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.

 

Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

page: 36
49
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: gottaknow

Wrong. Out of 20 kinds of birth control in the HL health care plans for employees. The SC ruling today was only over 4 of those forms of birth control. The ones that terminate a pregnancy. All the other forms of birth control, including the pill, are still in the HC plans provided to the HL employees...

sigh...I'm getting weary of writing this over and over...

Des




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone

No, I get it. I'm pro-abortion though. And I believe it shouldn't be the company's beliefs that reign over their employee's choices.

Just post this page if you're weary: www.hobbylobbycase.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:24 AM
link   
What if your "social, cultural and religious issue" involves denying black people work or promotions? Or if you're a Nazi and deny Jews promotions or jobs? Where does it end? People who are hard working and need a job all deserve the same equal rights regardless of your fear and religion getting in the way.



originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Destinyone


This is where my conservative side takes center stage. As a business owner, I don't want government telling me how to run my business especially when it comes to social issues. And birth control is a social, cultural and religious issue.






posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: bimyou

All that is against other laws.

Therefore;

Invalid argument.

Hobby Lobby isn't discriminating against anybody.

Why would you think that as long as the Supreme Court ruled?

They in fact were discriminated against by the U.S. Government.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: gottaknow
a reply to: Destinyone

No, I get it. I'm pro-abortion though. And I believe it shouldn't be the company's beliefs that reign over their employee's choices.

Just post this page if you're weary: www.hobbylobbycase.com...





Employees have not lost any choices.

In fact they can easily qualify for subsidies for the "un-covered" abortion items from other sources.

Easy as pie in the sky.





posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman

Ummmm yes. You truly think that business should be forced to provide what ever the hell you want???

Man, and you thought I am the problem.

Here is your issue. You, the entitlement based person that you are, believe that it is fair and just to force whomever to accept what you want.

Yes, the company does and should get to control what is offered in a compensation package to a person for voluntarily working at a business.



Perhaps if you didn't come off as someone who is tighter than a ducks arse you'd drop this silly "entitlement" word your throwing about carelessly.

You keep defending this whole thing by referring to the religious rights of the company owner yet you have yet to accept that hobby lobby is not a person and therefore has no religious rights to be protected. The company owner's religious feelings are being protected here and as far as im aware, this isnt David Green vs The World.

Why am i angry about this decision even though im (thankfully) not american?
Because christian's are selfish.
The fallacy of their logic is simply this:
"If a member of my staff require's the abortive pill and my company, that is not a person, allows them access to that, i have directly offended my god"

- So now your directly taking the blame for other people's choices? If that is the case then whats the difference if they access the abortive pill over the counter? You've provided her with the wages to do so. If she get's an abortion, you've provided her the wages to do so. I guess you should now legally only women who are married and pay her wages into her husbands bank account because that's the only way you're not going to piss off the man in the clouds.

It wouldn't be so bad if they didnt pick and choose which parts of the bible they wanted to follow. But the anger come's in now opening a whole new door when it comes to companies controlling the personal decisions/lives of their staff. And wait, before you get on your high horse about america being the land of opportunity where there are a bundle of job's and thousands of way's to make millions by working hard - Your middle class is crashing. Your poor are starving and your rich dont.give.a.#.

Christianity is a plague upon the earth. There's a backlash against it because people are tired of your whiny #. You cant just have your faith and get on with it - You've got to try and make everyone bend to your naive mindset and accept your theory's of "Creation" by a MAN in the clouds.

As ive said before, this court case is a great win for christian's, but dont be surprised when companies start to feel entitled to control what their employee's have access to, if they have access at all.
edit on 1-7-2014 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2014 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Sweet . . . I love this decision.

As an atheist business owner, I will no longer be paying "holiday pay", closing up, or honoring "requested days off" for "Christmas".

Mandates be damned!!

Whoo-hoo!!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: MsSmith

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: thesaneone
I think it's solid to remind ourselves about freedom, and that we provide to women in the US - who yet again are being dictated to by insecure men.


I love this argument, the "if you aren't a woman you should have no say" argument. I guess doctors who haven't had AIDS or Cancer shouldn't have a say in their patients treatment. The argument smacks of stupidity. And again, women haven't been told anything by the US. In the US they can still purchase any contraceptives they want. In the US they can still get an abortion. But the fact that an employer can say "I'm not paying for that, it violates my beliefs" is somehow a negative reflection on the US? But it would be a positive reflection of the US if the government said "you have to do what we say, regardless of your beliefs"? You have some weird world views.


You really don't see the difference between a man telling a woman what she can and can't do with her own body and an educated doctor treating a patient for cancer? Seriously??? LMAO!

To start, cancer and AIDS are both diseases. Despite what you may believe, being a woman is not. There's always a possibility anyone could develop a disease, but there's no possibility that a man will ever develop a uterus. Second, while a doctor can suggest treatments, he can't force you to undergo or not undergo any treatment you choose. You have the final say, not your doctor, which is true of almost anything else when it comes to a man's body. You can decide not to undergo chemo and use holistic medicine instead. Right now as we speak, women in this country can't undergo a procedure to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because some man somewhere decided those women don'r have the right to make decisions about their own body.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot become a biological woman if you are born a man. So nothing a woman can or can't do to her body could EVER affect a man, including men who undergo gender reassignment, SO NO, MEN DO NOT GET A SAY IN ANY WOMEN ONLY ISSUES. Please tell how how taking birth control or getting an abortion has any affect on any man anywhere. You could argue that it has an effect on the potential fetus, but since you aren't that fetus and that fetus's existence has no effect on you (outstde of paying child support if you happen to be the father), you still have no right to tell any woman what she can and cannot do to her own body on her own time. Ever.


I don't see a difference between an educated man telling you what to do for cancer and an educated man telling you what to do for pregnancy. No, I don't see that difference. You want to pretend that being a woman is some unknowable phenomenon to anyone but a woman, when really it's not anymore unknowable than a doctor who has never had a disease. No womanhood is not a disease, I never implied that, if you thought I was then you misunderstood the point.

No man can force a woman to do or not do anything, to suggest otherwise is to be ignorant to the mindset of women. Unless you do what that guy in ohio did to those women he had locked in his basement. Then again, he was charged with five counts of murder for the unborn babies... oh wait... they're not people... so how does that work? Anyway, what the men and women in congress do (which are voted in by women, as well as men) is represent the interests of their constituents. NEWS FLASH: Most women oppose abortion (according to gallup) so by lumping all women into this group that is monolithic and supports abortion, again, shows your ignorance. Also, you must have missed the memo, you aren't allowed to have women's only issues, just like we aren't allowed to have men's only issues, clubs, etc.

And it's not an argument that it affects the unborn baby, it's a fact. It's the whole reason for the procedure. It's not even a procedure, it's murder. If your child (born) dies in their sleep, it's not murder but a tragedy, but if you go in with a saw and hack them all to pieces, it sure is murder. The same goes for your unborn children. Just because you deem them lower than human, doesn't make it so. Just like it didn't make slaves lower than human when people believed they were, and could kill them. Just like it didn't make mormon's lower than human when people believed they were, and could kill them.

There is no argument that because the mother is sustaining them while she's pregnant ... because that would make post-birth abortion OK (babies rely on their mothers sustenance, long after birth). There is no argument that the mother can't afford them, there's adoption. There's no argument that because they are "not viable"... because eventually they'll be able to grow them in a test tube, which will make your view now look as barbaric as the culling of children in Sparta.

If you don't want to get pregnant, there are numerous ways to prevent it, from drugs and devices, to surgeries and abstinence. There is no excuse for murder.
edit on 1-7-2014 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path
Sweet . . . I love this decision.

As an atheist business owner, I will no longer be paying "holiday pay", closing up, or honoring "requested days off" for "Christmas".

Mandates be damned!!

Whoo-hoo!!


Many businesses are open on christmas, it's not mandated you close. Holiday pay is not mandated either (at least federally). Nor do you have to honor requests for any day off, just be prepared to lose employees by the drove.
edit on 1-7-2014 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

no, but you'll WISH you were dead...heyooooooo



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: amazing

and why would people want to pay extra for something they don't need, so that someone else can have it?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: gottaknow

lol...did you just read the headline, and not bother reading anything else?

perhaps you should do that, and then you will realize how stupid what you just said is...

they're not denying ALL birth control, just 4 products...



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: gottaknow
a reply to: Destinyone

No, I get it. I'm pro-abortion though. And I believe it shouldn't be the company's beliefs that reign over their employee's choices.

Just post this page if you're weary: www.hobbylobbycase.com...





ok, here's the thing though...they can still get an abortion...it's just not gonna be "free"....seriously, you wanna do something like that, pay for it...

jesus, what the hell is wrong with people?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
am i the only one who's noticed that if the ACA had never passed, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now?

we should get rid of the ACA..



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: amazing

and why would people want to pay extra for something they don't need, so that someone else can have it?


To help others since we're all in this together. Ya know the same reason you pay in to other programs which you never use. Or give to charity or donate to some cause even though you don't benefit directly from it.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus

ok, here's the thing though...they can still get an abortion...it's just not gonna be "free"....seriously, you wanna do something like that, pay for it...

jesus, what the hell is wrong with people?


But they are paying for it, the same as everyone else is, by working at their job, thereby paying into the system along with everyone else collectively. That could be the whole reason they got the job in the first place was for the benefits. Now however they still work the same job and still pay in to the system collective, but get less benefits than they would normally and have to pay extra to get what they should already be getting.

That's how it works. Those same Hobby Lobby employees are also paying for all kinds of extra stuff they also won't ever use either for other people, but you didn't see them complaining about paying for some old guys Boner Pills or some other persons Anti Depressant Meds.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

i don't voluntarily pay into those programs..the government TAKES the money...there's a difference....

and i never donate to charities, because i never have enough to be able to simply toss money at something, and hope it helps someone else...a lot of charities are scams anyway.....

if i wanna help someone, and i can afford to do it, i help them directly.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
But they are paying for it, the same as everyone else is, by working at their job, thereby paying into the system along with everyone else collectively. That could be the whole reason they got the job in the first place was for the benefits. Now however they still work the same job and still pay in to the system collective, but get less benefits than they would normally and have to pay extra to get what they should already be getting.


terminating a pregnancy is an elective thing..like plastic surgery...

sure, there are situations where it NEEDS to happen, like if the pregnancy is a threat to the life of the mother, or something like that...but if you're just doing it because you don't feel like having a kid...well, that's too bad. either don't have the sex next time, pay for the procedure yourself, or...here's an original one..accept the consequences of your actions, and live with it...you can always put the kid up for adoption if you REALLY don't wanna be a mom THAT bad...

i'm all about choice...up to a point.

you can make whatever choice you want, just don't ask me to pay for it.



That's how it works. Those same Hobby Lobby employees are also paying for all kinds of extra stuff they also won't ever use either for other people, but you didn't see them complaining about paying for some old guys Boner Pills or some other persons Anti Depressant Meds.


maybe they should be....

everyone should be complaining....the ACA is a huge scam.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: mOjOm

i don't voluntarily pay into those programs..the government TAKES the money...there's a difference....


Ok, I understand your point there. Then best case would be the removal of all TAX completely in your opinion right??? Then with that extra money each individual would pay for only the things they wanted to right???

Do you think that would actually work???

Out of all the TAX collected and all the massive and unwanted things they get spent on, was this really that high on the list while ignoring all the rest???

Why isn't there an outcry for all those Tax dollars going to Wage War on innocent children the world over??? Where is all the Religious People complaining about funding the drone strikes killing innocent families ever day in the middle east??? Aren't those children as important as the unborn ones here???



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
Ok, I understand your point there. Then best case would be the removal of all TAX completely in your opinion right??? Then with that extra money each individual would pay for only the things they wanted to right???


lol, nice logic leap there...did i even imply that's what i think?



Do you think that would actually work???


no, it wouldn't....



Out of all the TAX collected and all the massive and unwanted things they get spent on, was this really that high on the list while ignoring all the rest???


what did ignore?



Why isn't there an outcry for all those Tax dollars going to Wage War on innocent children the world over???

what children are we waging war on?



Where is all the Religious People complaining about funding the drone strikes killing innocent families ever day in the middle east??? Aren't those children as important as the unborn ones here???


nope, because they're brown.

i don't think that way, but a lot of people do....it's brown people in a brown country, that speak a brown language....out of sight, out of mind..




top topics



 
49
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join