Hobby Lobby Ruling

[Woodruff]

And...it goes exactly back to my original point. If you are anti-abortion, then you should see this ruling, and Hobby Lobby's stance, as a very bad thing, because it leads to more abortions. My issue with this situation has nothing to do with "giving women something", it has to do with the hypocricy of the combination of views that "Abortions are bad" and "We want to make abortions more likely" that is going on here.

And it's still just a red herring to the core issue at hand, woodruff.

It's not a red herring at all. You may not see it as the fundamental problem, but it is absolutely a hypocricy of perspective.

Concentrating on such things while ignoring the fundamental weakness of the currency system is an argument to the irrelevant.

This frankly sounds like a red herring. The weakness of the currency system has nothing to do with whether one supports abortion or not, nor with whether one supports contraception or not.

And what is the opposite of "anit-abortion"? Being pro-abortion is like being pro-cancer. That's why even the abortion advocates never use the phrase "pro-abortion" because that's absurd. Your "anti-abortion" rhetoric is sophistry. Just as "pro-abortion" is more sophistry. It's merely a means to demonize one who has different opinions than one's self. You should be better than that.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you. I know some few individuals who absolutely are pro-abortion. They believe that abortion should be freely available and that it would be a wonderful way to keep down population.

And aside from that, where was I "demonizing" anyone when I used the term "anti-abortion"? I personally am anti-abortion, so I find it unlikely that I would do so. What I AM "demonizing" is the hypocricy inherent in those who support Hobby Lobby's stance while claiming to be anti-abortion.

You seem to be trying to put words into my mouth. You'll have to either stop trying to do that or get much better at feeding me.

[Woodruff]

Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

When your interviewed by hobby lobby they explain that they are deeply rooted in the catholic community and if you dont like it , you can get the f*ck out. A win for religious LIBERTY.

Did you feel any of this actually counters what I said? Because it doesn't, at all. Did you have a response to my point?

I support the ruling and I`m pro choice. The Kermit Gosnells of the world will be dealt with accordingly. Increase future abortions for Hobby Lobby Employees ?. Hobby Lobby is one of the highest paying entry level retailers . I believe their diligent when hiring .In the end, It all comes down to personal responsibility. What they cover is sufficient . The gov`t doesn`t cover all . Politically , it`s another scheme to divide and conquer.
Just because i quoted you doesn`t mean i disagree . I support the ruling , If your logical you should too.

Actually, you do bring up a good point in my wording...My problem isn't actually the RULING ITSELF - rather, it is Hobby Lobby's position that led to the ruling. I view the ruling itself as similar to the idea that, for instance, my employer's dental plan doesn't pay for dentures (or some similar major expense). While I feel that Hobby Lobby shouldn't have made it a religious issue (rather, they should have simply had their insurance cover those methods they wanted to without bringing religion into it), the problem I have is that Hobby Lobby seems to be saying that those forms of contraception are bad even though they will in fact lead to fewer abortions. So by taking this stand against certain forms of contraception, they are in fact making future abortions more likely - theoretically counter to their aims. That makes this seem to be more of a punish-them-for-sex thing, rather than anything else, to be honest.

[Woodruff]

What Woodruff has been attempting to express: He thinks Pro-Lifers who are anti-abortion should support all forms of birth control and women's healthcare so that less abortions are necessary.

EXACTLY CORRECT. Anyone who is against abortion should be pro-contraception in the extreme...unless, I suppose, they view the act of sex to be equivalent to the act of killing that is abortion.

Pro-Lifers should be known as Pro-Birthers, since their actions show they care little about what happens to people after they enter this world. Once they're here food, clothing, healthcare and a place to live is their problem and of no concern to Pro-Lifers.

Not all, but most, it seems. That's why I tend to think that their stance is actually more "punish them for having sex" rather than actually caring about whether abortion kills a human or not. So the punishment comes in the form of having to deal with the pregnancy AND then with raising the child because, as you said, once the child is born, many (again, not all) pro-lifers seem to want to cut out the social safety net for those children.

[Woodruff]

What access to easy contraceptives have been taken away by the ruling? All I see is that one person can't be forced to pay for someone else's contraceptives simply because the one person owns a business.

This clearly makes it more difficult for women to access contraceptives. How does it NOT make it more difficult?

And? Should everything be handed to a person? It's difficult for me to buy a car, should my employer buy that for me?

And...it goes exactly back to my original point. If you are anti-abortion, then you should see this ruling, and Hobby Lobby's stance, as a very bad thing, because it leads to more abortions. My issue with this situation has nothing to do with "giving women something", it has to do with the hypocricy of the combination of views that "Abortions are bad" and "We want to make abortions more likely" that is going on here.

Hobby Lobby's stance is a very bad thing even though they provide 16 of the 20 mandated forms of birth control?

It's certainly better than it could be...that's obvious. Yet the fact of the matter is that it is hypocritical and in my opinion unethical for anyone who is anti-abortion to also be anti-contraception.

Hobby Lobby's stance is that the other 4 forms actually cause abortions after conception, not preventing conceptions, which means they are already adhering to your demands of "support contraceptives because abortions are bad.

That is their stance, yes...though there's not a lot of solid science behind that stance, no.

And to answer your original fallacy answer: if making people purchase their own goods and services makes it difficult to acquire something, then I guess we should just force either the government or employers to pay for everything we ever need or want. Because it's too difficult for us to earn our own damn money and then go spend it on the things we want or need.

To answer YOUR fallacious answer to my very real point: If you are going to PUNISH PEOPLE for not having those things, then absolutely, you should not be making it more difficult to acquire those things.

[Woodruff]

Its sad that we've come so far that people believe not having someone else provide them things somehow violates their rights.

The coverage was part of the employees health insurance plans. Most decent companies put money toward their employes health insurance. Is any portion of your health insurance covered by the company u work for? How would u feel if they said we are not going to cover any prescription drugs because they don't believe u should take meds. All these freaking tea partiers chanting about socialism I don't see any of their old asses sending back their social security checks or refusing medicare and Medicaid benefits. Hobby Lobby sure doesn't mind filling their shelves full of Chinese goods for the public to purchase. Hummm whats the Chinese record on abortion.

Man, you are wingnutted out.

That's really all there is to it Scott. There's no real point in trying to engage these people...

The irony is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

[Woodruff]

By the way, I believe life starts at implantation because that's the only time the fetus can actually grow, so I don't have a problem with any contraceptives (other than allowing children to use them without their parents knowing). But I do protect the right for other people to have different beliefs and to stop the government from telling people they're beliefs can't exist in public.

I wouldn't have a problem with a RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION taking Hobby Lobby's position. However, Hobby Lobby is NOT a religious organization, it is simply a business...so I do not at all believe they should have any sort of a religious exemption. Frankly, it is ridiculous that it does.

[oVo]

No fear mongering there just the facts

Seems like you're the one scared of the future.

[Woodruff]

Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

When your interviewed by hobby lobby they explain that they are deeply rooted in the catholic community and if you dont like it , you can get the f*ck out. A win for religious LIBERTY.

Did you feel any of this actually counters what I said? Because it doesn't, at all. Did you have a response to my point?

Yeah well let's see if you feel the same way when a future president tries to force an Islamic based company to bail out the pork industry or host a gay marriage.

See, that's the thing you don't get, Phatscotty - religious organizations absolutely should have the right to refuse those things. But Hobby Lobby IS JUST A BUSINESS, they ARE NOT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. Period. So I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM AT ALL with an Islamic-based company (which is NOT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION) being required to follow the law without exemption.

[Woodruff]

If they aren't providing abortions, then what is all the fuss about?

Don't know why the ownership of Hobby Lobby invests in the development and production of the drugs they don't want made available to their employees. Maybe they will explain how their moral attitude is allowed to slide with their own investments and product sources at some point in the future.

Try to muck it up all ya want; they don't want to support/enable abortions or the morning after pill. Reasonable to me.

You seem to be intentionally ignoring his point about their investment in some of those things.

[Woodruff]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing.

It's funny that you use that quote, since it's probably the primary reason I seem to respond to everything you post.

[Woodruff]

The government paid for building the roads, so they regulate it. That has exactly nothing to do with forcing me to buy birth control for somebody else who refuses to buy their own.

Who said they were refusing to buy their own? If I have a prescription from my doctor that my health insurance won't cover, I'm probably still going to buy it on my own. But, as I have been saying from the beginning, this may certainly make it more difficult for me to be able to do so. That's my point.

[Woodruff]

I support the ruling , If your logical you should too.

If you're logical you will realize that this means "religious moral grounds" can be used to legally circumnavigate existing law.

What Woodruff has been attempting to express: He thinks Pro-Lifers who are anti-abortion should support all forms of birth control and women's healthcare so that less abortions are necessary.

Pro-Lifers should be known as Pro-Birthers, since their actions show they care little about what happens to people after they enter this world. Once they're here food, clothing, healthcare and a place to live is their problem and of no concern to Pro-Lifers.

Not that what the supreme courts states is binding to all but there opinion is what the debate is all about , Opinion states , there are alternative contraception methods and this ruling would not burden women. ( SO ALL YOU PROGRESSIVES EAT SHIT AND DIE )

This is your "logic"?

Off the subject , Where are the illegal women and children being bused to ? Any idea ? ............................. Since the popular vote will NEVER determine the presidency , They are being shipped to "right wing districts". To topple the vote . I live on LONG ISLAND and have witnessed this first hand in the late 90`s and early 21st. Why is mexico giving these people free passage ? Why the sudden push for immigration reform, All of you hospitality workers should be against this , it will effect your livelihood guaranteed. No fear mongering there just the facts

This is your version of no fear-mongering?

[DaGip]

The government paid for building the roads, so they regulate it. That has exactly nothing to do with forcing me to buy birth control for somebody else who refuses to buy their own.

It does if the government is mandating your taxes to do so. What you claimed was that the government has "religious morals". I still do not understand that specific point you were making. The government does not force "religion" on you, Night Strike; it enforces laws. Part of the reason the pilgrims left Europe was to escape governmental mandated religion, are you really suggesting that you are in the same predicament in this country as the pilgrims were?

And I don't think it is a matter of someone refusing to buy their own birth control, it's a matter of a woman having the right to their own body and having the help available to them so as not to cause a financial burden on herself and her family.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

It's not a red herring at all. You may not see it as the fundamental problem, but it is absolutely a hypocricy of perspective.

Nearly everybody ever has a hypocrisy of perspective. If you wish to argue that Hobby Lobby's stance is hypocritical, fine, but forcing them to change their beliefs sets a dangerous precedent. So long as they do not (actually) tread upon the rights of others, live and let die.

For example, my good buddy universalchiro is chock full of muddled thinking with regard to creationism and evolution (to pull a recent example). Is it the gov't's job to set him straight by creating laws and punishments?

-TG

[a6mzero]

Any woman who lets a perfectly viable human egg die every month without making an effort to fertilize it,carry it to delivery,breast feed it,school and nurture it,buy it a car,send it to college is a worthless murdering sinner who should be punished by god.

[DaGip]

Any woman who lets a perfectly viable human egg die every month without making an effort to fertilize it,carry it to delivery,breast feed it,school and nurture it,buy it a car,send it to college is a worthless murdering sinner who should be punished by god.

I presume you are ultra-religious then?

[Phatscotty]

You do know that the founders of this country created a Republic and not a Democracy. I have mixed feelings on the Supreme Court ruling and wonder why such a thing was pushed this far in the first place. There may be more to this than has been revealed, as to the true intent behind these "religious convictions."

I lean in the direction of "Choice" and not the imposition of religious morals on others. If you're a genuine believer? Let God be the judge and trust the divine being to sort it out when the time comes.

I'm very aware we were created as a Republic, but as Benjamin Franklin put it "a Republic, IF you can keep it' I think you are aware that I am aware based on many posts on the topic over the years, but if you have simply forgotten, no biggie I guess.

Are the laws against murder 'religious convictions'? Serious question. (Not comparing abortion to murder here)

[Phatscotty]

Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

When your interviewed by hobby lobby they explain that they are deeply rooted in the catholic community and if you dont like it , you can get the f*ck out. A win for religious LIBERTY.

Did you feel any of this actually counters what I said? Because it doesn't, at all. Did you have a response to my point?

Yeah well let's see if you feel the same way when a future president tries to force an Islamic based company to bail out the pork industry or host a gay marriage.

See, that's the thing you don't get, Phatscotty - religious organizations absolutely should have the right to refuse those things. But Hobby Lobby IS JUST A BUSINESS, they ARE NOT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. Period. So I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM AT ALL with an Islamic-based company (which is NOT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION) being required to follow the law without exemption.

Good to see you back, even better to see you tackling the issues! You may be right about your OP and there actually being more abortions because of this, but that is a very small point in the matters at hand, that being "the Hobby Lobby ruling", and not one of the interesting aspects that may or may not come to realization that there will be more abortions. That can be your point and you might be right, but really I'm not touching that, it's all yours and not sure how we would know the answer in the future anyways if it were true or not.

Hobby Lobby stores and facilities are open for business every day except for Sunday.[10] Green, a devout Pentecostal (he comes from a family of Assemblies of God pastors), wanted his employees to have more time to spend for worship and family, even at the expense of lower profits.[11] He claims to have built his business squarely on biblical principles:[12] "We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles."

Are you saying companies CANNOT build themselves based on Christian principles, or any other religions principles? Does an Islamic owned bank HAVE to go against what it says in the Koran as far as interest rates? Does a Kosher food market HAVE TO offer Halal meats as well? That why we would have to find out just what are religious values and what aren't, and it's gonna be pretty hard with the reality that most of our laws are based on the 10 commandments....

I would be interested to see what it is that you base your conclusion on that Hobby Lobby is not a religious company. I say 'company' you come back with 'organization' I don't believe they are a 'religious organization' technically, I do say they are a religious based company that regularly practices religious values and has for a LONG time, consistently. But let me see if this fits with what you are trying to say overall; which is that ANY company who wants to do business cannot have any religious values whatsoever? If that is a yes, then we have to iron out what are religious values and what aren't. Do all businesses have to take down a cross they might have hanging somewhere or any other religious symbol as well? Basically, the government is going to tell anyone who wants to do business what values they can and can't have? Of course a business cannot legally refuse a person service based on race and other things, but that is different than mandating to all companies that they WILL offer abortions etc coverage in their policies, or else face fines/closure?


And overall, the issue was, and always has been even since the earliest days of the Obamacare thread, the Federal mandate that all insurance plans offered by all companies must now cover these very controversial procedures and drugs. Do you at least agree that abortion and the morning after pill is highly controversial?

oh, and btw, this is way number 117# that Romney would not be the same as Obama. Not that Romney is great or good, just that there are in fact areas, especially concerning religious freedom, where there is a great difference, not to mention supreme court nominations.

[Woodruff]

It's not a red herring at all. You may not see it as the fundamental problem, but it is absolutely a hypocricy of perspective.

Nearly everybody ever has a hypocrisy of perspective.

Sure, I can agree with that. But that doesn't mean such hypocricies shouldn't be pointed out. As well, the intelligent person tries to limit their biases and hypocricy as much as possible.

If you wish to argue that Hobby Lobby's stance is hypocritical, fine, but forcing them to change their beliefs sets a dangerous precedent.

It has been suggested that allowing them to hold onto this stance sets a dangerous precedent, as well.

For example, my good buddy universalchiro is chock full of muddled thinking with regard to creationism and evolution (to pull a recent example). Is it the gov't's job to set him straight by creating laws and punishments?

Of course not. However, it is the government's job to require him to follow the law, not to allow him to break it and then claim religion as his get-out-of-jail-free card. Hobby Lobby is not a religion or a religious organization...it is a business.

[Woodruff]

Any woman who lets a perfectly viable human egg die every month without making an effort to fertilize it,carry it to delivery,breast feed it,school and nurture it,buy it a car,send it to college is a worthless murdering sinner who should be punished by god.

I presume you are ultra-religious then?

I suspect he was being sarcastic, though whether sarcastic or not it seems to suggest a bit of extremism either way.

[Woodruff]

See, that's the thing you don't get, Phatscotty - religious organizations absolutely should have the right to refuse those things. But Hobby Lobby IS JUST A BUSINESS, they ARE NOT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. Period. So I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM AT ALL with an Islamic-based company (which is NOT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION) being required to follow the law without exemption.

Are you saying companies CANNOT build themselves based on Christian principles, or any other religions principles?

Of course they can. However, that is irrelevant as to whether they should be required to follow the law or not. A BUSINESS which is simply founded on Christian principles should not be treated as a religious organization. It is simply a business.

Does an Islamic owned bank HAVE to go against what it says in the Koran as far as interest rates?

Of course, if that were to break the law.

Does a Kosher food market HAVE TO offer Halal meats as well?

Of course, if that were to break the law.

I would be interested to see what it is that you base your conclusion on that Hobby Lobby is not a religious company.

I didn't say they weren't a religious company. They are not a religious organization, of the sort that should receive special consideration by the government as relates to "separation of church and state". Or are you suggesting that Hobby Lobby should be a tax-free organization?

I say 'company' you come back with 'organization' I don't believe they are a 'religious organization' technically, I do say they are a religious based company that regularly practices religious values and has for a LONG time, consistently. But let me see if this fits with what you are trying to say overall; which is that ANY company who wants to do business cannot have any religious values whatsoever?

Where did I suggest any such thing? Why is it that you ALWAYS twist what people say to try to trap them into a non-existent corner? Why is it that you ALWAYS discuss things so dishonestly?

If that is a yes, then we have to iron out what are religious values and what aren't. Do all businesses have to take down a cross they might have hanging somewhere or any other religious symbol as well? Basically, the government is going to tell anyone who wants to do business what values they can and can't have? Of course a business cannot legally refuse a person service based on race and other things, but that is different than mandating to all companies that they WILL offer abortions etc coverage in their policies, or else face fines/closure?

Again, if they are a business, then they should be required to follow the law without any special exemptions for their religion. Period.

And overall, the issue was, and always has been even since the earliest days of the Obamacare thread, the Federal mandate that all insurance plans offered by all companies must now cover these very controversial procedures and drugs. Do you at least agree that abortion and the morning after pill is highly controversial?

Certainly, abortion is controversial, and rightly so. The morning-after pill may seem controversial, but it only has that appearance due to irrationality toward the science behind it.

oh, and btw, this is way number 117# that Romney would not be the same as Obama. Not that Romney is great or good, just that there are in fact areas, especially concerning religious freedom, where there is a great difference, not to mention supreme court nominations.

Hobby Lobby's stance is an attempt to PUSH religion into areas where it doesn't belong per the separation of church and state, not the opposite.

[a6mzero]

John Roberts and the 4 corporists continue to foster the imbalance of power between big business and ordinary citizens. This ruling on top of the Citizens United ruling continues the radical rightwing takeover of the supreme court.

[Symmetry]

[Endgame422]

A question to both sides here, should hobby lobby be forced to open on Sunday because they are denying people their right to decorative mirrors? Or their right to sew by denying them thread?
Ok on a real point here hobby lobby should not have to provide a damn thing the contract that the employee signed with them as an at will employee does not state they will provide. Bottom line is if hobby lobby wants to discriminate against women in a business where the majority of their clientele are women they are the ones to suffer. You don't like hobby lobby or chick fil a basing their business model on discrimination? dont give them your business. Companies with religious values are on the decline because they can't compete with their "amoral" or secular competitors. Hobby lobby is just kicking and screaming on the way down hoping to draw enough stupid people to them to save their business. Pathetic.

[DaGip]

Nice dig, Symm!