Hobby Lobby Case - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 106
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: Hobby Lobby Case

  1. #21
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    You do understand that Hobby Lobby covers contraceptives right? The only thing they don't want to cover is the morning after pills and IUDs. So are you saying that there should be some kind of RIGHT to FREE morning after pills and IUDs?



    Reminder: Hobby Lobby Provides Coverage for 16 Types of Contraception - Katie Pavlich
    There should not be a discrepancy between what the government says needs to be covered and what certain corporations do cover.

    (well thats my opinion at least...obviously enough men on the supreme court don't agree)
    Last edited by KimPossible; 07-01-2014 at 11:59 AM.

  2. #22
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,535

    Default

    An IUD prevents sperm from fertilizing an egg. What's the objection to that, then?
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  3. #23
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    Sure they have rights...but they should not have the right to deprive their employees of something the government has deemed people should have. That is a ridiculous and rather frightening right. They have rights...THIS should not be one of them.

    *That is one of the things this case is about. Plan B should never have been a part of health insurance plans in the first place.*


    If i give an adult child 50 dollars and say "Here, go take care of yourself with this" and then the child in turn uses that to do something immoral...I am not responsible for that.

    *Giving someone $50 and telling them to go buy some food but they buy drugs instead is completely different than going out and buying drugs for someone.*


    So like a healthcare exchange? Thats what it is you know.

    *Private with multiple companies to choose from, not Government run. The Government should not be controlling Healthcare. They simply are not competent. The VA is a perfect example of that.*
    Look above

    ~Bonita~

  4. #24
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    Look above
    *That is one of the things this case is about. Plan B should never have been a part of health insurance plans in the first place.*
    This is not true. This case does nothing to take that out of the coverage requirements.

    *Giving someone $50 and telling them to go buy some food but they buy drugs instead is completely different than going out and buying drugs for someone.*
    I don't think there is much of a difference at all. Hobby lobby is not buying this birth control and putting it in the hands of their employees and telling them to use it. Hobby Lobby's is providing healthcare benefits...that an employee should be able to use and should be able to expect them to comply with the law...and let their OWN religious beliefs dictate if they will get to use these contraceptives or not...not their corporate CEO. Yuck.

    *Private with multiple companies to choose from, not Government run. The Government should not be controlling Healthcare. They simply are not competent. The VA is a perfect example of that.*
    You just said you wanted government regulated...that's what obamacare is government regulated privatized healthcare.

    ETA: you used the word "oversite"....what is the technical definition between oversite and government regulated??

    Obamacare is not government run healtcare FYI....it defines a set of rules that private health insurers need to follow among other things...that's government regulated, or oversite.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 07-01-2014 at 12:15 PM.

  5. #25
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    An IUD prevents sperm from fertilizing an egg. What's the objection to that, then?
    There are many people that believe an IUD's secondary function is to abort any fertilized egg that makes it through. My main objection and many that I know is for Plan B. Regardless of what any of us on this board feel, The owners of Hobby Lobby believe that those two forms of birth control cause abortions and is the same as killing a child. No one should be forced to pay for someone else's abortion. Whether or not you agree that those BC are abortionist, it is not something that someone else should have to pay for.

    Try changing the situation and see if you feel the same. Would you like there to a law that if you owned a company you had to buy a bible for each of your employees? Of course not. If they want one, they can buy one for themselves. It would be a major breach of religious freedoms to force an employer to do that for their employees. There has got to be a line between the Government controlling every single aspect of a company and a company running their business and the Government just overseeing to making it safe.

    I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations still have some rights. Not just for this issue, but for many issues.

    ~Bonita~

  6. #26
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,202

    Default

    Here is a question for the supporters.

    What is the defining difference between what laws corporations should be able to ignore by claiming religion...and what laws they can't ignore?

    If a religious corporation believes that its sinful for women who are pregnant or mothers to work because they are obligated to be home with their kids according to 'Gods plan'...should they be able to fire them? Should they be allowed to ask their potential employees if they are pregnant or planning on getting pregnant?

    ETA: If the answer is "yes, they should be allowed to do those things"...well then at least you are consistent. If the answer is no, I would like to know what the defining factor is that makes my example different. It would need to be very clear and obvious so it could withstand a court trial.

    And I'm interested in hearing the actual answers to my last question, regardless of if they are yes or no answers.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 07-01-2014 at 12:59 PM.
    Emma 08/31/01
    Aodhan 07/24/03
    Lillian 03/04/05
    Nathalie 07/01/07
    Cecilia Marie 1/10/10


    Photo By Anne Schmidt Photography

  7. #27
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    There are many people that believe an IUD's secondary function is to abort any fertilized egg that makes it through. My main objection and many that I know is for Plan B. Regardless of what any of us on this board feel, The owners of Hobby Lobby believe that those two forms of birth control cause abortions and is the same as killing a child. No one should be forced to pay for someone else's abortion. Whether or not you agree that those BC are abortionist, it is not something that someone else should have to pay for.

    Try changing the situation and see if you feel the same. Would you like there to a law that if you owned a company you had to buy a bible for each of your employees? Of course not. If they want one, they can buy one for themselves. It would be a major breach of religious freedoms to force an employer to do that for their employees. There has got to be a line between the Government controlling every single aspect of a company and a company running their business and the Government just overseeing to making it safe.

    I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations still have some rights. Not just for this issue, but for many issues.
    Paying for an abortion is completely different from providing health care and then having individual employees decide whether or not to use the coverage for birth control. Not the same at all.

    The bible analogy doesn't make sense either. If I were in the library business and the law mandated that I provide a religious text from every different type of religion in my "religious studies" section, then I would do so. If I only believed in one of those religions, or even none of them, I'm still leaving it up to the library user or employee to decide what book to read. That's a much closer analogy than telling me to buy a bible for everyone. No one is telling these companies to buy birth control for everybody, they're asking them to provide comprehensive health care as defined by the law....until now. It's a bad decision and I hope it gets overturned.
    KimPossible and Spacers like this.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  8. #28
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    Here is a question for the supporters.

    What is the defining difference between what laws corporations should be able to ignore by claiming religion...and what laws they can't ignore?

    If a religious organization believes that its sinful for women who are pregnant or mothers to work because they are obligated to be home with their kids according to 'Gods plan'...should they be able to fire them? Should they be allowed to ask their potential employees if they are pregnant or planning on getting pregnant?

    ETA: If the answer is "yes, they should be allowed to do those things"...well then at least you are consistent. If the answer is no, I would like to know what the defining factor is that makes my example different. It would need to be very clear and obvious so it could withstand a court trial.

    And I'm interested in hearing the actual answers to my last question, regardless of if they are yes or no answers.
    In my opinion the line comes in the form of common sense safety issues. A company should not be able to say it is a condition of working somewhere that someone must have sex with their boss. A company should not be able to put rat poison in their food. Those are good Government regulations. Saying that an employer should have to provide this, this, and this above their pay is not.
    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    Paying for an abortion is completely different from providing health care and then having individual employees decide whether or not to use the coverage for birth control. Not the same at all.

    *I disagree*

    The bible analogy doesn't make sense either. If I were in the library business and the law mandated that I provide a religious text from every different type of religion in my "religious studies" section, then I would do so. If I only believed in one of those religions, or even none of them, I'm still leaving it up to the library user or employee to decide what book to read. That's a much closer analogy than telling me to buy a bible for everyone. No one is telling these companies to buy birth control for everybody, they're asking them to provide comprehensive health care as defined by the law....until now. It's a bad decision and I hope it gets overturned.
    Some above.

    No library should "have" to stock any one particular book. If a library does not have the book you want go to a different library. If there was a book on how to build a bom, a library should not "have" to stock that book if they are afraid someone might use that information to build a bom. If a library's owner has a moral objection to pornography, no one should be able to come in and say they "have" to stock it. - A business should have complete control over what they sell/ don't sell.

    ~Bonita~

  9. #29
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,283

    Default

    What about my human rights? Do I give up those because I seek employment? Anything else should I be willing to do? Female circumcision if I want to be a dancer? Participate in a morning prayer group with my employer (so their religious rights don't get infringed), getting fired if I divorce?

    The main issue I have is giving a corporation status as a "person" for some things but not others. If the same company sold envelops with glue that they knew could cause death without letting the consumer know, the company could be sued . There would be no personal liability. The owners' personal assists would not be subject to ligation. No criminal charges. Nothing. If I did this as an individual - gave people toxic glue - there could be personal legal and civil consequences. Did anyone from Ford or GM get charged?

    I think "religious beliefs" of an individual allowing a corporation to deny employees of something is going to lead to unintended consequences.

    I don't know the answer but did other businesses with a reputation for being highly religious (In-and-Out) object?
    Spacers likes this.

  10. #30
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    In my opinion the line comes in the form of common sense safety issues. A company should not be able to say it is a condition of working somewhere that someone must have sex with their boss. A company should not be able to put rat poison in their food. Those are good Government regulations. Saying that an employer should have to provide this, this, and this above their pay is not.
    So what about my example. Are you saying yes to that scenario? That a corporation should be allowed to do that?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions