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: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
the supremes then proceeded to side with other businesses that are more opposed to birth control than hobby lobby! and they were exempt from all of them!!
It's people that have beliefs not companies! People you, me, business owners and women! And under the constitution we should all be created equal!! Our rights should be protected equally! And it doesn't require one to be a member of any set religion to have moral beliefs. I think you will find that most americans have them weather the are "religious" or not! And in the real world it's kind of like voting for our president. There is no obvious right or wrong but rather it's a choice between two evils! That is life!!
So the business hobby lobby has been exempt from the mandate along with a few more...Hurray!!!
But how many times has the words "planned parenthood" come up on this thread???
Planned Parenthood receives funds from the federal gov't aka the taxpayers!!
The owners of Hobby Lobby along with every other believer in the country are still doing what they believe is wrong!!
All they have managed to do is take something that was part of their responsibility -including birth control in their healthcare and shifted that responsibility onto the taxpayers. They probably didn't save any money doing this. I bet that their costs remain the same! But I bet it will cost the taxpayers a significant amount more as the gov't tries to work around the "religious beliefs"!
They just passed the sin around to more people and increased the price tag for the sin! And they haven't gained a thing in the process!!




posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
the supremes then proceeded to side with other businesses that are more opposed to birth control than hobby lobby! and they were exempt from all of them!!
It's people that have beliefs not companies! People you, me, business owners and women! And under the constitution we should all be created equal!! Our rights should be protected equally! And it doesn't require one to be a member of any set religion to have moral beliefs. I think you will find that most americans have them weather the are "religious" or not! And in the real world it's kind of like voting for our president. There is no obvious right or wrong but rather it's a choice between two evils! That is life!!
So the business hobby lobby has been exempt from the mandate along with a few more...Hurray!!!
But how many times has the words "planned parenthood" come up on this thread???
Planned Parenthood receives funds from the federal gov't aka the taxpayers!!
The owners of Hobby Lobby along with every other believer in the country are still doing what they believe is wrong!!
All they have managed to do is take something that was part of their responsibility -including birth control in their healthcare and shifted that responsibility onto the taxpayers. They probably didn't save any money doing this. I bet that their costs remain the same! But I bet it will cost the taxpayers a significant amount more as the gov't tries to work around the "religious beliefs"!
They just passed the sin around to more people and increased the price tag for the sin! And they haven't gained a thing in the process!!






And that's a valid point. Not only does planned parenthood take taxpayer money, they take a large part of that taxpayer money and use it to lobby the government for even more taxpayer money.

This and the HL decision are both examples why the government needs to get out of the business of mandating and subsidizing everything under the sun and everybody's favorite causes.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

I'm against a lot of governmental mandates. Of course, DNA paternity testing is something that is done quite often, especially if there is some conflict and fathers should be held fiscally responsible for their offspring, so I don't see the point you want to make other than some sort of victim card.



Of course you don't see the point.

No surprise there.

And, of course, once again -- the woman is just playing the victim card

edit on 16-7-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

I'm against a lot of governmental mandates. Of course, DNA paternity testing is something that is done quite often, especially if there is some conflict and fathers should be held fiscally responsible for their offspring, so I don't see the point you want to make other than some sort of victim card.



Of course you don't see the point.

No surprise there.

And, of course, once again -- the woman is just playing the victim card


I didn't see the point because there wasn't one. We already have DNA paternity testing for any issue where paternity is in doubt or contested. What would government mandated paternity testing of every birth solve and how would be against it be against women--heck, considering that statistically man men happily raise children that they do not know are their own but they don't know that mandatory testing of paternity for all births could cause a lot more trouble for women--but let's not let that get in the way of victimhood status.

No, "the woman" is not playing the victim card, YOU are playing the victim card. There are many fine women who do not wrap themselves in the mantle of the perpetual victim.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

but then we might have to pay an extra 50 cents for that big mac so the employees making it can earn a living wage!!
can't have that now can we??
It's much better to have half the population dependent on the gov't for their needs! Makes them more submissive!!

Our land is only the "Land of the Free" as long as the people are for the most part self sufficient!
This is the result of us allowing that self sufficiency to escape from too many hands.

It was really quite easy for Al-Qaeda to gain a strong foothold into Afghanistan. The country was poorer than poor! And they had plenty of money to throw around and buy their acceptance. And starving people will accept alot for a slice of bread! I kind of think that history teaches us that lesson. Improvished people are easy pickings for the religious. Just open up the charity for them and they will accept whatever you tell them for some food!

The people who are complaining about this decision aren't the people dependent on the gov't for their daily bread. They are those who are doing their best to be responsible. They are looking at what has been for decades the primary source to meet their healthcare needs- Employer subsidized insurance!

And this is what I have observed from the religous right:
They seem to be against abortion- regardless of the risk to the mother.
They are continually speaking out against the safety net, planned parenthood, birth control in general, the minimum wage, unions, working mothers, divorce, ect.
Well I am sorry but if that birth control pill is what is keeping the women working and keeping the family above the proverty line why in the world would one want to make it more difficult for her to get it?
You want to know what I think??
They don't want her working!
They don't want the gov't helping that family out either!
They want her dependent on the husband! And if he can't provide enough for the family they want to be there to save the day!!
for the same reason Al-Qaeda set up shop in the poorest hellhole in the world!!
Dependency=Servitude!





edit on 16-7-2014 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

The people who are complaining about this decision are the people dependent on the gov't for their daily bread. They are those who are doing their best to be responsible. They are looking at what has been for decades the primary source to meet their healthcare needs- Employer subsidized insurance!



No, subsidized insurance is a separate issue.

The complaint is religious belief dictating specifics to women employees choice of health care.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan




The four abortificants were what the ruling was for.


You are wrong. Please educate yourself.


The morning after .. the week after ... the IUD ... these are known abortificants.
They cause the death of conceived children. Abortificants.


According to the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists they are not.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee
thanks for pointing out my error.. the point I was making was that the people complaining about the supreme's decision aren't those who are dependent on the gov't. They are hard working employed people who are depending on employer provided insurance policies to help them gain access to the healthcare they need!



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
You are wrong. Please educate yourself.

We've had this discussion before.

I said ... you can claim that it's not an abortificant because the child isn't clinging to the uterus wall all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that those abortificants cause a conceived child to die. That death of the conceived child is abortion as far as Christians, Jews and Muslims are concerned. Without the use of those abortificants, the child would most likely continue to grow and be born.

Abortificant. You guys on the left keep turning your head and looking away ... hiding behind semantics ... but a conceived child dies .... there it is. Look at it.

Side note - I respect you as a poster Windword. Please refrain from the 'educate yourself' rhetoric.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan
the whole argument is irrelevant because some religions believe that all birth control is wrong! And the court has already decided that some companies that believe this way should also be exempted.....from all birth control!



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan



FACT: SCOTUS ruling had nothing to with any particular form or methods of birth control.
FACT: SCOTUS did NOT rule that 4 kinds of contraception are abortificants.
FACT: SCOTUS did not rule on abortion, in this recent decision, at all.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee
thanks for pointing out my error.. the point I was making was that the people complaining about the supreme's decision aren't those who are dependent on the gov't. They are hard working employed people who are depending on employer provided insurance policies to help them gain access to the healthcare they need!



Yes. And company provided insurance is not just a "gimme".

Corporations use incentive packets to attract employees. Often an employee will choose one job over another simply because of the incentive packet, which usually includes company subsidized insurance, along with other incentives such as 401Ks, etc.

I'm not sure what the government mandate is on corporations providing insurance. I know Microsoft got in trouble by trying to use temp and part time employees.

But, even so, allowing a corporation to dictate by their religious belief what women can and can not use is just wrong.

This USSC decision is an insult. Not only to women, but to this country itself.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
SCOTUS ruling had nothing to with any particular form or methods of birth control ... did NOT rule that 4 kinds of contraception are abortificants .... did not rule on abortion, in this recent decision, at all.

No kidding. I never said they did. Your post makes no sense.

Those abortificants cause a conceived child to die. That death of the conceived child is abortion as far as Christians, Jews and Muslims are concerned. Therefore, it's against their religion to provide them to people and under the law, they can run their family owned business according to their religious beliefs. Period. It was the correct ruling.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
This USSC decision is an insult. Not only to women, but to this country itself.

It would have been an insult if they had found it any other way ... an insult to people of faith telling them they can't own a business and run it according to their faith values ... an insult to those who support freedom of religion. If a woman wants a free abortificant, she can get it elsewhere. If they are really insulted, they can work elsewhere.

The ruling was correct.
Obviously we are going to disagree on this.
It happens.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan




I never said they did.


Yes you did. Here's what you posted:



They object to abortion and that's what the Hobby Lobby ruling was ... it was against four abortificants.




Those abortificants cause a conceived child to die.


That is an opinion e.g. personal "belief", not a fact.


That death of the conceived child is abortion as far as Christians, Jews and Muslims are concerned.


That is a sweeping generalization that you're making in order to try to make your opinion seem more valid.

Not ALL Christians agree with you. There are many Christians who are of the "First Breath" school of thought, or somewhere in between. As well there are Muslims and Jews who also believe the same. I know of no Muslim or Jewish edict that forbids the use of IUD's or hormonal birth control. If you do, please post that info.




edit on 16-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

It would have been an insult if they had found it any other way ... an insult to people of faith telling them they can't own a business and run it according to their faith values


No one is stopping people from their belief.

But, when their chosen belief infringes on me --- that is overstepping and taking away my personal rights.

Damn straight this decision is an insult to individuals rights.


edit on 16-7-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: FlyersFan



FACT: SCOTUS ruling had nothing to with any particular form or methods of birth control.
FACT: SCOTUS did NOT rule that 4 kinds of contraception are abortificants.
FACT: SCOTUS did not rule on abortion, in this recent decision, at all.



All correct. SCOTUS ruled that a business could not be forced by government to violate their stated religious principles. What this particular case was about is not the issue. They ruled in keeping with the Constitution and the First Amendment, not because they were evil white males (someone should let Biden Know that Thomas is black). This is also a fact.

However, Flyersfan didn't say anything at all like that, so your response is a bit odd. What she was pointing out was that the HL had what a viewed as a valid point. They believed that certain types of birth control were abortificants and was against their religion and this was the crux of their appeal to SCOTUS. That is also a fact.

That many people complain about this decision because they want birth control coverage to be mandated is also a fact.

None of the above things that you posted contradicts those two salient points in this discussion in any way.
edit on 16-7-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: FlyersFan

It would have been an insult if they had found it any other way ... an insult to people of faith telling them they can't own a business and run it according to their faith values


No one is stopping people from their belief.

But, when their chosen belief infringes on me --- that is overstepping and taking away my personal rights.

Damn straight this decision is an insult to individuals rights.



And how is someone not being forced to pay for something you want (or even need) an infringement on your rights? How were your rights stomped on or removed or insulted in any way?
edit on 16-7-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
and just how is this ruling preventing the owners of hobby lobby from helping these employees from getting birth control?? it exempted a business! not the people! it took the burden off the shoulders of a corporation and placed it smack onto the taxpayers---the people!!!



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
and just how is this ruling preventing the owners of hobby lobby from helping these employees from getting birth control?? it exempted a business! not the people! it took the burden off the shoulders of a corporation and placed it smack onto the taxpayers---the people!!!


No it didn't. It put responsibility of getting 4 out of 20 types of birth control (remember, the other sixteen were kept in the plan) on the individuals who wanted them. Nobody went without birth control based on this decision.



new topics




 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join