It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 50
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:06 AM

originally posted by: mOjOm
Hobby Lobby also invests in some of the Companies that actually make those very same drugs they don't want to pay for too. But that seems to be lost in the shuffle too.

do you happen to have any proof to back that claim?

Also, I never said they were keeping them away from all choices. I know exactly which four they are talking about.

no, but you're acting like they are...all this talk of making choices for people..they're doing nothing of the sort. they're simply asserting their right to not hafta pay for something they find morally objectionable...

i personally think religion is a silly, ignorant, waste of time, based on fairy tales, and bronze-age mysticism.....but if some people NEED that, in order to feel complete, or to teach them the morals their parents should have taught them as kids, who am i to complain? just don't ask me to participate in your fantasy...

that said, they have certain beliefs, and those beliefs lead them to have a moral objection to paying for certain they're fighting the government's authority to force them to do something they consider immoral...they're sticking to their principles, and i think that's a hell of a rare thing, in this day and age where most everyone has a price...

Once the money is paid to the Insurance companies or whoever it's paid to, it's no longer their money also so there isn't a difference there either. It's not like they give the money directly to the Dr. or the pharmacy, so I don't see the point.

it's a line item, with a measurable figure attached to yes, there is a difference.

Again, it's just trying to wiggle around and make excuses to make it seem like it's something that it's not.

how so?

Again, nobody is requiring anything. They pay into a system that has many options. Nobody must choose one option over another or even choose one at all. They are just there if someone wants to choose them. Hobby Lobby shouldn't have the right to dictate what those choices are because it's not their business. It's the business of the Person making the choice, period.

nobody is requiring anything?

the federal government is requiring people to buy expensive policies they can't afford, and can't use, loaded with charges for s**t they'll NEVER need....the federal government is requiring that employers provide expensive plans, loaded up with s**t that their employees will most likely NEVER need, and in this case, things things that the employer finds morally objectionable...if there was an option for a plan that didn't cover those things, that would be another story altogether, and we wouldn't be having this fine conversation, because there would be no issue...but the federal government is REQUIRING that all plans cover this stuff...

i think you need to take a step back, and re-evaluate things before you make anymore false statements.

If they want to dictate the choices of what birth control is available to people, then they should be health providers instead of Art suppliers.

they're not dictating anything...they're saying they shouldn't hafta pay for something they find morally objectionable...i'm failing to understand why you're having such a hard time grasping's really not that complicated...
edit on 7-2-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:09 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

what are you even talking about?

nothing you said has ANYTHING to do with anything i said...

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:12 AM
a reply to: MsSmith

so then you hate men...ok, awesome.

additionally, nobody is trying to dictate what anyone does with their bodies......where in the hell do you guys GET this stuff?

nobody's trying to change the law to deny anyone any options...this one company is simply saying they're not gonna foot the bill for abortion drugs...seriously....what the hell...

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:15 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

and what's wrong with that ruling?

if the government can't force a business to buy me tobacco, crack, or booze, then they can't force a company to provide pills, creams, foams, condoms, IUDs, diaphragms, or abortion drugs...if you want those things, buy them's called personal responsibility.

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:16 AM
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

what the?

how is this a loophole that magically allows employers to COMPLETELY get out of offering employees health coverage?

this isn't that loophole....that loophole is dropping everyone to part time, because then you don't hafta offer part time employees coverage...

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:18 AM
a reply to: drivers1492

i'll ask you the same thing i asked the other one...

do you have any proof to back the claim?

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:26 AM

originally posted by: gottaknow
a reply to: Daedalus

What the hell IS wrong with people? You're right about that.

As an employee, I have to do whatever the hell they want me to with no hesitation or dissidence. I get to observe the gigantic profits the corporations make while they make all the rules we must follow or suffer the consequences. I get to watch them promote their children while ignoring a job well done. I get to watch the management grow richer as they sit and expect the workers to do more.
I'm expected to not smoke at my job. (Some don't want you to smoke at all)
They decide the ridiculously short breaks, the tiny wages, the puny benefits. They decide that you must follow all of their inane s.o.p.s, and if for any reason they decide, they can kick you out immediately on a whim with no recourse.

welcome to the big kid's pool...enjoy your stay...

So no, maybe they shouldn't get to decide to not have to pay for an abortion pill that their employee chooses to use. Maybe, they can eat their religious garbage themselves if they want to, but not force it upon others because THEY decide it's unethical(what a freakin' joke!)

i personally don't believe an employer should be required to pay for ANY birth control methods...and that's not coming from any kind of silly religious precepts, or notions of biblical ethical and moral's derived from pure logic, and common sense....

we have a reproductive system, so that we can...hold on for a shocker...reproduce...

it's what it's for, it's what it does....if you want to circumvent that natural biological function, YOU can pay for the means to achieve that goal...too many people think that other people should pay for things they want, so they don't have to...people need to pull their heads out of their asses, and embrace personal responsibility...we'd be a lot better off as a nation if they did...
edit on 7-2-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:29 AM

originally posted by: windword
The thing is, the Morning After Pill uses the same exact drug/hormones and works the same way as "The Pill", and there are many fundie groups out there that want to outlaw The Pill, for the same reason, they believe The Pill can cause an abortion, which is medically impossible!

i suppose the thinking by the religious folks, is that by the morning after, there's a pretty good chance a sperm had drilled into an egg, and, by their definition, that's a pregnancy...

i mean, the timing fits, it really depends on how your define pregnancy.....

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:32 AM

originally posted by: mOjOm
How arrogantly dismissive of you.

it's an american's the same as the gun debate...why do we give a toss about input from non-americans, on an american issue?

it'd be like tossing in my two cents about a canadian issue..they don't give a crap what a non-canadian thinks...

calm down...

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:08 AM
a reply to: olaru12 then they're not directly investing in companies that make the things they have a problem with....they contribute to a 401(k), managed by a company, that has investments in companies that make the things HL has a problem there are degrees of separation...

glad to see once again that mother jones skews the facts to fit their agenda...

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:10 AM
a reply to: jimmyx

what's wrong with viagra?

i don't think they should be paying for it, but what's wrong with boner drugs?

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:25 AM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What is this Republican OBSESSION with repeating over and over "pay for it themselves'???

hey professor gryph...long time, no argue, lol

how've you been?

you already know i'm not a republican, or a democrat, or a know i'm not a member of ANY of the clubs(i think that's why you friended me. because i'm above all that partisan crap)...i'm saying "pay for it yourself"

i honestly would love to know at what point americans collectively un-learned the concept or personal responsibility, and paying for things themselves...

They WERE paying for "it" for themselves, via their insurance benefit.

if they bought that plan themselves, and it was an option on that plan, then yes...they were...with an employer-offered package, you get what they offer..

NOW, thanks to this unprecedented aping of a real court ruling, the Public Health systems will be forced to pay for these items.

how so? is there something stopping people from whipping out their wallet and exchanging money for goods?

It is, in fact, Hobby Lobby's action that moves the purchase from a person's own resources to the public dole.

so U.S. money says "Legal tender for all debts public and private"...does that no longer apply to contraceptives? if you go to the pharmacy, and try to buy contraceptives, they're not gonna take your money, because money doesn't work for that purchase?

last i checked, someone's money is part of their own resources...please, explain this to me..

So, I hope all that are continuously whining and harping on "entitlement" get that through your heads.

we won't, because it's an absurd assertion.
edit on 7-2-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:28 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

no, but we're equally responsible for it..

jesus, you talk about pregnancy like it's a medical condition, almost like it's an STD....i'm sure that's not how you meant to come across, but still...damn.

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:32 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

but they're not..

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:43 AM

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: butcherguy

I suspected that the ACA was written with failure in mind.... just to get to a single payer system.

I think it was written to make us kill each other.

i think it was written to make people's hair stand up..

oh s**t, it worked....

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:44 AM
a reply to: Daedalus

It's been listed and you are correct it is an indirect investment. There probably isn't a way in today's society to create the business in today's market without your finances going towards things that go against the values of the christian faith. Some businesses do use investment companies that screen for things like porn, abortion, and a variety of things to help keep the investments more in line with their faith. The support I've seen for hobby lobby in particular bothers me though. If this couple's conviction is as strong as it appears one would think managing investments would have been something they would have considered at some point in the last 40 years of operation. The massive amount of goods from china is concerning since the entire world is aware of various policies and actions in that country. Why would you want your money pumped into there if your concerned about these things? I do not believe that faith trumps cash with this company. Outside of this on a whole it seems to be a decent company to work for. I just feel this is more for the show than it is for the faith from what I see.

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:49 AM

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: mOjOm
Hobby Lobby also invests in some of the Companies that actually make those very same drugs they don't want to pay for too. But that seems to be lost in the shuffle too.

do you happen to have any proof to back that claim?

for some reason cant get this link to work iming-religious-objection/

there you go
edit on 2-7-2014 by KnowledgeSeeker81 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2014 by KnowledgeSeeker81 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:49 AM
trying it again...

I've spent considerably about of time last night and some today reading and seeking!
My first conclusion is polisi was oh so wrong about the obamacare bill. not only do we have to pass it to understand what's in it we have jump in head first and dive deep!!

This is the question I am asking.
but first let me clear one thing up.
Federal Court Granted Catholic Network Relief From Birth Control Mandate
This was all birth control not just a small portion of them

RFRA was one of the main points in this decision and weather or not Hobby Lobby would fall under it.

The purpose of the act was to protect religious individuals and organizations against government interference with the practice of their faith.
So one question was weather Hobby Lobby could be considered a "person".

So in effect they decided that no person should have to buy coverage that includes birth control if it interfers with the practice of their belief!!

I am a person also am I not??
And so are you are you not??
And if it interfers with a religious practice to buy birth control for you employees just how does it not interfer with those same practices to be force to by that coverage for yourself, for your spouse or for your children??

IF hobby lobby being defined as a person is protected then should every other person be protected in like manner??

So we have this person here. He employer has not problem providing insurance with the birth control included in the coverage but she has that same moral convictions as hobby and well doesn't want it!!
Should the employer be required to cater to her desires??
Okay she has the money to go ahead and buy it herself.
All new policies have to be approved by the gov't as having the Minimum Essential Coverage and she needs to prove that she has an approved plan to avoid the tax penalty! (Hobby Lobby has been exempted from that penalty haven't they)
Now if hobby lobby was her employer she could join their plan and be okay!
But she isn't..
As far as I see she might be able to get an exemption if she is a member of a sect that teaches birth control is wrong but I am not sure about that since what I read was that the sect had to teach that having insurance itself is wrong so that's up for debate. And well I highly question weather one has to be a member of any certain group to have religious beliefs and highly suspect that many here taking up Hobby Lobby's cause haven't been in a church in awhile!! If you wish I will go into detail as to why I say that!

All new and renewed policies unless they are grandfathered in require birth control coverage to be acceptable!

So ya!! Hobby Lobby (being defined as a person) has had the integrity of their beliefs protected!!
So please tell me... just where is the protection for any women out there like I described above??
Or to put it even closer to the Hobby Lobby's case where is the traditional husband's protection? Doesn't he also have to buy coverage for his stay at home wife that will include the coverage???

I don't believe it is there!
Can someone show me otherwise???

Otherwise Hobby Lobby isn't being given the same protections as a person they are being given much more!
And just how do you think this will be solved?
Should employers be required to remove birth control coverage from their plans to cater to them??
Or should those employees who find it offensive be directed to the healthcare exchange and be offered their own "religion friendly" plan???

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:52 AM
a reply to: drivers1492

and maybe it is...but still, it could be a bit of both.

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:53 AM
a reply to: KnowledgeSeeker81

welcome to like 10 pages ago....saw it, read it, read the mother jones article they referenced, determined it was another case of mother jones spinning reality to fit their agenda, and hell, i even posted about it, lol

you really should keep up...

new topics

top topics

<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in