Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

And where did you get your 3rd time posted interpretation from?


Oh, haven't listened to the radio all day.

From the SCOTUS decision you posted a link to earlier, but obviously haven't bothered to read???

From Burwell, et. al, v. Hobby Lobby Stores et. al.???

Pages 2 - 3 of that decision, after the word "Held" ???

Here's a towel, wipe the egg off your face ... jeez.

originally posted by: macman

Prime example of a hall-assed answer:

If the religion of the owner(s) of a business doesn't believe in it, then to force them to provide it is just that.

So really what you're saying is the owner(s) of the company dictate what their employee's have access to on their medical package, and they can legally dictate that decision based on their religious beliefs?

So as ive said before, a company owned by a Jehovah witness can legally not pay for a blood transfusion? A muslim can out right deny women any medical benefit's while freely giving medical packages to its male staff?

Macman... You're what's wrong with america.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

I will ask again.

Has Hobby Lobby stopped ANYONE from purchasing this item?

It has legally disallowed them from using the company medical package for attaining them, how answer this:
How is allowing access to the morning after pill discriminating against religious beliefs? Stop avoiding the question.

I'm pretty sure the employees at hobby lobby are thankful they are offered some type of insurance.
Only "entitled" people cry for more.

Right, because American workers should take what they get and shut up about it?

When did it become "entitlement' to decide how to spend your own money?

You know what's the best part of living in America?

We have a choice to find employment wherever we want to.

So, in "your America" ... you're in favor of this government-mandate that enforces corporations dictating to their employees how they spend their own money then? What's next?

Is the company we work for going to tell us what to eat? No pork because it's unclean?

Hell, no meat, because it's a living animal and might be their reincarnated Aunt Sally?

Where does government-endorsed-interference end???

You know how silly you look by typing this?

No, but I certainly do know what it looks like when you've realized the poor argument you're making and you try to resort to logical fallacy.

/nods

originally posted by: Destinyone

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: Destinyone
I'm not a christian...just a good old tax paying lady, tired of over reaching by an ever intrusive government.

You sure got that one wrong...Bright Blessings to you, said the Pagan old lady...

Des

You'll have to forgive me if i just dont believe you. Nothing personal. It's just the internet, people will lie to suit their arguments.

Then you haven't read a lot of my posts....but, if it makes you feel better to call me a liar...go for it. Who am I to take away your delusions.

Des

Indeed, im as deluded as someone who believe's that hobby lobby's religious right's were being impeached haha

a reply to: SearchLightsInc

This also protects a business under a Christian president (or ultra-religious) administration from making sweeping laws or mandates that go against their individual religions.

a reply to: Realtruth

The only thing that should have been aborted earlier on is the ACA itself, and the corporate criminals that wrote it.

Yep it should have.

The ACA is a means to cloward and piven.

Throw millions more people on to a system that already couldn't handle what it had.

'Contraceptions' is another means to that same end.

someone tell me.
the gov't has mandated the individual to buy and acceptable insurance policy
that meets certain standards
among all those standards is birth control with no out of pocket payment (it isn't free since one has to buy the policy)
which they then mandated the insurance companies to alter their insurance policies to meet the standards
They then proceeded to mandate the businesses to offer the insurance plans to their employees

I don't see where the gov't mandated that the business nothing more than providing a plan for their businesses.

They mandated the insurance companies to include a long list of items to include with no out of pocket responsibilities

And I really don't think the companies ever had much say so as to what was included in the policies at least affordably!

adding more exemptions and exclusions to this law has been a mistake they have consistently made since they passed the law.

when will they realize that a law that can't be equally enforced isn't a good law to begin with/??

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

This also protects a business under a Christian president (or ultra-religious) administration from making sweeping laws or mandates that go against their individual religions.

The entitlement mind can only see things one way they don't understand anything other then want want want.

a reply to: dawnstar

Uh...the company is paying the lion's share of the cost of the policy...not the employees.

Des

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It's a political decision based SOLELY on political ideology from the one Branch of Government that was supposed to be continually above party.

Remember you're crowing over this, Christians, when Muslim companies require you to get on your knees and pray five times per day toward Mecca or keep you from bringing a ham sandwich to work, or the Chinese Taoists, Buddhists or Confucianists choose to require you to work on Sundays, Easters and Christmases as if they're any other day.

Don't even get me started on what the Wiccans and Satanists might require of their workers, LOL.

Here's to the end of reason and rationality in the American Legal System.

No one is forced to work for anyone they don't want to. Slavery was abolished a long time ago.

You don't like what your employer requires of you:
skimpy clothes at Hooters
cleaning toilets
working awful hours
anything - QUIT
you have that right in the US

What you are saying is a non-issue since everyone is free to quit a job if the employer wants them to do something onerous to them. If we still had slavery then it would be an issue, but we don't.

Okay, there were 2 studies conducted on the morning after pill and the effects it has on the female reproductive system. The first person to post them gets a cookie.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It's a political decision based SOLELY on political ideology from the one Branch of Government that was supposed to be continually above party.

Remember you're crowing over this, Christians, when Muslim companies require you to get on your knees and pray five times per day toward Mecca or keep you from bringing a ham sandwich to work, or the Chinese Taoists, Buddhists or Confucianists choose to require you to work on Sundays, Easters and Christmases as if they're any other day.

Don't even get me started on what the Wiccans and Satanists might require of their workers, LOL.

Here's to the end of reason and rationality in the American Legal System.

No one is forced to work for anyone they don't want to. Slavery was abolished a long time ago.

You don't like what your employer requires of you:
skimpy clothes at Hooters
cleaning toilets
working awful hours
anything - QUIT
you have that right in the US

What you are saying is a non-issue since everyone is free to quit a job if the employer wants them to do something onerous to them. If we still had slavery then it would be an issue, but we don't.

And if you happen to be 42(20 years in with this company) with limited options in today's market? That seems like it would be a "suck it up buttercup" thing. Individuals don't often have the resources to make a SC challenge.

I'm not kidding here.

Is anyone else seeing this ACA debacle as a "Super Red Herring"?

I have personally felt the wrath of the ACA, which I will not get into right now, but the ACA is not only criminal, but absolutely chaotic on every level.

Step back and take a look at yourselves arguing.

a reply to: SearchLightsInc
Please correct the format and I will address this.

originally posted by: Destinyone
a reply to: dawnstar

Uh...the company is paying the lion's share of the cost of the policy...not the employees.

Des

Yeah, that's benefits. It's what a company uses to entice workers to work for them. Smart companies do this. That's part of the workers package. I'm missing your point.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You do realize that was a statement as to what HHS proposed, right?

HHS argues that.....

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

So really what you're saying is the owner(s) of the company dictate what their employee's have access to on their medical package, and they can legally dictate that decision based on their religious beliefs?

So as ive said before, a company owned by a Jehovah witness can legally not pay for a blood transfusion? A muslim can out right deny women any medical benefit's while freely giving medical packages to its male staff?

Macman... You're what's wrong with america.

Ummmm yes. You truly think that business should be forced to provide what ever the hell you want???

Man, and you thought I am the problem.

Here is your issue. You, the entitlement based person that you are, believe that it is fair and just to force whomever to accept what you want.

Yes, the company does and should get to control what is offered in a compensation package to a person for voluntarily working at a business.

a reply to: Destinyone

I'm not employed and hubby's employer is exempted from this law because it's so small.
I think I read somewhere that if you into the health exchange you risk having the gov't come in and seize your assetts if you happen to die
and the obamacare website is a hacker's wetdream
and I really have very little faith that they would tell us that we are above the income limit and expect us to pay far more than you would on your employer's plan

and like I said I don't think the ruling should stand like it is
if it is wrong to force empolyers then it is wrong to force employees so that would only leave one option remove the coverage
so we would be paying a rather large sum of money for insurance with a high deductable that we will never meet that leaves out a major element of women's healthcare
at the same time we'd be paying taxes to cover those "less fortunate"

not to mention that in order for us to get this (we are uninsured at the moment and probably will be slapped with a tax) I would have to go back to work
Being on my feet moving and walking for an extended time not only create a great deal of pain but also interfers with my abliity to walk I've gone over ten years with this problem without medical care because quite frankly even insured the bills are unmanageable
we can make due with me not working so yes I should go back to work so we can the the insurance and live in hades the rest of my days!!

if I supposedly can do that hobby lobby can survive having insurance that covers birth control

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Destinyone
a reply to: dawnstar

Uh...the company is paying the lion's share of the cost of the policy...not the employees.

Des

Yeah, that's benefits. It's what a company uses to entice workers to work for them. Smart companies do this. That's part of the workers package. I'm missing your point.

My point is, the OP I was replying to, was implying the employees of Hobby Lobby were paying for the insurance policies, so they should be the deciding factor in the SC ruling.

Des

originally posted by: beezzer
Okay. I'll say it.


com·mu·nism
[kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA

noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. ( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist Party.
4. communalism.


People are angry because it isn't communism. Business won because they are autonomous to government dictates.

Government offers any and all types of birth control, morning-after medication.

Yet a company refused. And won.

What people are upset is, that one set of rules applies to government, and another applies to business and the individual.

People wanted a one-size-fits-all for government and business.

That is communism.
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

Religious differences don't apply in government or communism or a totalitarian state.

Funny. People are actually BEGGING for communism now.

I guess social engineering works.

Thank you for speaking the truth

The liberals/progressives/democrats have done such a great job brainwashing the American people, we are actually seeing here people begging for communism - where the state dictates and everyone bows to the dictates of the state!

You are right all the arguments made here against the ruling do boil down to communist doctrine through and through

Know what? Maybe Putin will run in 2016, I'm sure the Democratic party could somehow convince everyone that as a citizen of the world he is a citizen of the US and therefore eligible to guide all us poor
people who believe in God
who believe in freedom

to see the light that government should provide for anything we think we need them to provide

because we are too dumb to provide for ourselves.