Hobby Lobby Ruling

[PLAYER57832]

centralization is one of the main reasons why healthcare's cost are so high. It's the all too predictable outcome of what happens when we go the route of 'everyone deserves healthcare'.

You don't believe that everyone deserves healthcare? Seriously?

I love when you pretend to score a point by acting like you didn't know that I am not a Socialist or a Progressive, and you pretend to not understand that I believe it's wrong to take money by force from one person in order to give it to another. Woodruff, put on your ski mask and go take from people what you feel you deserve. At least be honest about it.

Oh, we understand.... but the truth is you are just fine with taking other people's money, its just you only want it going where YOU want. You received and education for which you did not pay, benefited from a relatively safe and secure environment because OTHER PEOPLE fought and died so you could have that privilege and only some did so by choice; you benefitted from having clean air, water and resources that you did nothing to help create or even sustain. You regularly drive on roads for which you did not pay, receive information that is available only because other people were willing to put forward their time, energy and money to ensure that we have things like a free press (relatively free anyway), something close to net neutrality (for now....),. And, while I know you have bragged about your guns and defensive capabilities, you do not need to act as your own personal police force because tax dollars ensure that one exists. The list goes on and on and on, but the truth is you are a hypocrite.

You pretend to be about merit and a meritocracy, but the truth is that without an equal basis, without a free and available education system, transportation system, etc, all we have is a system that rewards those already wealthy. The US is already fallen behind much of Europe in measures of how easy it is for average & poor people to get ahead.

Know where the balance goes the other way? Hint.. its also cited as one of the happiest places to live, and is a VERY heavily socialistic state. Denmark.

[patrickaa317]

This is a MEDICAL question, and has no business being made by an employer. That you provide insurance as a part of an employees compensation does not give you any more right to dictate what it covers than paying someone a wage gives you the right to dictate how it is spent.

Except that employers shop around for the insurance plan they are going to provide you. All health insurance plans are not the same. So by choosing to provide you with health insurance, they choose what health insurance they are providing you with, thus when employers provide this benefit, it IS part of a decision made by an employer! The only way they have no say in what insurance you get is if you decline the company provided insurance and opt for your own private plan.

[Phatscotty]

centralization is one of the main reasons why healthcare's cost are so high. It's the all too predictable outcome of what happens when we go the route of 'everyone deserves healthcare'.

You don't believe that everyone deserves healthcare? Seriously?

I love when you pretend to score a point by acting like you didn't know that I am not a Socialist or a Progressive, and you pretend to not understand that I believe it's wrong to take money by force from one person in order to give it to another. Woodruff, put on your ski mask and go take from people what you feel you deserve. At least be honest about it.

Oh, we understand.... but the truth is you are just fine with taking other people's money, its just you only want it going where YOU want. You received and education for which you did not pay, benefited from a relatively safe and secure environment because OTHER PEOPLE fought and died so you could have that privilege and only some did so by choice; you benefitted from having clean air, water and resources that you did nothing to help create or even sustain.

What of a child dreaming of becoming more than what society had already decided for them? What of an individual who aspires to be something greater?

You're national socialism is showing...


how much longer before you claim us as your own personal property and start putting the whips to our backs? You go ahead and keep shouting down the younger generations 'YOU OWE US YOU OWE US!!!!!!!" and pretty soon they are going to shove back and turn it on ya, because it will be true you are the blame for killing the land of opportunity by not being able to steal the gold egg from the goose that laid it, by all means, slice open the goose belly and help yourself to all the gold you feel you deserve.

What a complete crock of bullshit! Granted technically I did not pay for my education, my parents paid for it, of but I'm sure they were only able to do so because they had everything paid for them, which means you are probly also gonna take credit for my mom struggling with 2 jobs while also a full time student and not taking a single day off in 5 years so she could pay mine and my siblings tuition. Besides, I didn't know public education was doing such a great job that people like you think you take credit for every little thing I do in my life! HA! what a joke. Not too worried about what someone that assumes as much as you do thinks or says. Have another drink tho

My neighborhood was not safe, you are such a riot! I have a thousand stories you couldn't even handle listening to, at times I was the trouble maker. Sometimes the cops didn't get to the person who called 911 for 45 minutes. You are too much Player, but hey, thanks for keeping me safe my whole life. You deserve all the credit.

And one more thing actually, Player, I have the faintest memories of living by a maintained public beach with a life guard and fishing docks, clean. but then a bunch of roads were built, I guess by you personally, and YOU decided to run the rain waste from your dirty streets right into the pristine lake of memories. I remember that first year when ALL the fish died and washed ashore, it was like the Holocaust of fish, and from then on everyone always said "oh that lake, that lake is polluted now, don't eat from there' Thanks for taking the credit for the 'clean' environment I grew up with, but actually you can shove your BS load where the sun don't shine.

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen....FREEDOM in Players perspective, so long as she get's all the credit for everything you have done in your entire life and gets to tell you what to do because that which creates you and is responsible for whatever you become also has to power to limit you in your potential (people who are just smart enough to run the machines and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs - Carlin) and not only limit but destroy you the moment you step over an ever increasing list hundreds of millions of pages long of things you cannot do!

[Phatscotty]

I've already made that point - Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization, rather they are a business. A religious organization (such as a church) has the right to make these distinctions and have exemptions to the law. A business must follow the law.

Except that businesses are run and owned by owners. Owners are people, and people have Constitutional rights such as freedom of religion. Religious expressions don't end just because a person decides to own a business. Religious freedom doesn't end as soon as a person walks out of a church.

Funny they come out of the closet and blame a mean society for creating it, and then first thing they do is make the closet bigger to shove more and more religious people and gun owners into it.

Don't expect anything different when your skin color is no longer the majority.

[crispybits]

This popped up on my internet ramblings today and made me think of this thread:

[Night Strike]

No one suggests it does. We do, however suggest that if you decide to operate a for profit business, that is not a religious enterprise and should not be treated as such. The exception are very, very few.... suppliers of specific religious items, for example.

And your suggestions would be wrong, so there's that. You can suggest whatever you want, but those people still have the Constitutional freedoms to do as they choose, and you can't use the government to force them to do something that goes against their first amendment rights of religious freedom.

This is a MEDICAL question, and has no business being made by an employer. That you provide insurance as a part of an employees compensation does not give you any more right to dictate what it covers than paying someone a wage gives you the right to dictate how it is spent.

So why does the employer pick the insurance coverage? Until we completely remove the employer from the insurance market, they will choose what coverage they buy. There are exactly no insurance policy that covers every single medical treatment that exists, so yes, the employer ALWAYS dictates what is covered in what they pay for. You're either extremely ignorant or a flat out liar to state otherwise.

Also, you want to pretend this is about behavior and that you have the medical knowledge to decide. You don't. I can point to several women in my community who have been put on birth control, not because they don't want further children, but because their gynecologist feels getting pregnant is far too risky. At least one person I know directly cannot take the hormone medications (of my aquaintances... hardly a huge sample), The type of birth control selected is a MEDICAL decision.

Further, Woodruff is absolutely correct. Access to information AND birth control each strongly relate to reduced numbers of abortions. (Of course, you have put yourself on the side of being against real information as well) The wider range of birth control options available, the more likely women needing it will use it.

This has nothing at all to do with real religion and EVERYTHING to do with controlling other people and destroying the healthcare reform act.

(oh, and in case it was not apparent -- the women of whom I spoke are all MARRIED, so telling them to "just say no" or "control themselves" is really going against God and the Bible!)

If this policy is actually about medical care and preventing unwanted pregnancies, why weren't male treatments for pregnancy preventions mandated? Why weren't insurance companies mandated to provide condoms and vasectomies for free as well? The answer is because the mandate was made for political purposes, not for medical purposes. So don't go on this diatribe that everything is for medical choices while trying to drive out religious freedoms when medical choices have no relation to the original political choice to enacting this specific mandate.

And you're right, it does have EVERYTHING to do with controlling other people.......by controlling whether or not they are allowed to have religious freedoms. EVERYTHING about Obamacare is about using the government to control every facet of every person's life. You progressives are all about controlling others.

[PLAYER57832]

This is a MEDICAL question, and has no business being made by an employer. That you provide insurance as a part of an employees compensation does not give you any more right to dictate what it covers than paying someone a wage gives you the right to dictate how it is spent.

Except that employers shop around for the insurance plan they are going to provide you. All health insurance plans are not the same. So by choosing to provide you with health insurance, they choose what health insurance they are providing you with, thus when employers provide this benefit, it IS part of a decision made by an employer! The only way they have no say in what insurance you get is if you decline the company provided insurance and opt for your own private plan.

The basic required coverage IS mandated. Covering dental care is optional. Covering most female reproductive health is not.
This was verified by the Supreme court, because not covering women's birth control is actually a form of discrimination. One reason is that many jobs, even if not directly, indirectly require that women not be pregnant.

There are many theoretical protections supposed to ensure that women who get pregnant retain their jobs, but the reality is you get 12 weeks of leave for ANY family medical issue (generally NOT per case). A pregnant woman put on bed rest or having other difficulties can quickly exceed that, not to mention what happens to both parents if the child winds up needing serious care, OR what happens when there are childcare issues. Regarding childcare, many areas do have decent taxpayer subsidized care, but availability and quality vary widely. I, for example, had to leave my profession because, along with health issues, I could not get care for my son... turns out everyone in town had kids at the same time. (The classes just prior had a hard time filling 2 -3 full classes, when he came along they have continually had 6-8 utterly full classes).

Worse, those most likely to suffer those issues are low wage workers without high education rates, such as those Hobby Lobby hires for its registers and the like.

All of this means that the protection for parents is often on paper, but not in truth.

[PLAYER57832]

No one suggests it does. We do, however suggest that if you decide to operate a for profit business, that is not a religious enterprise and should not be treated as such. The exception are very, very few.... suppliers of specific religious items, for example.

And your suggestions would be wrong, so there's that. You can suggest whatever you want, but those people still have the Constitutional freedoms to do as they choose, and you can't use the government to force them to do something that goes against their first amendment rights of religious freedom.

Nope, first it is a matter of OPINIONS, not fact, so no one, least of all you, has the right to say "your're wrong and that's that".
You disagree? Then provide reasoning and evidence.. AND consider those countering your ideas.

What you are missing is there is not just one party and one set of beliefs here. The question is whether the employer PAYING someone has the right to therefore dictate the beliefs of its employees. I already said that this is just one more reason why employers should not be the ones providing health coverage, BUT as long as they are required to do so, and furthermore even receiving tax benefits for it, then they have no right to object to someone wanting care that is medically mandated or recommended, whether the employer personally happens to agree or not. The taxes they are saving by providing medical coverage instead of wages mean it IS a public policy issue. It means that they get to take away from the general payment due every citizen in this country as a part of the privilege of doing business in this country, and now want to claim this is a private matter.

Seperation of church and state is a protection as much for the CHURCHES and people of faith as it is for non-believers. Do you, for example, think that an employer should be able to fire Jehovah's witnesses for not saluting the flag? There are those considering not saluting to be little short of treason.... Or, perhaps more directly, should Jehovah's witnesses be able to "opt out" out coverage for blood transfusions.?

This is a MEDICAL question, and has no business being made by an employer. That you provide insurance as a part of an employees compensation does not give you any more right to dictate what it covers than paying someone a wage gives you the right to dictate how it is spent.

So why does the employer pick the insurance coverage? Until we completely remove the employer from the insurance market, they will choose what coverage they buy.

No, there have always been mandated areas of coverage. Women's health care was added to that list by the courts because NOT providing it amounted to discrimination of women. NOT providing birth control, requiring them to pay in full for birth control adds to the cost females ONLY have to pay to work, go to school, just generally live.

That is without even getting into the medical necessity issues, which truly places birth control into a need rather than a want for many, many, many women.

There are exactly no insurance policy that covers every single medical treatment that exists, so yes, the employer ALWAYS dictates what is covered in what they pay for. You're either extremely ignorant or a flat out liar to state otherwise.

You are talking about individual polices and policies some non-mandated employers have chosen. You are not talking about policies that meet the required standards for most employers.

Those policies were part of why we needed reform. Just because someone can claim that they offer something called insurance does not mean it really and truly covers what needs covered. THAT is the issue here. The point is that women's birth control IS part of the healthcare women require, and it is none of the employer's business whether he likes it or not, any more than it is an employers business whether someone decides to have surgery or not.

Also, you want to pretend this is about behavior and that you have the medical knowledge to decide. You don't. I can point to several women in my community who have been put on birth control, not because they don't want further children, but because their gynecologist feels getting pregnant is far too risky. At least one person I know directly cannot take the hormone medications (of my aquaintances... hardly a huge sample), The type of birth control selected is a MEDICAL decision.

Further, Woodruff is absolutely correct. Access to information AND birth control each strongly relate to reduced numbers of abortions. (Of course, you have put yourself on the side of being against real information as well) The wider range of birth control options available, the more likely women needing it will use it.

This has nothing at all to do with real religion and EVERYTHING to do with controlling other people and destroying the healthcare reform act.

(oh, and in case it was not apparent -- the women of whom I spoke are all MARRIED, so telling them to "just say no" or "control themselves" is really going against God and the Bible!)

If this policy is actually about medical care and preventing unwanted pregnancies, why weren't male treatments for pregnancy preventions mandated? Why weren't insurance companies mandated to provide condoms and vasectomies for free as well? The answer is because the mandate was made for political purposes, not for medical purposes. So don't go on this diatribe that everything is for medical choices while trying to drive out religious freedoms when medical choices have no relation to the original political choice to enacting this specific mandate.

Last time I checked, it was the woman who got pregnant, not men.

For men, deciding to use protection or not is solely about choice to be a parent. For women, it is a very involved MEDICAL decision. Many of the women I spoke of on birth control would very much like to have children. Its a MEDICAL decision, not a free choice decision that they take birth control. For many others it is a choice to remain employed. No man has to face more than 12 weeks of leave just to have a child. Many women do.

And this specfic mandate was very much made for MEDICAL reasons, along with required equal protection under the constitution.

You want to claim that a man's religion trumps a womans healthcare needs and religion. You are not talking freedom, you are talking the right of a few to use religion to bully.. .and to bully primarily women, at that!

And you're right, it does have EVERYTHING to do with controlling other people.......by controlling whether or not they are allowed to have religious freedoms. EVERYTHING about Obamacare is about using the government to control every facet of every person's life. You progressives are all about controlling others.

Why is it that only men wanting to dictate to women seem to have these religious "freedoms" ?

Why is it only the employer who gets to have religious beliefs and those of the employee are considered irrelevant... oh, yeah, because according to you the only party that matter is the one paying. WHY he pays.. that this is not some free will payment, but is part of the employees EXPECTED AND REQUIRED COMPENSATION you wish to ignore. That it is the employee who is really impacted by this, not the boss, is also irrelevant to you.

Sorry, but your "right" to deny coverage that actually doesn't even increase the cost of the insurance at all, is trumped by the women's right to have the coverage THEY need, whether their boss agrees or not.

Women have religious freedom, too.. not just mean.

[Woodruff]

crispybits, what confidence do you place in government when it comes to optimally planning the lives of 300+ million?

So, you feel that its more sensible to put it in the control of a group of people joined to together for the sole purpose of making money, often with legal imperatives to make money for other people, than to trust the conglomeration of diverse opinions and ideas voted in by the US public?

Yes.

Imagine being an artist. Now, would you rather face the market with its boogey man of profit-and-loss, or would you rather be forced by a democratically selected committee that oversees what you'll make, how you'll make it, how much you'll make, and how much it will sell for?

I don't really feel it's appropriate for a person's healthcare to be subject to profit-and-loss and only-what-you-can-pay-for, no. Or were you talking about a subject other than healthcare when you posed your question...because I'm pretty sure that PLAYER was talking about healthcare.

[Night Strike]

Player, until you can define how refusing to pay for someone else to buy contraceptives is the same as denying them any ability to make their own choice to buy their own contraceptives, you will never have an argument to stand on.

[Woodruff]

Yes, IF THEY TRULY WANT TO STOP ABORTIONS. You see, that's the point here. Hobby Lobby claims to be against abortion, but they are ACTIVELY WORKING TO CREATE THAT WHICH THEY CLAIM TO BE AGAINST.

So if Hobby Lobby does actually want to help stop abortions, then yes, they must help to cover for those who cannot learn to act responsibly. If Hobby Lobby is not willing to do that, then they are NOT truly against abortions, they're just against sex and they want to punish those who engage in it outside of marriage. It's really as simple as that.

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE BETWEEN PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVES OR SUPPORTING ABORTIONS????????????????????????

I didn't say they SUPPORT abortions (in fact, I stated that their "stated stance" was against abortions). Stop putting words into my mouth.

How have we came to that as a civilized society? You even say it yourself that people cannot learn to act responsibly. What about people who choose to start eating poor diets? Is it the employers job to ensure they are being responsible and getting proper nutrition?

If the employer TRULY CARES that their employees start eating better, then the employer certainly should do so. Are they REQUIRED to do so? Of course not...yet that leads one to believe that they don't actually CARE that much that their employees start eating better. They're providing lip service about it. Excellent analogy to support my point...thank you.

For someone who is typically against big business, I'm honestly surprised that you want them involved more in people's lives. Especially something personal, such as their sex lives.

I'm against hypocricy far more than I'm against big business (I'm not against big business in a general sense, but very much against certain big business practices and certain individual large corporations because of their various tactics). If you'll carefully read my position here, I'm not at all saying that Hobby Lobby should be required to provide these contraceptives. What I AM saying is that Hobby Lobby's stated position of not wanting to provide these contraceptives goes fully against their position that abortion is a bad thing. As I said previously, it becomes clear that Hobby Lobby doesn't really care about abortion so much as they care about punishing those who engage in premarital sex.

What happens when people leave their jobs? Are they going to learn how to act responsibly until someone else is footing the bill for their contraceptives?

I'm not at all sure what you're trying to get at here, to be honest.

Why not make a government program where you can use your EBT card for any type of contraceptive as well? Doesn't that seem appropriate?

I'm not at all sure what you're trying to get at here, to be honest.

Maybe even give incentives for sterilization so that these people never have to worry about "having to deal with the punishments" of being sexually irresponsible again. Oh no, did I just say that?

If a company were serious about stopping abortion, they certainly would also provide for this under their healthcare plan. In fact, I believe Hobby Lobby does so, though I could be wrong about that. The problem with that "solution" is that it is a far more permanent solution to a potentially temporary problem (of not wanting a child).

Again, your entire position is that Hobby Lobby has to choose between providing contraceptives or endorsing abortions.

No, that is not at all my "entire position"...in fact, it is something I have not at all said. Once again, please stop putting words into my mouth. Either deal with what I am ACTUALLY saying or at the least stop building up these strawmen so that you can try to set them on fire.

You say you are ok that if a company wanted to start addressing poor nutrition, they can do that but I have a feeling that you'd be against a company preaching celibacy until marriage.

Why would I be against that? What is it that I've said that leads you to believe I would be against that? My problem in this particular case is when that company says one thing but takes actions that work against that one thing. If a company is preaching celibacy until marriage but is investing in the making of condoms, then I would call them out on their hypocricy too. This isn't a difficult concept.

My point on the EBT card was everyone keeps saying people cannot afford this. If they qualify for EBT cards, why not allow EBT cards to cover that type of contraceptive as well. All of this should not be the responsibility of an employer. If the contraceptive is that important to the person, they should be able to shop the free market for a plan that satisfies their wants (unfortunately we have already strayed from any kind of free market approach to solving the problems around health care and health insurance).

Pardon me for my ignorance, but is the EBT card what is being used these days instead of food stamps or for welfare (I honestly don't know)? If so, then I would say it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to be able to use it for contraceptives, since that is SUPPOSED to be going toward food. Now if the EBT card is something else, then perhaps, if you could explain what it's used for.

You keep saying that if they don't provide contraception in their healthcare plan, they cannot complain about abortions.

YET AGAIN, please stop putting words into my mouth. It's almost as if you're refusing to discuss what I'm actually talking about, you've done it so often in this thread. I don't remember you being such a straw-man kind of guy in the past...has Phatscotty infected you with his methods somehow? It's hypocritical for them to do so, yes...THAT is what I am saying.

To me, that is choosing between contraceptives or abortions.

So you don't believe there is any interaction between the abortion rate and the ease with which people can access contraceptives? You don't find it hypocritical for Hobby Lobby to make it more difficult for some people to access contraceptives while putting on a big show about being against abortion? If you don't, I'm not sure we have much to converse about, to be honest.

Not sure how you say that is not your position as you keep stating they have to provide one or shut up about the other.

I didn't say they had to shut up. I said it was hypocritical for them to have those actions combined with those words.

Sure about celibacy and condoms, i can easily see how you'd view that as hypocritical. Not sure how I feel, as I really don't care on that front. Their message and their investment.

The hypocricy is VERY similar to what I'm complaining about in regards to Hobby Lobby.

Looks like EBT cards are used for both food stamps and welfare. My point was, have the government give them a third option (contraceptives) if they qualify for benefits. Here's your food stamp money. Here's your welfare money. Here's your contraceptives money. That way those that need help, can have it. If they choose not to use it each period or whatever, it gets rolled back into a general fund of some kind.

I would have no problem with that kind of a setup, as long as it had better oversight than the food stamps/welfare historically has had (yes, I'm pro-welfare and pro-food stamps, but I'm anti-how-they've-historically-handled-it). In fact, I would consider that an exceptionally good thing to do, both from a welfare standpoint (perhaps helping to avoid those who are on welfare and prefer not to get pregnant, leading to more people on welfare) as well as a public health standpoint.

[Woodruff]

You're arguing against yourself here. Those who aren't ready for the responsibility or don't want the lifestyle change are, for instance, quite likely to use the morning-after pill, therefore avoiding an actual abortion. Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby is actively working to make it more difficult for those people to use it, thus increasing the likelihood of the decision to abort.

Rather than "difficult to use", I think you mean less of a priority for people to pay for out of their own pocket unless something happens.

No, I mean "more difficult to use". Again, stop putting words into my mouth.

difficult: needing much effort or skill to accomplish, deal with, or understand.
use: take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result

How is Hobby Lobby increasing the effort or skill need to take, hold, or deploy a form of contraceptive?

Truthfully, I don't at all understand how it's not obvious to you. If something is available via an employee's health insurance, then that employee pays either nothing or a small co-pay for that something (in this case, the contraceptive). If that something is not available via an employee's health insurance, then that employee pays the full cost for that something, potentially exceeding their ability to pay for it. You don't believe an inability to pay for the contraceptive would be making it more difficult for them to use it?

You said the keyword there, POTENTIALLY exceeding their ability to pay for it. Not an ABSOLUTE.

Of course it's not an absolute - there's no way to predict who may have a spouse that has a high-income job or perhaps who has no kids. I've never claimed it was absolute - in fact, I have consistently used words along the lines of "potentially".

Sure there are people that genuinely need help but the vast majority of Hobby Lobby's employees make $14+/hour. They could easily afford to pay for their own contraceptives if this was such a priority for them.

You say that knowing nothing at all of their lives - that doesn't really make a lot of sense. The presumption is yours here, not mine.

[Woodruff]

crispybits, what confidence do you place in government when it comes to optimally planning the lives of 300+ million?

This doesn't directly answer your question, but it does touch on it...the United States military runs what is essentially a completely socialized healthcare system via the military base hospitals. And it's run incredibly well.

To be clear, this is not related to the VA system at all, is it? I assume not given all the news about the VA system in the last couple months but wanted to verify.

The VA system is competely different than the military medical system. The VA system is badly underfunded (though there are a few specific sites that are incredibly well-managed), whereas the military medical system is well-funded and well-run. The news of the VA being poorly-funded and mismanaged are not at all new news...I was hearing about it when I had first joined the military, back in the 80s.

[Woodruff]

My point is that few people are really thinking about the full ramifications of this ruling. Once you allow private companies to "opt out" of specific mandated health coverage because of religion or personally held beliefs of owners, then its not long before they can opt out of or mandate anything, using religion as a scapegoat.

I've already made that point - Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization, rather they are a business. A religious organization (such as a church) has the right to make these distinctions and have exemptions to the law. A business must follow the law.

The problem with your argument, however, is that Hobby Lobby could quite legitimately just decide not to allow those particular contraceptives within their healthcare insurance plan as a business matter, and the religion argument goes away entirely. For instance, my employer's dental plan doesn't cover all procedures, nor does their medical plan.

No, that is what the lobbiest are trying to achieve.

Pardon you?

Contraceptive care is considered part of women's general health care for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with Phattscotty and Nightstrikes assertions of "lack of self control"

And? How does that counter the point I made above in any way?

If they wanted to TRULY operate as a Christian organization, then they would not be taking the kinds of profits they do at all.

God doesn't like people making money?

The exact views are a point of some contention among Christians today, but generally no.

I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that one.

Making money itself is fine, even getting large amounts of money. What the Bible does do is say that there is a distinction between the secular/necessary and the sacred. I personally find people who do things like putting a cross or the christian fish icon on their yellow page ad for plumbing to be distasteful, though not necessarily blasphemous.

That's just your personal preference, though.

Faith is shown by actions, not words on a T-shirt or your business advertisement. If you ARE going to do that, then you had best operate in a Christly manner in all things in your business and that is a very high standard, indeed!

I don't disagree - I'm simply responding to your statement about their profit margins, which doesn't seem relevant to what you're saying here.

They would offer EVERY employee a true living wage, not just what they feel they can get away with...

I don't know what their wages are like - are you sure they're not?

This web site tends to indicate "no".
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Hobby-L ... -E7537.htm[/quote]

Those wages don't seem particularly onerous to me, to be honest - they're absolutely not "just what they feel
they can get away with", in my opinion.

My real point is that anyone using Christianity to promote their business needs to be really, really sure they are acting in a Christian manner... else they are just using Christ to make money and that is wrong. Its not the making money as a Christian that is wrong, its promoting your personal Christian faith to gain business that I feel is wrong.

I agree with you - thus my point regarding hypocricy. I haven't seen a lot that I feel Hobby Lobby is doing to "use Christ to
make money" on a larger scale though, outside of the contraceptives issue we're talking about.

[Woodruff]

centralization is one of the main reasons why healthcare's cost are so high. It's the all too predictable outcome of what happens when we go the route of 'everyone deserves healthcare'.

You don't believe that everyone deserves healthcare? Seriously?

I love when you pretend to score a point by acting like you didn't know that I am not a Socialist or a Progressive, and you pretend to not understand that I believe it's wrong to take money by force from one person in order to give it to another.

You didn't answer the question - would you stop tap-dancing and answer the question, please?

Woodruff, put on your ski mask and go take from people what you feel you deserve. At least be honest about it.

Hearing you talk about honesty and integrity is always so ironic.

[Woodruff]

I've already made that point - Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization, rather they are a business. A religious organization (such as a church) has the right to make these distinctions and have exemptions to the law. A business must follow the law.

Except that businesses are run and owned by owners.

Of course they are - thoroughly irrelevant as that is.

Owners are people, and people have Constitutional rights such as freedom of religion.

Yes, the OWNERS have the Constitutional right to freedom of religion AS TO THEIR PERSONAL RIGHTS. This is
irrelevant to their rights as a business owner.

Religious expressions don't end just because a person decides to own a business.

Religious expressions don't, of course. Religious RIGHTS, however, absolutely do.

Religious freedom doesn't end as soon as a person walks out of a church.

Of course not - no one has suggested that it does.

It's not fake outrage at all. It's outrageous that Hobby Lobby wants to claim that they're taking these actions while being firmly against abortions when these very actions almost certainly lead to INCREASED abortions. That's not fake outrage at all.

Except that the drugs the owners of Hobby Lobby objected to paying for are drugs that lead to abortions (because they believe life begins at conception, not implantation). So they are preventing abortions buy opposing those drugs.

Except that THEY'RE NOT. As has already been pointed out to you multiple times, the science they are basing
that excuse on is very flimsy - as a scientist yourself, I would have thought you'd be able to keep your own
personal views from clouding your ability to look at the science.

So yes, you're still crying over fake outrage, which has been your entire premise of this thread: fake outrage.

Not even remotely.

[Woodruff]

I've already made that point - Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization, rather they are a business. A religious organization (such as a church) has the right to make these distinctions and have exemptions to the law. A business must follow the law.

Except that businesses are run and owned by owners. Owners are people, and people have Constitutional rights such as freedom of religion. Religious expressions don't end just because a person decides to own a business. Religious freedom doesn't end as soon as a person walks out of a church.

Funny they come out of the closet and blame a mean society for creating it, and then first thing they do is make the closet bigger to shove more and more religious people and gun owners into it.

It's hilarious that you believe religious people are being persecuted. Not surprising that you'd think
it...but hilarious nonetheless.

Don't expect anything different when your skin color is no longer the majority.

Apparently, Phatscotty is afraid of not being in the majority. I wonder why that is?

[PLAYER57832]

centralization is one of the main reasons why healthcare's cost are so high. It's the all too predictable outcome of what happens when we go the route of 'everyone deserves healthcare'.

You don't believe that everyone deserves healthcare? Seriously?

I love when you pretend to score a point by acting like you didn't know that I am not a Socialist or a Progressive, and you pretend to not understand that I believe it's wrong to take money by force from one person in order to give it to another. Woodruff, put on your ski mask and go take from people what you feel you deserve. At least be honest about it.

Oh, we understand.... but the truth is you are just fine with taking other people's money, its just you only want it going where YOU want. You received and education for which you did not pay, benefited from a relatively safe and secure environment because OTHER PEOPLE fought and died so you could have that privilege and only some did so by choice; you benefitted from having clean air, water and resources that you did nothing to help create or even sustain.

What of a child dreaming of becoming more than what society had already decided for them? What of an individual who aspires to be something greater?

You're national socialism is showing...

My grandmother was a WWII major.
My father lived under Nazis occupation.

Most of Denmark lived under the Nazis. For you to claim they are Nazis is beyond an insult and shows exactly how little you understand of the world around you.

how much longer before you claim us as your own personal property and start putting the whips to our backs? You go ahead and keep shouting down the younger generations 'YOU OWE US YOU OWE US!!!!!!!" and pretty soon they are going to shove back and turn it on ya, because it will be true you are the blame for killing the land of opportunity by not being able to steal the gold egg from the goose that laid it, by all means, slice open the goose belly and help yourself to all the gold you feel you deserve.

What a complete crock of bullshit! Granted technically I did not pay for my education, my parents paid for it, of but I'm sure they were only able to do so because they had everything paid for them, which means you are probly also gonna take credit for my mom struggling with 2 jobs while also a full time student and not taking a single day off in 5 years so she could pay mine and my siblings tuition. Besides, I didn't know public education was doing such a great job that people like you think you take credit for every little thing I do in my life! HA! what a joke. Not too worried about what someone that assumes as much as you do thinks or says. Have another drink tho

My neighborhood was not safe, you are such a riot! I have a thousand stories you couldn't even handle listening to, at times I was the trouble maker. Sometimes the cops didn't get to the person who called 911 for 45 minutes. You are too much Player, but hey, thanks for keeping me safe my whole life. You deserve all the credit.

And one more thing actually, Player, I have the faintest memories of living by a maintained public beach with a life guard and fishing docks, clean. but then a bunch of roads were built, I guess by you personally, and YOU decided to run the rain waste from your dirty streets right into the pristine lake of memories. I remember that first year when ALL the fish died and washed ashore, it was like the Holocaust of fish, and from then on everyone always said "oh that lake, that lake is polluted now, don't eat from there' Thanks for taking the credit for the 'clean' environment I grew up with, but actually you can shove your BS load where the sun don't shine.

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen....FREEDOM in Players perspective, so long as she get's all the credit for everything you have done in your entire life and gets to tell you what to do because that which creates you and is responsible for whatever you become also has to power to limit you in your potential (people who are just smart enough to run the machines and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs - Carlin) and not only limit but destroy you the moment you step over an ever increasing list hundreds of millions of pages long of things you cannot do!

And the CAUSE of this mess? Failure to provide for better roads, education, police, etc... because so many politicians are intent on just cutting taxes.. derp....

meanwhile the wealth gap in this country grows.
Companies need to pay for the services they recieve, not just work to boost stock prices and dividend payouts.

[Woodruff]

No one suggests it does. We do, however suggest that if you decide to operate a for profit business, that is not a religious enterprise and should not be treated as such. The exception are very, very few.... suppliers of specific religious items, for example.

And your suggestions would be wrong, so there's that. You can suggest whatever you want, but those people still have the Constitutional freedoms to do as they choose, and you can't use the government to force them to do something that goes against their first amendment rights of religious freedom.

They STILL HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM to own their business. But the thing is, they have never had a Constitutional right to run their business counter to the law - that's just the facts (well, until this ruling opened up that can of worms). The idea that it is a Constitutional right for someone to be able to run a business in any way they see fit simply doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for quite some time - I thought you liked the Constitution, Night Strike - why do you want to try to abuse it?

If this policy is actually about medical care and preventing unwanted pregnancies, why weren't male treatments for pregnancy preventions mandated? Why weren't insurance companies mandated to provide condoms and vasectomies for free as well? The answer is because the mandate was made for political purposes, not for medical purposes.

The reason those weren't mandated is because they are already OVERWHELMINGLY PROVIDED. There is no need to mandate something which already exists. It's not a difficult concept, Night Strike.

And you're right, it does have EVERYTHING to do with controlling other people.......by controlling whether or not they are allowed to have religious freedoms. EVERYTHING about Obamacare is about using the government to control every facet of every person's life. You progressives are all about controlling others.

There is no right to religious freedom in the business world, Night Strike. Your religion does not provide an excuse to break the law in the business world. That does not exist.

[Woodruff]

Player, until you can define how refusing to pay for someone else to buy contraceptives is the same as denying them any ability to make their own choice to buy their own contraceptives, you will never have an argument to stand on.

That's not even the argument being made - could you try not to build your strawman so high - it's
blocking the discussion.

[Phatscotty]

centralization is one of the main reasons why healthcare's cost are so high. It's the all too predictable outcome of what happens when we go the route of 'everyone deserves healthcare'.

You don't believe that everyone deserves healthcare? Seriously?

I love when you pretend to score a point by acting like you didn't know that I am not a Socialist or a Progressive, and you pretend to not understand that I believe it's wrong to take money by force from one person in order to give it to another. Woodruff, put on your ski mask and go take from people what you feel you deserve. At least be honest about it.

Oh, we understand.... but the truth is you are just fine with taking other people's money, its just you only want it going where YOU want. You received and education for which you did not pay, benefited from a relatively safe and secure environment because OTHER PEOPLE fought and died so you could have that privilege and only some did so by choice; you benefitted from having clean air, water and resources that you did nothing to help create or even sustain.

What of a child dreaming of becoming more than what society had already decided for them? What of an individual who aspires to be something greater?

You're national socialism is showing...

My grandmother was a WWII major.
My father lived under Nazis occupation.

Most of Denmark lived under the Nazis. For you to claim they are Nazis is beyond an insult and shows exactly how little you understand of the world around you.

I didn't say anything about Nazi's. I said something about national socialism....

Shows how little you understand what was clearly just said to you, or else how far you had to go to twist what I said. It's one or the other. Either way it's on your face.

[patrickaa317]

This is a MEDICAL question, and has no business being made by an employer. That you provide insurance as a part of an employees compensation does not give you any more right to dictate what it covers than paying someone a wage gives you the right to dictate how it is spent.

Except that employers shop around for the insurance plan they are going to provide you. All health insurance plans are not the same. So by choosing to provide you with health insurance, they choose what health insurance they are providing you with, thus when employers provide this benefit, it IS part of a decision made by an employer! The only way they have no say in what insurance you get is if you decline the company provided insurance and opt for your own private plan.

The basic required coverage IS mandated. Covering dental care is optional. Covering most female reproductive health is not.
This was verified by the Supreme court, because not covering women's birth control is actually a form of discrimination. One reason is that many jobs, even if not directly, indirectly require that women not be pregnant.

There are many theoretical protections supposed to ensure that women who get pregnant retain their jobs, but the reality is you get 12 weeks of leave for ANY family medical issue (generally NOT per case). A pregnant woman put on bed rest or having other difficulties can quickly exceed that, not to mention what happens to both parents if the child winds up needing serious care, OR what happens when there are childcare issues. Regarding childcare, many areas do have decent taxpayer subsidized care, but availability and quality vary widely. I, for example, had to leave my profession because, along with health issues, I could not get care for my son... turns out everyone in town had kids at the same time. (The classes just prior had a hard time filling 2 -3 full classes, when he came along they have continually had 6-8 utterly full classes).

Worse, those most likely to suffer those issues are low wage workers without high education rates, such as those Hobby Lobby hires for its registers and the like.

All of this means that the protection for parents is often on paper, but not in truth.

Why should dental care be optional? Is it not important to be sure everyone has access to ensure their teeth and gums are on the up and up? What happens when someone has an unwanted abscess tooth and no dental coverage?

[patrickaa317]

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE BETWEEN PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVES OR SUPPORTING ABORTIONS????????????????????????

I didn't say they SUPPORT abortions (in fact, I stated that their "stated stance" was against abortions). Stop putting words into my mouth.

How have we came to that as a civilized society? You even say it yourself that people cannot learn to act responsibly. What about people who choose to start eating poor diets? Is it the employers job to ensure they are being responsible and getting proper nutrition?

If the employer TRULY CARES that their employees start eating better, then the employer certainly should do so. Are they REQUIRED to do so? Of course not...yet that leads one to believe that they don't actually CARE that much that their employees start eating better. They're providing lip service about it. Excellent analogy to support my point...thank you.

For someone who is typically against big business, I'm honestly surprised that you want them involved more in people's lives. Especially something personal, such as their sex lives.

I'm against hypocricy far more than I'm against big business (I'm not against big business in a general sense, but very much against certain big business practices and certain individual large corporations because of their various tactics). If you'll carefully read my position here, I'm not at all saying that Hobby Lobby should be required to provide these contraceptives. What I AM saying is that Hobby Lobby's stated position of not wanting to provide these contraceptives goes fully against their position that abortion is a bad thing. As I said previously, it becomes clear that Hobby Lobby doesn't really care about abortion so much as they care about punishing those who engage in premarital sex.

What happens when people leave their jobs? Are they going to learn how to act responsibly until someone else is footing the bill for their contraceptives?

I'm not at all sure what you're trying to get at here, to be honest.

Why not make a government program where you can use your EBT card for any type of contraceptive as well? Doesn't that seem appropriate?

I'm not at all sure what you're trying to get at here, to be honest.

Maybe even give incentives for sterilization so that these people never have to worry about "having to deal with the punishments" of being sexually irresponsible again. Oh no, did I just say that?

If a company were serious about stopping abortion, they certainly would also provide for this under their healthcare plan. In fact, I believe Hobby Lobby does so, though I could be wrong about that. The problem with that "solution" is that it is a far more permanent solution to a potentially temporary problem (of not wanting a child).

Again, your entire position is that Hobby Lobby has to choose between providing contraceptives or endorsing abortions.

No, that is not at all my "entire position"...in fact, it is something I have not at all said. Once again, please stop putting words into my mouth. Either deal with what I am ACTUALLY saying or at the least stop building up these strawmen so that you can try to set them on fire.

You say you are ok that if a company wanted to start addressing poor nutrition, they can do that but I have a feeling that you'd be against a company preaching celibacy until marriage.

Why would I be against that? What is it that I've said that leads you to believe I would be against that? My problem in this particular case is when that company says one thing but takes actions that work against that one thing. If a company is preaching celibacy until marriage but is investing in the making of condoms, then I would call them out on their hypocricy too. This isn't a difficult concept.

My point on the EBT card was everyone keeps saying people cannot afford this. If they qualify for EBT cards, why not allow EBT cards to cover that type of contraceptive as well. All of this should not be the responsibility of an employer. If the contraceptive is that important to the person, they should be able to shop the free market for a plan that satisfies their wants (unfortunately we have already strayed from any kind of free market approach to solving the problems around health care and health insurance).

Pardon me for my ignorance, but is the EBT card what is being used these days instead of food stamps or for welfare (I honestly don't know)? If so, then I would say it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to be able to use it for contraceptives, since that is SUPPOSED to be going toward food. Now if the EBT card is something else, then perhaps, if you could explain what it's used for.

You keep saying that if they don't provide contraception in their healthcare plan, they cannot complain about abortions.

YET AGAIN, please stop putting words into my mouth. It's almost as if you're refusing to discuss what I'm actually talking about, you've done it so often in this thread. I don't remember you being such a straw-man kind of guy in the past...has Phatscotty infected you with his methods somehow? It's hypocritical for them to do so, yes...THAT is what I am saying.

To me, that is choosing between contraceptives or abortions.

So you don't believe there is any interaction between the abortion rate and the ease with which people can access contraceptives? You don't find it hypocritical for Hobby Lobby to make it more difficult for some people to access contraceptives while putting on a big show about being against abortion? If you don't, I'm not sure we have much to converse about, to be honest.

Not sure how you say that is not your position as you keep stating they have to provide one or shut up about the other.

I didn't say they had to shut up. I said it was hypocritical for them to have those actions combined with those words.

Sure about celibacy and condoms, i can easily see how you'd view that as hypocritical. Not sure how I feel, as I really don't care on that front. Their message and their investment.

The hypocricy is VERY similar to what I'm complaining about in regards to Hobby Lobby.

Looks like EBT cards are used for both food stamps and welfare. My point was, have the government give them a third option (contraceptives) if they qualify for benefits. Here's your food stamp money. Here's your welfare money. Here's your contraceptives money. That way those that need help, can have it. If they choose not to use it each period or whatever, it gets rolled back into a general fund of some kind.

I would have no problem with that kind of a setup, as long as it had better oversight than the food stamps/welfare historically has had (yes, I'm pro-welfare and pro-food stamps, but I'm anti-how-they've-historically-handled-it). In fact, I would consider that an exceptionally good thing to do, both from a welfare standpoint (perhaps helping to avoid those who are on welfare and prefer not to get pregnant, leading to more people on welfare) as well as a public health standpoint.

I keep reading what you are writing it. Even though you keep saying I put words in your mouth, you keep saying the same thing. We'll leave that as a disagreement on the message you are sending with the words you are using. If I'm against smoking, should I be forced to offer the nicotine patch or be at risk for being hypocritical?

Access to contraceptives is really not a hard thing to do if it's something that is a priority to you. There are 716 Planned Parenthood locations across all 50 states. You can get discounted rated contraceptives through PP if you are poor / less fortunate. There are also other organizations located across the country that do similar things.

Insurance Plans Accepted
If you don't have insurance, you may be able to get covered under Obamacare. With or without insurance, you can always come to us for your health care.

As far as relationship to contraceptives and abortions; there are many variables in this. If all things were equal, obviously contraceptives prevent more pregnancies while that would theoretically drop abortions. This thought alone should not force one to have to provide it. Do more people engage in sexual activity thinking their ok because they have contraceptives? Has the culture of sex caused more abortions than complete access to contraceptives would have prevented?

[patrickaa317]

crispybits, what confidence do you place in government when it comes to optimally planning the lives of 300+ million?

This doesn't directly answer your question, but it does touch on it...the United States military runs what is essentially a completely socialized healthcare system via the military base hospitals. And it's run incredibly well.

To be clear, this is not related to the VA system at all, is it? I assume not given all the news about the VA system in the last couple months but wanted to verify.

The VA system is competely different than the military medical system. The VA system is badly underfunded (though there are a few specific sites that are incredibly well-managed), whereas the military medical system is well-funded and well-run. The news of the VA being poorly-funded and mismanaged are not at all new news...I was hearing about it when I had first joined the military, back in the 80s.

OK, cool. I'm not up on all the military medical system so I'll take your word on that. Just wanted to make sure myself and others knew there was a lesser known system out there that you were referencing.

[Woodruff]

You don't believe that everyone deserves healthcare? Seriously?

I love when you pretend to score a point by acting like you didn't know that I am not a Socialist or a Progressive, and you pretend to not understand that I believe it's wrong to take money by force from one person in order to give it to another. Woodruff, put on your ski mask and go take from people what you feel you deserve. At least be honest about it.

Oh, we understand.... but the truth is you are just fine with taking other people's money, its just you only want it going where YOU want. You received and education for which you did not pay, benefited from a relatively safe and secure environment because OTHER PEOPLE fought and died so you could have that privilege and only some did so by choice; you benefitted from having clean air, water and resources that you did nothing to help create or even sustain.

What of a child dreaming of becoming more than what society had already decided for them? What of an individual who aspires to be something greater?

You're national socialism is showing...

My grandmother was a WWII major.
My father lived under Nazis occupation.

Most of Denmark lived under the Nazis. For you to claim they are Nazis is beyond an insult and shows exactly how little you understand of the world around you.

I didn't say anything about Nazi's. I said something about national socialism....

Shows how little you understand what was clearly just said to you, or else how far you had to go to twist what I said. It's one or the other. Either way it's on your face.

She's the one twisting your implication of "Nazi's" when you used a video clip of Hitler himself when referring to National Socialism? You're twisting so hard, you've lost track of where the gravity is coming from.