays standard even though the deck has been in place for 20 years. Obamacare is a new law so how can it be retroactive?

Steve
March 25th, 2014, 01:25 PM
Could you explain how birth control will be applied retroactive? When I replaced deck I had to make it to code by todays standard even though the deck has been in place for 20 years. Obamacare is a new law so how can it be retroactive?

You and Rex were arguing a gas station analogy and if laws are retroactive. I just provided clarification that most are not. When you replaced your deck you should have, by law, gotten a building permit, which would have to comply with current code. If you left the old deck alone you didn't have to bring it up to code. Nothing new there. If you live in an old house that has asbestos insulation you don't have to remove it, unless you do something that gets into it, then you have to properly remove it. Same with lead based paint, insulation, and lots of other things. Even the story about MJ laws in the posts above by Dajudge and Waifer have lots of weasel words like "could" and "might be" when it talks about applying the law retroactively.

I am curious why nobody has replied to my question about why specifically requiring birth control under Obamacare but not specifically requiring most other, much more critical, types of treatments aren't specified, makes any sense. Care to comment on that?

SamFromCO
March 25th, 2014, 01:29 PM
Could you explain how birth control will be applied retroactive?

Birth control is only retroactive through abortion. Birth control laws can be applied retroactively by saying they apply to every business new or old. The codes that you are talking about didn't apply to the deck that you had they apply to the new deck that replaced the old one.

zoriloco
March 25th, 2014, 01:52 PM
I like hobby lobby... bunch of stuff to buy for my kiddo to play with.

scottycards
March 25th, 2014, 02:15 PM
I am curious why nobody has replied to my question about why specifically requiring birth control under Obamacare but not specifically requiring most other, much more critical, types of treatments aren't specified, makes any sense. Care to comment on that?

I'm not sure your criteria for "much more critical types of treatments" is, but preventing cancer would likely rate up there on anyone's list.

Are you aware that using contraception for 5 years (most women use it for about 30 years, on average) reduces a woman's chances of developing ovarian cancer by over 50%?

More fun facts:

- more than 50% of women say they've struggled to afford birth control. (Planned Parenthood Oct 2010).
- National Women's Law Clinic reported that it would actually cost less to include this coverage than to not include it, from the employer's perspective. Here's the link: http://www.nwlc.org/resource/covering-prescription-contraceptives-employee-health-plans-how-coverage-saves-money-0
- 28 states already required insurance companies to cover contraception prior to the ACA.
- 99% of women have used contraception.
- 98% of CATHOLIC women have used contraception.
- Contraception is used to treat or prevent many health conditions that affect women, including ovarian cysts, endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, uterine fibroid tumors, abnormal bleeding, pain associated with ovulation, and anemia. Women who used oral contraceptives are also less likely to develop rheumatoid arthritis, particularly in its more severe forms.

potter
March 25th, 2014, 02:23 PM
I'm going to use the beard analogy someone else used earlier.

If a business is required to purchase an insurance plan, and that insurance plan offers free beard trimming utensils - and in this scenario it is against the business' religion to maintain a beard. It is not a violation of the business' freedom of religion, because no one is "forcing" the business to maintain beards. If anyone can try to argue otherwise I'd love to hear it.

There are a full four degrees of separation in this: Business > Business provided insurance plan > employee > employee's personal life > insurance covering possible things from employee's personal life

Steve
March 25th, 2014, 02:28 PM
I'm not sure your criteria for "much more critical types of treatments" is, but preventing cancer would likely rate up there on anyone's list.

Are you aware that using contraception for 5 years (most women use it for about 30 years, on average) reduces a woman's chances of developing ovarian cancer by over 50%?

More fun facts:

- more than 50% of women say they've struggled to afford birth control. (Planned Parenthood Oct 2010).
- National Women's Law Clinic reported that it would actually cost less to include this coverage than to not include it, from the employer's perspective. Here's the link: http://www.nwlc.org/resource/covering-prescription-contraceptives-employee-health-plans-how-coverage-saves-money-0
- 28 states already required insurance companies to cover contraception prior to the ACA.
- 99% of women have used contraception.
- 98% of CATHOLIC women have used contraception.
- Contraception is used to treat or prevent many health conditions that affect women, including ovarian cysts, endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, uterine fibroid tumors, abnormal bleeding, pain associated with ovulation, and anemia. Women who used oral contraceptives are also less likely to develop rheumatoid arthritis, particularly in its more severe forms.

Yup, aware of most of that. I have no problem with requiring coverage for contraception, but I am still curious why it's specifically required, by law, under Obamacare but many other things proven to prevent cancer aren't required to be covered. For example, there's an article in the paper today about the large decrease in colon cancer in the US due to routine colonoscopies after age 50. Does Obamacare specifically require that all HI plans pay for an annual colonoscopy after age 50? (I'm not sure but I don't think it does.) If not, why not? Does Obamacare require smoking cessation programs be covered? Why not require lots of other things that also reduce cancer? :shrug:

creepycrawler
March 25th, 2014, 02:40 PM
Yup, aware of most of that. I have no problem with requiring coverage for contraception, but I am still curious why it's specifically required, by law, under Obamacare but many other things proven to prevent cancer aren't required to be covered. For example, there's an article in the paper today about the large decrease in colon cancer in the US due to routine colonoscopies after age 50. Does Obamacare specifically require that all HI plans pay for an annual colonoscopy after age 50? (I'm not sure but I don't think it does.) If not, why not? Does Obamacare require smoking cessation programs be covered? Why not require lots of other things that also reduce cancer? :shrug:

Because lobbyists didn't give him lot 'O money to put the other things in there?

DaJudge
March 25th, 2014, 02:56 PM
Justices, Divided, Appear to Favor Religious Claims in Contraception Case


Marcia Coyle, Legal Times
March 25, 2014

A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared to favor claims by religious owners of for-profit corporations that they should be exempt from providing contraception coverage in their employee's health insurance plans.

As rallies by special interest groups filled the sidewalks outside of the court despite a snowy morning, the justices heard fast-paced arguments in the combined cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.

The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood contend the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health insurance plans include contraceptive coverage as part of women's preventive services imposes a substantial burden on their own and their corporations' exercise of religion in violation of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment's free-exercise clause.

The court's three female justices dominated questioning of the companies' counsel, former Bush solicitor general Paul Clement of Bancroft. They pressed him on whether corporations can exercise religion and, if so, how do they do it. They also questioned the impact of his argument in other areas—for example, could corporate owners claim religious-based exemptions from vaccination requirements or laws prohibiting discrimination? And, they appeared skeptical that the contraception coverage was a substantial burden when the companies were not required to provide health insurance and could pay a tax instead, a tax that was less than the cost of providing health insurance.

Clement argued the RFRA's use of "persons" reflected Congress' intent to cover corporations. Dropping employee health insurance, he said, was not a burdenless "choice" because employers would then have to raise wages, pay the penalty and be less competitive with other businesses that do offer health insurance.

The government, he contended, could not demonstrate a "compelling interest" in requiring this type of coverage because it has granted numerous exemptions—to churches and nonprofit religious organizations.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. faced his most skeptical questioning by the court's conservative justices. Justice Antonin Scalia challenged Verrilli's claim that the court's cases require a balancing of religious rights with the rights of third parties. "There's no reference in RFRA to that at all," Scalia said.

Verrilli said recognizing a for-profit corporations right to exercise religion would be a dramatic and dangerous expansion of the court's jurisprudence, with serious risks of entanglement of government and religion. There is no case recognizing such a right, he said. But Scalia rejoined, "There is no case denying such a right."

Verrilli emphasized that the rights of third parties—here, women and those who disagree with the religious beliefs of the companies' owners—were "critical" to the court's analysis of whether the government has a compelling interest in requiring the contraception coverage.

To rule against the government here, he said, "would be the first time in which this court or any court has held that an employer may get an exemption extinguishing statutory benefits of fundamental importance."

Contact Marcia Coyle at mcoyle@alm.com. On Twitter: @MarciaCoyle.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2014. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

scottycards
March 25th, 2014, 03:14 PM
Yup, aware of most of that. I have no problem with requiring coverage for contraception, but I am still curious why it's specifically required, by law, under Obamacare but many other things proven to prevent cancer aren't required to be covered. For example, there's an article in the paper today about the large decrease in colon cancer in the US due to routine colonoscopies after age 50. Does Obamacare specifically require that all HI plans pay for an annual colonoscopy after age 50? (I'm not sure but I don't think it does.) If not, why not? Does Obamacare require smoking cessation programs be covered? Why not require lots of other things that also reduce cancer? :shrug:




Coverage of colorectal cancer screening tests is required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/moreinformation/colonandrectumcancerearlydetection/colorectal-cancer-early-detection-screening-coverage-laws
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will the Affordable Care Act require coverage of quit-smoking programs?
Yes.
The law requires all new private health insurance plans and Marketplace plans to cover services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, with no cost-sharing fees. That includes tobacco cessation treatments.
http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/20130716/how-affordable-care-act-affects-smokers

Now, if I can just get e-cigs/vapes to get categorized as smoking cessation tools, I'll be in fat city. BTW, I'm 6 months since I've had a tobacco cig. Yay me.

redcj7
March 25th, 2014, 03:40 PM
I don't know about the other plaintiff, but as I understand it, is Hobby lobby is NOT opposed to contraceptives, rather they are opposed to four drugs they feel are abortion drugs. They were providing coverage before the ACA for contraceptives, as I pointed out earlier.

9fngrs
March 25th, 2014, 03:58 PM
You and Rex were arguing a gas station analogy and if laws are retroactive. I just provided clarification that most are not. When you replaced your deck you should have, by law, gotten a building permit, which would have to comply with current code. If you left the old deck alone you didn't have to bring it up to code. Nothing new there. If you live in an old house that has asbestos insulation you don't have to remove it, unless you do something that gets into it, then you have to properly remove it. Same with lead based paint, insulation, and lots of other things. Even the story about MJ laws in the posts above by Dajudge and Waifer have lots of weasel words like "could" and "might be" when it talks about applying the law retroactively.

I am curious why nobody has replied to my question about why specifically requiring birth control under Obamacare but not specifically requiring most other, much more critical, types of treatments aren't specified, makes any sense. Care to comment on that?

Thank you for the clarification. For all the years I have worked our insurance plans have changed on a yearly basis. Maybe some are more long term but something that gets changed every year does not seem to qualify for any type of retroactive standing. I understand what you are saying now. When I hear "retroactive" I assume you are implying they had to go back and cover something from the past. What seems to be happening is moving forward they may or may not have to cover things they might not want to. Depends on the final decision by the court....in 6-12 months when they put out thier final remarks.

scottycards
March 25th, 2014, 04:47 PM
I don't know about the other plaintiff, but as I understand it, is Hobby lobby is NOT opposed to contraceptives, rather they are opposed to four drugs they feel are abortion drugs. They were providing coverage before the ACA for contraceptives, as I pointed out earlier.

Exactly.

Which, at least to me, is the strangest part of this. Stem cells are objectionable for some groups of people, primarily on religious grounds. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, I'd think that companies would now have grounds to object to any medicines derived from research done with stem cells, medicines derived from stem cell research, products and therapies that use stem cells, etc. I mean, you'd have companies basically directing medical protocols, research, and products, if a person was to look at it in a strict sense.

Justice Kagan's comments today are pretty darn hard to refute.

Super crazy.

We inch closer to the drain every day........

creepycrawler
March 25th, 2014, 07:19 PM
We inch closer to the drain every day........

Agreed. Step by step right beside the world getting more and more liberal every day.

DaJudge
March 26th, 2014, 11:29 AM
SCOTUSblog: Birth control, business, and religious beliefs: In Plain English (http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/birth-control-business-and-religious-beliefs-in-plain-english/)

scottycards
March 26th, 2014, 12:19 PM
SCOTUSblog: Birth control, business, and religious beliefs: In Plain English (http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/birth-control-business-and-religious-beliefs-in-plain-english/)

:thumbsup::thumbsup: Great link. Bookmarked to go read later.

But this kind of reasoning (almost circular logic, IMO) drives me nuts.....Fricking HL saying that it's the .gov's responsibility to make sure that HL can attract workers.......zomgtheworldisacrazyplace

It's almost like HL is just looking for some kind of a win, no matter what, just a win. First, they have somehow set this baseline understanding that these birth control methods are analogous to an abortion (which dumbfounds me, because it's about the largest leap of logic/reasoning that I've ever seen), now they're like "well if we go Route A it's a burden, and if we go Route B it's a burden.........."

Maybe I just can't see clearly when hugely profitable companies whine. I really find it annoying. Get over yourselves, HL. You've got what most people and companies would literally kill for. You're successful, highly profitable, and yet you still find reason to bitch. Very un-Christ like, IMO. "Persecuted Christians" are a royal PITA.

:crybaby::crybaby::crybaby:


After spending a few minutes on questions from Sotomayor about how the mechanics by which a corporation exercises religion, the Justices then plunged into the nitty-gritty of Hobby Lobby’s options under the ACA and the mandate, focusing in particular on whether the company faced a “substantial burden” for exercising its religious beliefs. Kagan and Sotomayor suggested that the company could choose not to provide insurance for its employees at all, which would subject it to a penalty of $2,000 per employee – which, Kagan speculated, is probably less than it would have to pay to provide insurance for an employee. And if that’s the case, Kagan continued, where is the substantial burden? This theory seemed to pique the interest of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often regarded as a key vote in high-profile cases. Assuming hypothetically that the costs to the company are the same whether it provides its employees with health insurance or instead pays the penalty and compensates the employees so that they can buy their own insurance, Kennedy asked Clement, what would your case be? Clement countered that Hobby Lobby would still face a burden because, if it didn’t provide its employees with insurance, it wouldn’t be able to attract workers.

No wonder I loathe organized religion as much as I do.

Gags
March 26th, 2014, 01:06 PM
Agreed. Step by step right beside the world getting more and more liberal every day.

Dude, I'd love for you name some "top lines" on how you think the World is getting more and more liberal every day.

Then, I'd like for you to point out why you think those things are bad.

Please don't talk about gun control because that is some liberal bullsh!t...I admit it.

creepycrawler
March 26th, 2014, 05:32 PM
Dude, I'd love for you name some "top lines" on how you think the World is getting more and more liberal every day.

Then, I'd like for you to point out why you think those things are bad.

Why? With all due respect, you're liberal and I'm not. Pretty much anything you like, I won't and vice versa.

scottycards
March 26th, 2014, 05:41 PM
That was a great link, DaJudge.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes. All over 4 methods of contraception- still mind boggling to me.

At any rate, I wonder if we'll see an increase in claims from privately held (by one family) corporations seeking relief under the RFRA should the SCOTUS rule in favor of Hobby Lobby.

Seems like it might open a sort of Pandora's Box, and I generally don't consider myself a "slippery slope" kind of person. Kagan's comments were pretty poigniant.

CruiserAbuser
March 26th, 2014, 05:56 PM
Ah but the fine wrinkle in this is the reason for the exclusion, which is religious reasons on the part of the employer. That's the whole point of the argument. Either cite the reason as valid reason with corroborating information and then ALSO necessarily address the slippery slope that it takes religion and employment down, or ...... you gloss over it and prove no point.

With zero, zero malice, Cruiser, and with full charity here - you just did the latter. This is what people are missing. This is not about healthcare alone, but rather the extraordinarily large topic of how much impact religion of the employer has on the conditions of employment.

Because, honestly, if you want to advocate for every, say, devout Muslim employer able to force all men wear beards and women hijabs as a condition of employment, go ahead. I suppose we can all just choose not to work for those employers, right? Or, why not force all employees to tithe, as a condition of employment? The torah specifically excludes tattoos - sorry, Charlie - that ink you got on Spring break South Padre Island 1992 makes you unsuitable for this career.

I understand and respect your position
I worked for a company that held hands and prayed before meetings. I had no idea this was the "policy" and it only occurred after I was promoted to management. I was uncomfortable and quit, had I know up front I would not have taken the job. However, I also believe the owner had a right to run the company his way and to surround himself with like minded people ... I wasn't one of them.

I have more issue with government interference in business than religion and I'm agnostic.

potter
March 26th, 2014, 08:00 PM
Wikipedia! Everyone's favorite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

Gags
March 27th, 2014, 01:14 PM
Why? With all due respect, you're liberal and I'm not. Pretty much anything you like, I won't and vice versa.

Ah mate, that's not true.

I hate some "liberal" bullsh!t myself.

1BGDOG
April 3rd, 2014, 10:08 PM
Aw snap! Hobby Lobby's 401k invests in the companies they are trying to get out of Romneycare.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

1BGDOG
April 3rd, 2014, 10:08 PM
Aw snap! Hobby Lobby's 401k invests in the companies they are trying to get out of Romneycare.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

scottycards
April 4th, 2014, 06:09 AM
Aw snap! Hobby Lobby's 401k invests in the companies they are trying to get out of Romneycare.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

Snappity snap snap!


According to the Green family, interfering with an already fertilized egg is tantamount to abortion—an act unacceptable to the family and one they refuse to participate in no matter what the Affordable Care Act may require .


However, it turns out that the owners of Hobby Lobby do not appear to have any problem with profiting from the companies that manufacture the very products that so grievously offend their religious principles.

The following is a summation of the companies manufacturing these products that are held by the Hobby Lobby employee retirement plan, as set forth by Ms. Redden’s remarkable reporting:

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis ACT -0.86%, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer PFE +0.34%, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer , which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca AZN -0.99%, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna AET +0.25% and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets.



Lol.....Jesus would have had issues with Hobby Lobby, undoubtedly. Matthew 23


Jesus went on immediately, however, to point out their hypocrisy and commanded the people, “But do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (v. 3). He then cited the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. They lay heavy burdens upon the people but would not do anything to make the load lighter.

vb
April 4th, 2014, 08:24 AM
i think i will wait just a bit before i jump into believing something printed in a news paper, but boy howdy, if the greens did know and are invested in these products......... wow!

creepycrawler
April 4th, 2014, 08:55 AM
This is sadly humorous if true and I assume it is. It's a good thing when hypocrisy gets called out.

Dave McDonald
April 4th, 2014, 09:10 AM
Does Hobby Lobby have control over the 401k? Are they the fund managers? Does the family hold any part of the 401k, or is it just employee funds by the employee's choice?

The family all along has said that they don't want to force employees to toe their religious line. They hired a 401k company to administer the employee's retirement fund. Nobody has proven that the Green family holds stock, directly or indirectly, in the companies making the drigs they find objectionable. Nobody has shown that the Green family has any money in the 401k offered to their employees.

Dave McDonald
April 4th, 2014, 09:17 AM
I'm going to use the beard analogy someone else used earlier.

If a business is required to purchase an insurance plan, and that insurance plan offers free beard trimming utensils - and in this scenario it is against the business' religion to maintain a beard. It is not a violation of the business' freedom of religion, because no one is "forcing" the business to maintain beards. If anyone can try to argue otherwise I'd love to hear it.

There are a full four degrees of separation in this: Business > Business provided insurance plan > employee > employee's personal life > insurance covering possible things from employee's personal life
No insurance plan offers 'free' anything. The cost is paid from the premiums. If the company is required to buy the insurance, and the insurance is required to provide no cost beard trimming supplies, then the company os being required to buy beard trimming supplies. This case is all about the company saying "We object to beard trimming, and would like to leave the cost up to the individual rather than us having to pay for something we find objectionable."

Requiring the privately held company to pay for beard trimming is a violation of the owner's freedom of religion . Having the company require the employee to pay for their own beard trimming is not a violation at all since there is no requirement for the employee to keep their bear unkempt, only for the employee to take on the cost on their own - a condition that is disclosed at the time of employment. If a clean shaven employee objects, they can work somewhere else.

potter
April 4th, 2014, 09:40 AM
No insurance plan offers 'free' anything. The cost is paid from the premiums. If the company is required to buy the insurance, and the insurance is required to provide no cost beard trimming supplies, then the company os being required to buy beard trimming supplies. This case is all about the company saying "We object to beard trimming, and would like to leave the cost up to the individual rather than us having to pay for something we find objectionable."

Requiring the privately held company to pay for beard trimming is a violation of the owner's freedom of religion . Having the company require the employee to pay for their own beard trimming is not a violation at all since there is no requirement for the employee to keep their bear unkempt, only for the employee to take on the cost on their own - a condition that is disclosed at the time of employment. If a clean shaven employee objects, they can work somewhere else.

The company isn't paying for beard trimming, the insurance company is. There is still a degree of separation. All the company is paying for is insurance, insurance is the tangible item here, and that is all they are paying for.

It's like someone saying they won't give any money to the homeless because they don't want to "support their habit" - suggesting that the money will simply go to booze or something. While that type of logic works fine when you're being an insensitive jerk drinking with your buddies, it's not logic that works when it comes to the law. Technically speaking, even if you did give a fiver to a guy on a corner and he went and bought liquor with it - you didn't in any way buy liquor.

So while I'm all happy to listen to some business get their panties in a bunch because they don't enjoy "supporting" something another company does with their money. It ends at the round table discussion. Because in they end, from a technical stand point, they aren't the ones actually spending the money on it. And when it comes to the law, the technicality is what counts.

scottycards
April 4th, 2014, 09:44 AM
Does Hobby Lobby have control over the 401k? Are they the fund managers? Does the family hold any part of the 401k, or is it just employee funds by the employee's choice?

The family all along has said that they don't want to force employees to toe their religious line. They hired a 401k company to administer the employee's retirement fund. Nobody has proven that the Green family holds stock, directly or indirectly, in the companies making the drigs they find objectionable. Nobody has shown that the Green family has any money in the 401k offered to their employees.

They absolutely have control over the 401k.

Not sure why you'd ask if they're the fund managers. Pretty vague question. Can you clarify?

Does the family hold? I'd certainly hope not, considering how offensive they find those companies to be.

Employer chooses funds in their 401k offering- it's not the employee's choice. And yes, there are numerous funds that meet the "purity test" available. Here's a link: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=christian+mutual+funds

I'm still stuck, Dave. How can they object to facilitating contraception on religious grounds, but not object to facilitating investing in and profiting off those exact same products?

Or is this really a money thing (as we all damn well know)? They're not objecting to contraception, they're objecting to the ACA. They're using religion to further their own financial goals.

Dave McDonald
April 4th, 2014, 09:47 AM
The company isn't paying for beard trimming, the insurance company is. There is still a degree of separation. All the company is paying for is insurance, insurance is the tangible item here, and that is all they are paying for.

It's like someone saying they won't give any money to the homeless because they don't want to "support their habit" - suggesting that the money will simply go to booze or something. While that type of logic works fine when you're being an insensitive jerk drinking with your buddies, it's not logic that works when it comes to the law. Technically speaking, even if you did give a fiver to a guy on a corner and he went and bought liquor with it - you didn't in any way buy liquor.

So while I'm all happy to listen to some business get their panties in a bunch because they don't enjoy "supporting" something another company does with their money. It ends at the round table discussion. Because in they end, from a technical stand point, they aren't the ones actually spending the money on it. And when it comes to the law, the technicality is what counts.

Technically, most mid to large sized companies are self-insured, so it's not the insurance company paying the bills with insurance company dollars, it's an administrator paying bills with the original company's dollars.

So technically, they are forcing the company to directly pay for beard trimming.... technically.

Steve
April 4th, 2014, 09:48 AM
They absolutely have control over the 401k.

Not sure why you'd ask if they're the fund managers. Pretty vague question. Can you clarify?

If it's like most corporate-offered 401k plans the company has little to no control over what it's invested in and they're not the fund managers. The company I work for chose Vanguard for our 401k. We can choose any available Vanguard fund we want for our investment. The company makes no attempt to manage any of Vanguard's funds or tell them - or us as employees - what we should or shouldn't invest our retirement savings in. I suspect Hobby Lobby's 401k plan is very similar.

potter
April 4th, 2014, 09:51 AM
Technically, most mid to large sized companies are self-insured, so it's not the insurance company paying the bills with insurance company dollars, it's an administrator paying bills with the original company's dollars.

So technically, they are forcing the company to directly pay for beard trimming.... technically.

Ah - but they aren't forced to though, it would be their choice to be self-insured. ;)

Dave McDonald
April 4th, 2014, 09:52 AM
They absolutely have control over the 401k.

Not sure why you'd ask if they're the fund managers. Pretty vague question. Can you clarify?

Does the family hold? I'd certainly hope not, considering how offensive they find those companies to be.

Employer chooses funds in their 401k offering- it's not the employee's choice. And yes, there are numerous funds that meet the "purity test" available. Here's a link: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=christian+mutual+funds

I'm still stuck, Dave. How can they object to facilitating contraception on religious grounds, but not object to facilitating investing in and profiting off those exact same products?

Or is this really a money thing (as we all damn well know)? They're not objecting to contraception, they're objecting to the ACA. They're using religion to further their own financial goals.

By not offering the funds that invest in those companies, Hobby Lobby is forcing their employees to follow the owner's beliefs. 401k dollars can only go to the funds currently offered in the plan. Hobby Lobby sees no profit from the 401k plans. Only the employee does.

By not offering to financially support what they believe to be 'abortion pills', they are not forcing the employee to follow the owner's beliefs, they are just forcing the employee to pay for it themselves.

Dave McDonald
April 4th, 2014, 09:58 AM
Ah - but they aren't forced to though, it would be their choice to be self-insured. ;)

Got it. So Hobby Lobby should increase the cost of providing insurance to their employees by stopping the self-insurance and going with insurance company plans so that Hobby Lobby can limit their guilt of providing something they don't belive in.

More money from the employees can buy the Green's freedom from guilt. Plus that spreads the cost of the abortion pills to all the employees rather than just the women that can't keep their legs closed or figure out how to use preventative birth control.

:beer:

potter
April 4th, 2014, 10:08 AM
Got it. So Hobby Lobby should increase the cost of providing insurance to their employees by stopping the self-insurance and going with insurance company plans so that Hobby Lobby can limit their guilt of providing something they don't belive in.

Uh yeah.... What are, you some liberal who thinks we should change the laws so businesses can be cry babies who get to change every law simply because they don't like them?

Boo friggin hoo. They need to suck it up. They chose to start a business, they chose to run that business a certain way, they're choosing to put their religious beliefs into how they run their business. They can live with those choices like F'n adults and deal with it.

Dave McDonald
April 4th, 2014, 10:14 AM
Uh yeah.... What are, you some liberal who thinks we should change the laws so businesses can be cry babies who get to change every law simply because they don't like them?

Boo friggin hoo. They need to suck it up. They chose to start a business, they chose to run that business a certain way, they're choosing to put their religious beliefs into how they run their business. They can live with those choices like F'n adults and deal with it.

That's exactly what they're trying to do, but the government has taken away their choices. They're currently trying to get those choices back so they can live with them like f'n adults and deal with it.

If the current administration would maybe consider that we're not all infants that require them to make all our decisions for us, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

scottycards
April 4th, 2014, 10:15 AM
By not offering the funds that invest in those companies, Hobby Lobby is forcing their employees to follow the owner's beliefs. 401k dollars can only go to the funds currently offered in the plan. Hobby Lobby sees no profit from the 401k plans. Only the employee does.


I'd like to see this claim substantiated.

Hobby Lobby is absolutely forcing employees to follow the owner's beliefs, if they're going to deny insurance coverage due to 4 contraceptives they object to.



By not offering to financially support what they believe to be 'abortion pills', they are not forcing the employee to follow the owner's beliefs, they are just forcing the employee to pay for it themselves.

I disagree. :beer:

potter
April 4th, 2014, 10:18 AM
That's exactly what they're trying to do, but the government has taken away their choices. They're currently trying to get those choices back so they can live with them like f'n adults and deal with it.

If the current administration would maybe consider that we're not all infants that require them to make all our decisions for us, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

They have plenty of choices. On top of that, they have plenty of rules they must follow as a business. If they don't like the responsibilities that come with owning a business, then well - I guess that really says it all.

Dave McDonald
April 4th, 2014, 10:24 AM
I'd like to see this claim substantiated.

I thought that would be obvious. the 401k contains $ that will go to the employee on retirement. The only possible way for any of the money to go back to Hobby Lobby is if they do matching and an employee quits or is fired before they are fully vested.

I'm speaking from the limited knowledge I've gained from personal experience.



Hobby Lobby is absolutely forcing employees to follow the owner's beliefs, if they're going to deny insurance coverage due to 4 contraceptives they object to.

They're not denying the employees the opportunity to obtain the 4 contraceptives. They're just saying they won't pay for it. There's no negative impact to the employee if they buy and take one of the 4 drugs. No threat of unemployment, no retribution. Hobby Lobby is not restricting the employees.





I disagree. :beer:

I figured you did, and I'm sure some of the judges will disagree as well. :beer:

But I'll tell you how things would be if I ran the world :D

Dave McDonald
April 4th, 2014, 10:27 AM
They have plenty of choices. On top of that, they have plenty of rules they must follow as a business. If they don't like the responsibilities that come with owning a business, then well - I guess that really says it all.


But none of the other responsibilities that come with owning a business are violating their religion. That's the big difference here. The government went too far.

potter
April 4th, 2014, 10:37 AM
But none of the other responsibilities that come with owning a business are violating their religion. That's the big difference here. The government went too far.

And again, them purchasing insurance and then whatever the insurance company does with that money is not a violation of their religion. There is a degree of separation. If they themselves are the ones paying for the services, then that is their choice alone - they have other options available to them so they don't have to.

They can't just say "We want to pay for our insurance this way, but we don't like all that entails. So we're going to pout about it and stomp our feet and say the law needs to change.". It's total rhetoric and they sound like a child throwing a temper tantrum. If they don't like what their employees need from insurance, they pay an insurance company to provide it. If they don't like the extra expense then sell the business and go dig ditches for all I care. I'm not concerned with a business whining about an expense being too high - that is LITERALLY what owning a business is (dealing with and overcoming expenses).

Dave McDonald
April 4th, 2014, 10:46 AM
And again, them purchasing insurance and then whatever the insurance company does with that money is not a violation of their religion. There is a degree of separation. If they themselves are the ones paying for the services, then that is their choice alone - they have other options available to them so they don't have to.

They can't just say "We want to pay for our insurance this way, but we don't like all that entails. So we're going to pout about it and stomp our feet and say the law needs to change.". It's total rhetoric and they sound like a child throwing a temper tantrum. If they don't like what their employees need from insurance, they pay an insurance company to provide it. If they don't like the extra expense then sell the business and go dig ditches for all I care. I'm not concerned with a business whining about an expense being too high - that is LITERALLY what owning a business is (dealing with and overcoming expenses).

Y'know, I'm not sure that very many people would agree that having someone else use a pool of money you've paid into to pay for something you find objectionable to be a guilt free deal. Many people can't justify immorality by hiding behind a degree of separation. That's probably why the majority of states don't cover abortion costs under medicaid.

scottycards
April 4th, 2014, 11:03 AM
But I'll tell you how things would be if I ran the world :D

Just as an aside, and I respect your opinion that you've stated.......but I gotta ask-

Do you really not see any issue with this situation, or lack of consistency around it?

I'd think that if someone has strong enough religious objections to go all the way to the SCOTUS over 4 contraceptives, that they'd surely take a minute to make sure that they're not completely and totally supporting manufacturers of said products via their own 401k plan offering.

I mean, "test of reasonableness" candidate here? ;)

Dave McDonald
April 4th, 2014, 11:35 AM
Just as an aside, and I respect your opinion that you've stated.......but I gotta ask-

Do you really not see any issue with this situation, or lack of consistency around it?

I'd think that if someone has strong enough religious objections to go all the way to the SCOTUS over 4 contraceptives, that they'd surely take a minute to make sure that they're not completely and totally supporting manufacturers of said products via their own 401k plan offering.

I mean, "test of reasonableness" candidate here? ;)

Honestly, I don't see a lack of consistancy. Let me try and put it simply....

The Greens don't like the 4 drugs.
The Greens don't want to force their beliefs on anyone.
The Greens don't want anyone else's beliefs forced on them.
They make a 401k available to the employees as a benefit, and don't restrict how the employees invest their money. It still has to be shown that the Greens have any of their own money invested in those funds.
They make health insurance available to the employee, but believe that the 4 drugs are bad things, so they exclude coverage. Note that doesn't restrict availability, it only addresses the cost of the drug to the employee.

The Greens aren't paying for or making money off the 4 drugs. The employees are free to make money off of and use the 4 drugs.

Nobody's forcing any beliefs on anyone else.

Except the Federal government that's wanting to force the Greens to pay for the 4 drugs.

Justin Denard
April 4th, 2014, 11:40 AM
And again, them purchasing insurance and then whatever the insurance company does with that money is not a violation of their religion. There is a degree of separation. If they themselves are the ones paying for the services, then that is their choice alone - they have other options available to them so they don't have to.

I have to disagree with you on that. Just because there is a "degree of separation" does not make it necessarily separate. What if some of the money you were required to give to another company, went to possibly supporting a terrorist faction? Well, in the eyes of those who run Hobby Lobby, what they would be giving money for would be something that in fact takes away life. You can say "well that's terrorist and your being asinine rabble rabble rabble!" but a life is a life is a life. Taken one way or taken another...it is still loss of life.

I'm not a religeous person by any means, but I can support Hobby Lobbly on this one. Potter you said "If they don't like the extra expense then sell the business and go dig ditches for all I care. I'm not concerned with a business whining about an expense being too high - that is LITERALLY what owning a business is (dealing with and overcoming expenses)."

It's not the expense their whining about obviously...it's the fact that it is support something they are directly morally against. Some businesses still have morality, ethics, and their beliefs at the forefront over profit. I would close my doors as well if I were forced to do/support something at the core I believe is wrong. I know several businesses owners who said they would close their doors if they were put in situation that wen't against what they believe.

You can look down on it all you want, but once again...there are still people in this world who stand behind their beliefs.

I agree with Dave. It's not that Hobby Lobby is saying you can't have it, and if we find out you do...we'll fire you. Nope, they're simply stating that WE won't pay for it. You can still get all the other frills of insurance, but birth control is on you.

Their not killing or limiting anyone's liberties or freedoms, they're simply exercising their's to not pay for something that would essentially deny their own beliefs/freedoms.

potter
April 4th, 2014, 12:55 PM
Y'know, I'm not sure that very many people would agree that having someone else use a pool of money you've paid into to pay for something you find objectionable to be a guilt free deal. Many people can't justify immorality by hiding behind a degree of separation. That's probably why the majority of states don't cover abortion costs under medicaid.

If it's against your morals to provide employees with coverage for birth control. Then, I don't see the argument for why the laws should be changed so you can start a business and operate guilt free according to your religion. I see the argument for getting over your religion if you want to start a business.

Sorry, I'm just all for capitalism and personal responsibility here. I don't want businesses getting into pushing for changes in laws so they can operate with an edge in the market, or so they can sleep better at night.

edit: This stance / reply works in reply to Justin as well.

scottycards
April 4th, 2014, 12:55 PM
Honestly, I don't see a lack of consistancy. Let me try and put it simply....

The Greens don't like the 4 drugs.
The Greens don't want to force their beliefs on anyone.
The Greens don't want anyone else's beliefs forced on them.
They make a 401k available to the employees as a benefit, and don't restrict how the employees invest their money. It still has to be shown that the Greens have any of their own money invested in those funds.
They make health insurance available to the employee, but believe that the 4 drugs are bad things, so they exclude coverage. Note that doesn't restrict availability, it only addresses the cost of the drug to the employee.

The Greens aren't paying for or making money off the 4 drugs. The employees are free to make money off of and use the 4 drugs.

Nobody's forcing any beliefs on anyone else.

Except the Federal government that's wanting to force the Greens to pay for the 4 drugs.

:thumbsup: Not sure if simple, but my pea brain seems to be able to follow the reasoning.

You bring up how the Greens have their money invested- interesting point. I checked the HL site, and they do, in fact, offer a 401k match. So, quite literally, Hobby Lobby IS investing Hobby Lobby dollars into these companies, which in turns pays for research, development, production, and marketing of these "abortion products". If an employee leaves HL prior to fully vesting, it raises the question of how to morally defend company dollars that are now invested in the contraceptive companies.

Dunno, man. I still think that HL would offer investment options that would be congruous with their religious views.

Not saying that a case can't be made to defend HL, but at best it's super weak, and takes more than a bit of explaining to reach a pretty shaky (at least far from solid) conclusion.

At worst, it's hugely hypocritical.

I'm of the opinion that a large amount of investigation or reasoning/explanation isn't required here to see this for what it is. HL has an issue with the ACA as a whole due to cost, they're using their religion to try to sidestep the ACA and save some money, and they got caught holding their pecker in their hands with the 401k thing.

But as you so clearly point out- for those wishing to believe otherwise, a case can be made.

bsaunder
April 4th, 2014, 01:03 PM
Does HL even put the vesting restriction on the 401k, and if so - do they make the contribution during the vesting period at all? I've been with several companies (current one included) that made no contribution during the first year and then started making contributions after that (no real vesting period per traditional vesting). In that case, there is no chance of the money coming back to them.
-- and even if it could, I see that as really really reaching to try and get them in the same web...

scottycards
April 4th, 2014, 01:28 PM
Lol, from another site, and a great illustration of how interweb chat boards love to take things to the ludicrous degree.....


Many of the products they (Hobby Lobby) sell are made in China. China has a forced abortion law. How can they support that?

I think the (Hobby) horse has been sufficiently beaten, and the point made.

HL and their "faith-based objection" is uber-flimsy at best, and egregiously hypocritical by most sane standards. It's about money, plain and simple. Not about God, not about Jesus, not about religion, not about faith.

About Benjamins.

Steve
April 4th, 2014, 01:31 PM
If it's against your morals to provide employees with coverage for birth control. Then, I don't see the argument for why the laws should be changed so you can start a business and operate guilt free according to your religion. I see the argument for getting over your religion if you want to start a business.

I agree, but in this case you have it backwards. HL started their business a long time ago, and the law they object to was just changed, not the other way around.

That said I honestly couldn't care any less how the SCOTUS rules on this one.

Justin Denard
April 4th, 2014, 04:09 PM
Question that I'm too lazy to look up right now :laughing:...

Does Hobby Lobby have to provide insurance...can they not just take the ACA Fee hit and let their employees find/fund their own healthcare?

vb
April 4th, 2014, 05:04 PM
i think that i heard that that "hit" is 1.3 mil a day?