Conquer Club

Hobby Lobby Ruling

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:06 pm

I came up with my own plan in 2009 or 2010...obviously not to be proposed, but something that seemed like it could work and just some out of the box ideas... but basically it was secondary care. poor people and sick people aren't going to get state of the art treatment or top notch care, but at least it will be free/close to free, and people who cannot otherwise do so will see a doctor.

Little sketchy but something like this: The government donates one of their buildings or the state can donate it too, even some cities. The buildings are filled with college students observing and serving as assistants as part of a hands on training portion of their education, along with recently graduated medical students and likewise to see and treat people and be trained by professionals and specialists who donate their time (with the current system a tax break/write off is warranted). And for the equipment, everything is a model or two outdated and bought on the cheap, and local businesses and citizens and organizations and associations and faith-based groups along with charities will be pitching in donating supplies too. I figured the main problem with this would be the lawsuits for mistakes or misdiagnosis or something, and to that I say you are getting the healthcare for free, so sign a waiver that you won't sue the people who are able to make it free. Might have left a few things out there, but maybe that is somewhat an example of what you were referring to Crispy?

I don't know exactly how the Shriner's hospitals do it, but I do know they get the mission accomplished.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:36 am

patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Absolutely, I agree with your point from a rationality standpoint. Unfortunately, the reality is that the human race seems to handle sex in a profoundly irrational way. Given that, I think we should react to the reality rather than the wish-it-were.


So since people cannot learn to act responsible, others have to cover for them?


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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:39 am

patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote: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?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:39 am

Night Strike wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote: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?


Because progressives demand that other people pay for their wants. Anything other than that is a violation of their rights.


Night Strike, I know you enjoy wallowing in your ignorance, but do please learn how to read.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:41 am

Phatscotty wrote:I came up with my own plan in 2009 or 2010...obviously not to be proposed, but something that seemed like it could work and just some out of the box ideas... but basically it was secondary care. poor people and sick people aren't going to get state of the art treatment or top notch care, but at least it will be free/close to free, and people who cannot otherwise do so will see a doctor.

Little sketchy but something like this: The government donates one of their buildings or the state can donate it too, even some cities. The buildings are filled with college students observing and serving as assistants as part of a hands on training portion of their education, along with recently graduated medical students and likewise to see and treat people and be trained by professionals and specialists who donate their time (with the current system a tax break/write off is warranted). And for the equipment, everything is a model or two outdated and bought on the cheap, and local businesses and citizens and organizations and associations and faith-based groups along with charities will be pitching in donating supplies too. I figured the main problem with this would be the lawsuits for mistakes or misdiagnosis or something, and to that I say you are getting the healthcare for free, so sign a waiver that you won't sue the people who are able to make it free. Might have left a few things out there, but maybe that is somewhat an example of what you were referring to Crispy?

I don't know exactly how the Shriner's hospitals do it, but I do know they get the mission accomplished.


This is pretty much exactly the same thinking that goes on with public healthcare rationing. Do you support rationing?
Last edited by Metsfanmax on Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:42 am

mrswdk wrote:Voting in American elections implies that you believe you are actually being given a choice about how America is run, which doesn't sound very smart to me.


There is a choice, it's just that most Americans refuse to recognize the full range of choices they have. Like Phatscotty proudly shows, they'd rather vote for a winner than their own interests.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:48 am

Phatscotty wrote: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?

Phatscotty wrote:We can also cut demand for healthcare by ending redistributive and wasteful government programs.


Or by providing good preventative care to EVERYONE. What a concept.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:51 am

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Its plain and simple. The MEDICAL care I recieve, as well as my personal beliefs about that care and just not my employer's business.. PERIOD.

Hiding behind your pocket book as if paying me for WORK somehow gives you the right to dictate my personal life is repugnant.


If it's not your employer's business, why is he forced to pay for it? It's a complete fallacy to argue that this is something new when it comes to health insurance coverage. Every business that offers health insurance as a job benefit has always picked what would be covered in their plans. There are no plans out there that cover every single medicine and treatment that exists, that means EVERY employer plays a role in your personal medical care. This is just fake outrage to gather votes from ignorant people.


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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:53 am

BigBallinStalin wrote: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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:03 am

Phatscotty wrote:Little sketchy but something like this: The government donates one of their buildings or the state can donate it too, even some cities. The buildings are filled with college students observing and serving as assistants as part of a hands on training portion of their education, along with recently graduated medical students and likewise to see and treat people and be trained by professionals and specialists who donate their time (with the current system a tax break/write off is warranted). And for the equipment, everything is a model or two outdated and bought on the cheap, and local businesses and citizens and organizations and associations and faith-based groups along with charities will be pitching in donating supplies too. I figured the main problem with this would be the lawsuits for mistakes or misdiagnosis or something, and to that I say you are getting the healthcare for free, so sign a waiver that you won't sue the people who are able to make it free. Might have left a few things out there, but maybe that is somewhat an example of what you were referring to Crispy?


That's not "sketchy"...that's a truly horrible idea. These medical students, who have just gone under enormous student debt, are expected to provide free medical care? What of their loans, never mind their own personal living expenses? And the idea that someone would have zero recourse to serious medical malpractice, free service or not, is also a horrible idea.

Phatscotty wrote:I don't know exactly how the Shriner's hospitals do it, but I do know they get the mission accomplished.


In 2008, Shriners Hospitals had a total budget of $826 million and in 2007 they approved 39,454 new patient applications and attended to the needs of 125,125 patients. So basically, they do it by getting MASSIVE BOATLOADS of donations.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:03 am

Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Its plain and simple. The MEDICAL care I recieve, as well as my personal beliefs about that care and just not my employer's business.. PERIOD.

Hiding behind your pocket book as if paying me for WORK somehow gives you the right to dictate my personal life is repugnant.


If it's not your employer's business, why is he forced to pay for it?
It is WAGES, pure and simple, but wages that give the employer a huge tax benefit. Historically, they wind up allowing the employer to "give" the employer more for less. Its only recently that healthcare costs have begun to outstrip the tax benefits. And its no irony that the complaints about paying for "unwanted services" began when the costs rose.

Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote: It's a complete fallacy to argue that this is something new when it comes to health insurance coverage. Every business that offers health insurance as a job benefit has always picked what would be covered in their plans. There are no plans out there that cover every single medicine and treatment that exists, that means EVERY employer plays a role in your personal medical care.

Exactly. it is how the system is designed. But what is wrong is that there is no viable, real, alternative payment system. NOT that some employers are "forced" to pay for "coverage they don't like". ANY insurance system HAS to operate on pooled coverages to operate. That is how just about every community payment we make works, whether it is schools, taxes for roads, general taxes, etc.

The problem is a few people deciding that they now get to use their pocket books to flat dictate what they will and will not pay for.



Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:This is just fake outrage to gather votes from ignorant people.


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.


Woodruff, you bring up a different point. I would argue it is real, but I prefer to stick to other trains of debate. Enough people have already argued that point.


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.

There has always been a line. You can do and say what you want in PRIVATE, but not public. When you hire large numbers of people, you are no longer fully private. Churches, organizations with a specific religious mission and not profit making entities that just happen to decide they want to bring religion in to supplement their profits.

Bullies are good at justifying their actions. Its always "someone else" who is the bully, they just "have standards" .
There are a very few people who can LEGITIMATELY claim the right to opt out of the insurance system. Truly believing Christian Scientists are an example. The Amish are a better successful example. BUT, they also completely opt out of the benefits, pay in full for any care they receive with very few exceptions. (note.. if you want to get into discussion about the Amish, specifically, start another thread... its a complex topic. I hesitated to bring them up, but they are an example of a group that stands by its values in health care).

Hobby Lobby, to contrast wants to claim all the benefits of providing healthcare for its employees, to claim a benevolent policy based upon faith... BUT in fact is bullying its female employees to adhere to the personal views of the owners or go without coverage or employment.

If they wanted to TRULY operate as a Christian organization, then they would not be taking the kinds of profits they do at all. They would offer EVERY employee a true living wage, not just what they feel they can get away with... and they would act in many other ways as a faith organization instead of a for profit entity.

This bastardization of religion into a means for profit is worse than the money changers who's tables Christ overturned in the old Jewish Temples. You cannot serve 2 Gods. You serve God OR you serve money... not both!

Does that mean money is evil? No more than the farmer raising sheep is "evil" because he has to tend his flock on holy days. Money is merely an expedient. Remember, it was the "high and mighty" Pharisees who considered themselves above the unclean shepherds, because the Pharisees did not sully their hands with work. Christ said about the opposite. Money is not evil, but when money is used to bully other people to act as you think... yes, that is evil.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:03 pm

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote: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.


How many people does it serve? About 2 million tops?

I wonder what the cost per soldier is, and what that cost would be if you scaled up that program to cover 300+ million people?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:45 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote: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?

The corporate model is only an option because, to date the US government is able to reign in their excesses...but that time is quickly evaporating. And, so, too is our chance for real health care for any but the wealthy few and an occasionally lucky sod.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:57 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote: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.

PLAYER57832 wrote: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?

PLAYER57832 wrote: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?

PLAYER57832 wrote:This bastardization of religion into a means for profit is worse than the money changers who's tables Christ overturned in the old Jewish Temples. You cannot serve 2 Gods. You serve God OR you serve money... not both!


Certainly, I agree.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:00 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote: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.


How many people does it serve? About 2 million tops?
I wonder what the cost per soldier is, and what that cost would be if you scaled up that program to cover 300+ million people?


I don't know the specific costs, obviously, but I would suggest that the cost would go DOWN if the program were scaled up in that manner. After all, it's not like the U.S. military is enclosed within a small geographical area - they're spread out all over the world, including families that may or may not be located near an actual military base.

My real point though is the argument that the government couldn't provide good treatment at a reasonable cost. The treatment is actually very good, and while I don't know the costs involved, it's never been one of the items targeted for serious cuts by the military, which leads me to believe they're not astronomical.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:19 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote: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?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby patrickaa317 on Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:45 pm

Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
So since people cannot learn to act responsible, others have to cover for them?


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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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. To me, that is choosing between contraceptives or abortions. 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.

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.

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.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby patrickaa317 on Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:55 pm

Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote: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. 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.

I'd like to see some numbers on the demographic that works for Hobby Lobby, cannot afford their own contraceptives, and how many of them have Smart phones with data plans. Or flat screen TVs. Those dollar amounts would most likely pay for contraceptives if the person CHOSE THAT BEING SEXUALLY ACTIVE WITH CONTRACEPTIVES WAS THAT IMPORTANT TO THEM. Contraceptives are for something that people (typically) do willingly. (the ones that are raped are less than 1% of abortions, so think of what percentage these cases are as a WHOLE when you start talking company-wide policies like health coverage)

Actually, throw all people in the work force that receive company paid for health insurance, rather than just HL employees.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby patrickaa317 on Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:58 pm

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote: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.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:49 pm

Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: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. 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"
Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: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. 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. 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!


Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: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

This article indicates they do, at least in Maryland:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/07/the-b ... imum-wage/

I probably should not have picked that example. 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.

Here are 2 other articles on Hobby lobby, though only one addresses wages:
http://www.demos.org/blog/7/3/14/hobby- ... alter-egos

http://www.demos.org/blog/7/7/14/hobby- ... ers-rights

Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:This bastardization of religion into a means for profit is worse than the money changers who's tables Christ overturned in the old Jewish Temples. You cannot serve 2 Gods. You serve God OR you serve money... not both!


Certainly, I agree.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:16 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:I came up with my own plan in 2009 or 2010...obviously not to be proposed, but something that seemed like it could work and just some out of the box ideas... but basically it was secondary care. poor people and sick people aren't going to get state of the art treatment or top notch care, but at least it will be free/close to free, and people who cannot otherwise do so will see a doctor.

Little sketchy but something like this: The government donates one of their buildings or the state can donate it too, even some cities. The buildings are filled with college students observing and serving as assistants as part of a hands on training portion of their education, along with recently graduated medical students and likewise to see and treat people and be trained by professionals and specialists who donate their time (with the current system a tax break/write off is warranted). And for the equipment, everything is a model or two outdated and bought on the cheap, and local businesses and citizens and organizations and associations and faith-based groups along with charities will be pitching in donating supplies too. I figured the main problem with this would be the lawsuits for mistakes or misdiagnosis or something, and to that I say you are getting the healthcare for free, so sign a waiver that you won't sue the people who are able to make it free. Might have left a few things out there, but maybe that is somewhat an example of what you were referring to Crispy?

I don't know exactly how the Shriner's hospitals do it, but I do know they get the mission accomplished.


This is pretty much exactly the same thinking that goes on with public healthcare rationing. Do you support rationing?


LOL, nice try

I support doing what we can, and I certainly don't support mandating what we clearly cannot.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:33 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote: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.

“So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

“Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions–and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.’

“To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss–the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery–that you must offer them values, not wounds–that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade–with reason, not force, as their final arbiter–it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability–and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

“But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

“Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth–the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

“Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money–and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

“But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich–will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt–and of his life, as he deserves.

“Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard–the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money–the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law–men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims–then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

“Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

“Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.’

“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world? You are.

“You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it’s crumbling around you, while you’re damning its life-blood–money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men’s history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves–slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers–as industrialists.

“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money–and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being–the self-made man–the American industrialist.

“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose–because it contains all the others–the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity–to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.

“Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide– as, I think, he will.

“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.”
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby Night Strike on Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:33 pm

Woodruff wrote: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.

Woodruff wrote: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. So yes, you're still crying over fake outrage, which has been your entire premise of this thread: fake outrage.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:00 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote: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?


You are presenting an utterly false choice, as well as ignoring the fact that there are major differences in how people operate for wants versus true needs. Some people, spurred by greed, will steel/lie, etc for things like a nice painting. Most people won't.

MOST people, however, will do all of the above if that is the only way they can see to feed their kids or get them needed medical treatment.

The market works well for what it does. It does not, however, promote a better world. Democracy, along with freedom of information, does... and creates a better business climate, too boot! Unfortunately, "good overall" is not good enough for those gaining power now. For them, its all about amassing their own personal wealth.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Hobby Lobby Ruling

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:03 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote: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.

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.

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

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.

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!)
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users