It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court debates the future of Obamacare

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   

GeorgiaGirl

Krazysh0t
reply to post by beezzer
 


I don't support Obamacare either, but Hobby Lobby needs to lose this case. It may be against the religion of the owner's of Hobby Lobby to use contraceptives, but I'm pretty damn sure that they don't just employ Christian fundamentalists like themselves. This results in religious discrimination from the employer to the employee from a government mandated law. The rights of the person need to outweigh the rights of this corporation. If a Christian doesn't approve of contraceptives, fine, don't use them, but don't deny other's their right to use them or be provided with them under law because of your disagreement.

This whole fiasco could be solved by just getting government out of our lives, but hey apparently that isn't in the cards.


Here is a very important point that I bet you haven't heard in the media. Hobby Lobby isn't against contraceptives. They are against the pill that you take AFTER sexual activity, which basically "aborts" the newly implanted egg--the day after pill.



No I've heard that. It wasn't on the forefront of my mind when I started posting in this topic, but I do recall hearing about that on CSPAN's Washington Review yesterday morning (I listen to it every morning). But my point still stands in this regard. These pills aren't FOR the corporation, they are for their employees, who may NOT be Christians who are pro-life.




posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


No, the rights I am referring to are religious rights of NON-Christians to take advantage of a benefit provided by law that their religion has no problem with, but is being impeded by a corporation that DOES think its rights are being violated.

ETA: It is kind of a reverse discrimination here that I am referring to. Corporation feels its religious rights are being violated by being forced to provide the morning after pill to its employees. Said employees don't necessarily share those same religious views but now cannot take advantage of the free contraceptive because their employer says no, thereby forcing the corporation's religious views onto their employees. That is the OPPOSITE of religious freedom. Also since corporations cannot practice religions, I defer rights violations to the individual as opposed to the corporation (actually I'm not sure why I even said that, I never agree with the "corporations are people" nonsense lol)
edit on 26-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by beezzer
 

This whole fiasco could be solved by just getting government out of our lives, but hey apparently that isn't in the cards.

That's hitting the nail on the head. Asking the government for help with 'your' problem is like opening the door for a vampire when he asks to be invited in. Don't do it ... fix it yourself!!



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by greencmp
 


No, the rights I am referring to are religious rights of NON-Christians to take advantage of a benefit provided by law that their religion has no problem with, but is being impeded by a corporation that DOES think its rights are being violated.


So, the religious rights of employees outweigh the religious rights of employers?

Are the employees being prevented from accessing any of these medical products or services or are these employers just not willing to foot the bill.

Also, to think of having access to the morning after pill as a "religious right" is a bit beyond the pale.

BTW, we are probably much closer on this intellectually than this exchange might lead one to believe but, when we delve into the details (where the devil resides
the complete inappropriateness of state mandated statistical risk hedging financial services becomes apparent.

I think you may be attempting to defend a legitimate right to the free exercise of individual will in the context of an unconstitutional law which is in itself an affront to that very idea.
edit on 26-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


Didn't Obama state that Obamacare would NOT be used for abortions?


He also said that if you like your plan you can keep your plan... if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

We see how quickly that went to hell in a hand basket.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I am not sure, but it does sound like something he would say. He says a lot of things, doesn't he?????



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe
 


It's hilarious to see supporters of obamacare claiming that birth control is a right. These losers believe they have a right to force others to pay for their birth control .

Even if hobby lobby loses this case, they still have another option.... They can simply refuse to hire any woman who is of child bearing age.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


it's equally hilarious to see Americans calling others loser because of political affiliation. Equally funny to see people picking and choosing what is a 'right" and what should be in healthcare...

Somewhere wondering what happened to being nice...



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


That is my exact argument.
If you can object to paying for oral contraceptives.
Why can't, for example, Jehovahs Witnesses refuse to pay for blood transfusions?
Or why can't a faith based healing business owner completely not want to pay for health insurance if they only believe in faith based healing.

And AFAIC the entire Hobby Lobby argument is utter nonsense. Since the 70's our tax dollars have been paying to fund planned parenthood. If Hobby Lobby is so pious why are they paying federal taxes?



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Cyprian
reply to post by doubletap
 


it's equally hilarious to see Americans calling others loser because of political affiliation. Equally funny to see people picking and choosing what is a 'right" and what should be in healthcare...

Somewhere wondering what happened to being nice...


I agree, we should be civil or most of the benefits to the controversial discussion will be lost.

Picking and choosing (and remembering, proclaiming and defending) rights is exactly what we must do.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Good call. As such, I now choose that anyone named greencmp no longer has First Amendment rights. That's how it works, right?


Seriously, employers have zero right to inflict religious grounds on employess..and I speak as a Christian, and minor clergy.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


Whats really hilarious is those that wouldn't contribute to the making of something both sides in years passed said needed to be done. They allowed the left to write and do everything so they could complain later such as now. If they were looking out for the american people this issue would have been brought up and resolved before the bill even passed.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyprian
 


A right is something that an individual can exercise, not something they can force someone else to subsidize.

I didn't even mention political affiliation, I called the people who believe they have a right to "free" birth control and morning after pills losers. They fail to understand two very basic concepts:

- no one is preventing them from getting BC, but they will have to put on their big girl panties and be responsible for once, by paying for it themselves.

- there most certainly isn't a right to birth control, no matter how many times their college professor tells them there is.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

greencmp

Krazysh0t
reply to post by greencmp
 


No, the rights I am referring to are religious rights of NON-Christians to take advantage of a benefit provided by law that their religion has no problem with, but is being impeded by a corporation that DOES think its rights are being violated.


So, the religious rights of employees outweigh the religious rights of employers?


No they have the same rights, but it isn't the employers footing the bill, it is the corporation. This corporation will then write that expense off on their taxes, so the money is never part of the employers' expenses.


Are the employees being prevented from accessing any of these medical products or services or are these employers just not willing to foot the bill.


They aren't being prevented from accessing them, but they ARE being prevented from being able to take advantage of a part of a law that should apply to everyone on religious grounds.


Also, to think of having access to the morning after pill as a "religious right" is a bit beyond the pale.


The object that this argument is over is irrelevant. As it stands, there is a law on the books that mandates that a company or corporation provide contraceptives to their employees as part of their health care preventative services. The employees of this company shouldn't have to pay out of pocket for these expenses all because the place they happen to work at disagrees with what they are being forced to provide. THAT is where the religious discrimination lies. It is forcing another's belief (in this case a corporation) onto someone else.


BTW, we are probably much closer on this intellectually than this exchange might lead one to believe but, when we delve into the details (where the devil resides
the complete inappropriateness of state mandated statistical risk hedging financial services becomes apparent.

I think you may be attempting to defend a legitimate right to the free exercise of individual will in the context of an unconstitutional law which is in itself an affront to that very idea.
edit on 26-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)


Exactly, that is why I wrote this in my very first post on this topic:


This whole fiasco could be solved by just getting government out of our lives, but hey apparently that isn't in the cards.


Because of the government overreach, we have a situation that where the government has to choose sides on religious freedom. I of course defer to the individual, but the government shouldn't have put itself in this position to begin with.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Do you believe that when individuals or companies pay for something they shouldn't have any say in what it is that they are paying for?

Just shut up and do what the government tells them to do?



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Cyprian
reply to post by greencmp
 


Good call. As such, I now choose that anyone named greencmp no longer has First Amendment rights. That's how it works, right?


Seriously, employers have zero right to inflict religious grounds on employess..and I speak as a Christian, and minor clergy.


They don't want to "inflict" their religion on employees. They just don't want to PAY for what they deem to be abortions. I think there is a distinction there. If they were telling employees they themselves could not purchase these items--that would be inflicting their religion on them.

Hobby Lobby is a family owned company, not a publicly owned company. I want to live in a nation that allows entrepreneurs to make decisions in line with their moral beliefs. The belief that all abortion is wrong is not a small point.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   

doubletap
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Do you believe that when individuals or companies pay for something they shouldn't have any say in what it is that they are paying for?

Just shut up and do what the government tells them to do?


I believe that if there is a law on the books telling a corporation to provide something to their employees, that it is religious discrimination from the corporation to the employee when they refuse to provide that something to their employees based on religious grounds. The corporation (or rather the owners) may believe something, but that doesn't mean that their employees believe the same thing.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


Ah, but they are telling employees what they can and cannot get with their healthcare. That's the whole point. that's why they are in this situation...Hobby Lobby wants the right to determine that their beliefs can dictate an employee's healthcare, regardless of the law or the employee's wishes.

Somewhere fighting for rights I don't always agree with...



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Since they are paying for it, it seems obvious that the rights of the business owner come first. No one is saying they can't get bc, they just have to be adults and pay for it themselves.

This comes from a guy who despises religion in any and all forms.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Cyprian
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


Ah, but they are telling employees what they can and cannot get with their healthcare. That's the whole point. that's why they are in this situation...Hobby Lobby wants the right to determine that their beliefs can dictate an employee's healthcare, regardless of the law or the employee's wishes.

Somewhere fighting for rights I don't always agree with...


Isn't up to the individual?

The state is mandating, but shouldn't the individual decide and purchase their own "care"?




top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join