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.

 

Christianity & Hobby Lobby

page: 20
17
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

And all that tells me is that 4 Supreme Court Justices are more than willing to "Legislate" by ignoring an existing law.

Extremely dangerous.

All Ginsburg did was make a few statements without actually legally justifying the "dissent".

Typical ultra-Left Wing reactionary response.




edit on Jul-25-2014 by xuenchen because:





posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




All Ginsburg did was make a few statements without actually legally justifying the "dissent".


I disagree. She points out the inequity of allowing some "sincerely held beliefs" exemptions while deeming others ineligible. I'm pretty sure that's unconstitutional.




"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."


One might say, "If you don't like birth control, don't take birth control." Why doesn't that apply to Hobby Lobby? This SCOTUS ruling was based on the particular belief that corporations with "sincerely held beliefs" have the right control what health care choices should be available as their right to protect them by limiting their employees' opportunities to sin.


The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable.


How far can this evangelical attitude be allowed to go, if left unchecked? What if a company decides that they want to load their employees pay onto an EBT type card that won't allow the purchase of "taboo" items like cigarettes, liquor, porn, etc.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."


edit on 25-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

hobby lobby could have avoided having to provide the contraceptions without running to the supreme court whining also!!
I mean we have how many thousands of working age "children" crossing the border??
And how many are out of work in this country??

And just what kind of profits do hobby lobby make?
would that fine for not doing the bidding of the gov't really cause more harm to the owners than a person having to quit their job because the employer has become"religious" and started to use their constitutionally given rights to make life miserable for the employees?? and by the way the point I've been trying to make which every one seems to breeze by is that the citizens of t his country seem to not be able to avoid having to provide birth control coverage eto family members if they don't feel it's right.. They don't seem to have this protection! but of course some big businesses seem to!
that is what is wrong!!



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


hobby lobby could have avoided having to provide the contraceptions without running to the supreme court whining also!!


For accuracy, I think the Justice Dept was the one who brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Hobby Lobby got a lower court to agree with their issue.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: NavyDoc

hobby lobby could have avoided having to provide the contraceptions without running to the supreme court whining also!!
I mean we have how many thousands of working age "children" crossing the border??
And how many are out of work in this country??

And just what kind of profits do hobby lobby make?
would that fine for not doing the bidding of the gov't really cause more harm to the owners than a person having to quit their job because the employer has become"religious" and started to use their constitutionally given rights to make life miserable for the employees?? and by the way the point I've been trying to make which every one seems to breeze by is that the citizens of t his country seem to not be able to avoid having to provide birth control coverage eto family members if they don't feel it's right.. They don't seem to have this protection! but of course some big businesses seem to!
that is what is wrong!!





Hobbl Lobby provided fourteen out of eighteen contraceptives.
if an employee chooses to not use any of the fourteen provided then they can pay for their own can go to a clinic and get them or find another job.

However the pay at hobby lobby is around $12-15 dollars an hour.

you hysterically exaggerate every situation you talk about.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: spirited75
I'm just trying to treat hobby lobby equally as a "citizen"..

I believe that the only option a "citizen" has other than providing a dependent insurance coverage that includes birth control is to pay the penalty for not doing so.

and it would probably be less painful that it would be if some of these employers decided that their religious beliefs justified removing the women from their workforce! which is the belief of some doctrines.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar




I believe that the only option a "citizen" has other than providing a dependent insurance coverage that includes birth control is to pay the penalty for not doing so.



The way I see it, an ordinary citizen has the right to NOT use contraception, thereby saving some $. However, If I ran an insurance company, and one of my big clients told me they were no longer going to provide 10,000 plus women, of childbearing age, contraception, I would raise their rates, as the risk of pregnancy just went up. Prenatal care, OB/GYN, hospital expenses, not to mention neo-natal and post natal care is WAY more expensive than contraception.

It's like seat belt laws. If you're not wearing your seat belt and you're in an accident, the insurance company's payout is going to reflect your breaking of the law. I would also want to be compensated for having to alert each and every doctor as to what contraceptives are covered and what aren't for each particular employer.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc


IMHO, SCOTUS decision was in keeping with the Constitution and the principle of limited government. The government should not be in the business of mandating healthcare or employee compensation.


Simple? Yes. Let's be clear.

5 male Catholic conservative judges made this decision.

The rest of the judges were in opposition. Some very vocal in their opposition.

The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg's Dissent on the Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision

www.motherjones.com...
so, you are saying men are evil and biased against all women and it is proven in that there are 5 males on scotus whom are biased and evil against women?

or are you saying that the 4 dissenting opinions are so biased and sexist that they will always support a pro-liberal opnion on any matter?



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Equal protection under the law...then what about the almost thousand companies and unions that are exempted from the ACA?

Cross reference those exempted from the ACA and the DNC donor list and you get your answer.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

HL only employs 18,000 people and I doubt that 10,000 are women of childbearing age.

hysterical exaggeration is a horrible method to use when arguing about your point.

lets just suppose that half are women and half are childbearing age.

that is 4000, not 10,000.

are those 4000 women capable of preventing conception with one or
more of the fourteen contraceptives that HL makes available?

my bet is that they can prevent conception pretty well.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: spirited75

Why do you think this ruling only applies to Hobby Lobby and their employees? Why do you think this ruling only applies to a few kinds of contraception?



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

it applies to the four specific contraceptives that abort a fertilized egg.
it does not apply to the contraceptives that prevent a sperm from fertilizing an egg.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: spirited75

If that's what you think, then I can understand why you think I, and others, are overreacting.


Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Docket No. 13-354
Term 10th Cir. Mar 25, 2014
Tr. Jun 30, 2014 5-4

Alito OT 2013
Holding: As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
www.scotusblog.com...


That's the whole contraception mandate, not just 4 methods. That applies to 90% of US corporations.


Roughly 90% of all companies in the U.S. are closely held, according to a 2000 study by the Copenhagen Business School.
online.wsj.com...



Hobby Lobby and co-plaintiff Mennonite Conestoga Wood Specialties object to covering certain contraception, as the Affordable Care Act requires, because they believe them to cause abortions — a belief at odds with how the medical community says they work. (The morning-after pill works by delaying ovulation, just like regular birth control, though explaining these scientific distinctions in the face of religious beliefs now feels like wasted breath.


nymag.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
less than fifty percent of companies are closely held.

you respond to reality with hysterical
exaggeration and then say i am
overreacting.

cute.

Copenhagen school did a study in 2000 about US companies.

that is about 12,000 miles from here and about a decade and a half old.

can people from Copenhagen even speak or read english?

the instant a sperm unites with an egg it immediately produces a
new human with half the genes of mom (egg) and half the genes from dad (sperm)
and that is the problem.

We know that life begins at conception and the science you quote says it begins at implantation.

your higher power is science, and my higher power is God who also created science.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: spirited75


The IRS defines a closely held corporation as one that, in general, has "more than 50 percent of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year" and "is not a personal service corporation." These corporations are thought to make up around 90 percent of companies in the U.S. Many are small businesses, but large operations such as Koch Industries can also be closely held
www.slate.com...



According to the IRS, more than 90% of all businesses in the U.S. fit the definition of "closely held,"

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...




your higher power is science, and my higher power is God who also created science.


If your God is the God of the Bible, then your God is NOT a pro-life; "life begins at conception", kind of guy.

"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
(NIV, Genesis 2:7)


Numbers 5:
19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”



You know, you're welcome to believe how you want, but don't tell me that you're right and I'm wrong because of "God".




edit on 27-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Personally at this point I would (outside of scrapping the whole law and starting over which would be my first choice)
I would allow the individuals to decide weather or not they want birth control in their coverage along with any individuals. and well the gov't can provide a way so that the people can obtain coverage in case they are employees of businesses who chose not to have it included in their plans that desire it.
And have the policies coded so that the irs can identify those on that program along with the insurance company that has their policy.

This gov't program that wiil augment the business' insurance to include the birth control will cost money and that money should not be passed down to the taxpayer. Instead I would send a bill to the insurance companies..

I am like you I think that including the coverage probably saves the insurance companies money. I imagine that they have a way to estimate if this it true and the amount of the savings or loss....along with the bill that they get from the gov't. They could then gain this money back in a few ways.
they could contact the people who's businesses decided not to cover and offer them a free augmentation themselves and bypass the the gov't program and it's cost.
and they adjust the insurance premiums according to just which type they find to be more costly.
and they can provide a rebate along with the augmentation to compensate those who chosen to be covered but businesses refused that coverage and the insurance company decided that the insurance should be higher because of it.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: spirited75


The IRS defines a closely held corporation as one that, in general, has "more than 50 percent of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year" and "is not a personal service corporation." These corporations are thought to make up around 90 percent of companies in the U.S. Many are small businesses, but large operations such as Koch Industries can also be closely held
www.slate.com...



According to the IRS, more than 90% of all businesses in the U.S. fit the definition of "closely held,"

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...




your higher power is science, and my higher power is God who also created science.


If your God is the God of the Bible, then your God is NOT a pro-life; "life begins at conception", kind of guy.

"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
(NIV, Genesis 2:7)


Numbers 5:
19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”



You know, you're welcome to believe how you want, but don't tell me that you're right and I'm wrong because of "God".





You know you are free to believe, and that freedom comes from God, otherwise you and me are just highly advanced pond scum and this conversation is nothing but predetermined chemical reactions in our bodies, and because you think science trumps God do not tell me what to know or believe.

you are cherry picking the verses you want from the bible that you think supports pro abortion. Operative word here THINK.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: spirited75

Perhaps I need to qualify the scripture that I quoted from the Bible......


Numbers 5
11 And the Lord said to Moses,

12 Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her......
22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries....


You really can't get much clearer than that. That's abortion, ordered by the biblical God.

Of course, the ACA never included abortion in its contraception mandate.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

that miscarriage has something to do with
adultery of a married woman.

there are plenty of scripture verses that speak of being formed in the womb
and of God knowing you as you were being formed in the womb.

the verse you just quotes speaks of a married woman having adulterous relations and becoming pregnant.


and that does not surprise me that there would be that level of prohibition for the sin of adultery.
edit on 28/7/2014 by spirited75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Its quite silly really. A company trying to force beliefs on to other people is something it can not do. They give them a pay check so those people can do whatever they want anyway with their money so they are enabling them to begin with. Only way a company can have beleifs is if it discriminations against anyone outside their religion and does not hire anyone outside the religion which would be illegal. So why not allow for them to do what they will anyway and just cover things for them despite beliefs to avoid the hassle for them?




top topics



 
17
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join