Hobby Lobby Files Suit over HHS Mandate, Could Face $1.3 Million in Fines

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I was going to edit my above post I just made but I am on the gf's cell phone and it is quite a hassle.

O just went back and reread the article. It seems to me that you did not even read the article because H.L. explains it reasons within the first couple of paragraphs.

Here is a partial of a direct quote,

" demanding that the government respect the business's desire to operate in accordance with Christian principles."

There is another nice quote from the company below that statement.

Please read it seems that you are interjecting your own beliefs with the beliefs of H.L.




posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Simple solution: Shut down the business and sue the US government for loss of profits for the entire time that the business is closed. Hobby Lobby probably has what...something around $8-10 million in sales per day nationwide? Compound that with other businesses in the same boat such as Catholic parochial schools and that could be a very large bill by the time it gets through the courts. But hey, you had to pass it to see what's in it, right Nancy?



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawkmoon1972
 

Your job is to ensure that I have a safe environment in which to do my job and to pay me for it. In our society part of that payment is in healthcare.
Really ???
which jobs in this society provide payment in healthcare ??
i believe you are confused.

when you discover the difference between healthcare and health INSURANCE, please address the real issue here ... health insurance.

IF you can name any company that pays in "healthcare", please share ... i and others would be interested.

in the meantime, if i (as an employer) am paying for your health insurance, i should get to choose which coverage i'm willing to provide (including abortifacients).
what you choose to do with that coverage is your decision.

point is, if i don't provide it, you nor the government have any right to demand i do.
(regardless of the obvious religious conflict)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

Unless you can provide an alternative reasoning condoms fit that description.
you are really reaching with condoms or any over-the-counter contraceptive that can be provided sans a dr.

the only dr necessitated male contraceptives available are of a surgical nature, so there is no comparison regardless how much you wish there was.

unless, you'd be suggesting that all future vasectomies be solely charged to the patient and not covered on any insurance policy ??



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
i have a question. under HHS are ALL ELECTIVE medical treatments covered?

if not than why are things like abortion covered in the first place? if any medical procedure is elective than abortion is. after all it's not like in most cases abortion is needed to save a life. as such abortion, day after pills etc SHOULD NEVER have been INCLUDED in the first place. after all it is said it is a CHOICE to have an abortion. just as having a nose job is also a CHOICE and thus it is ELECTIVE, in most cases.
so why the inequity in this health plan?



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by generik
 


No. It doesn't even cover needed things like dental, optical or psychological needs for personal well being. Odd that it would cover abortions and not glasses, fillings for cavities or gender reassignment surgery for those so inclined.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Hobby Lobby is a Corporation, not a Church.

Sorry, but they have to follow the law.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
Hobby Lobby is a Corporation, not a Church.

Sorry, but they have to follow the law.
the target is religious practices (which are universal and protected), not corporations or any specific church.

so, according to you, religiously affiliated corporations (both for and non-profit) shouldn't be exempt either, right ??
they are corporations too ya know.

fyi, if one gets an exemption, all should.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I still fail to understand why this is such a big issue. birth control options are usually free or very low cost at Planned Parenthood and low income clinics. Every low cost clinic I have been to had baskets of free condoms. Also, from what I have read, the morning after pill is approximately $45.00 and available without prescription at most large pharmacies.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Taiyed
Hobby Lobby is a Corporation, not a Church.

Sorry, but they have to follow the law.
the target is religious practices (which are universal and protected), not corporations or any specific church.

so, according to you, religiously affiliated corporations (both for and non-profit) shouldn't be exempt either, right ??
they are corporations too ya know.

fyi, if one gets an exemption, all should.


The law doesn't force any individual to partake in any practices.

Seperation of Church and State goes both ways, meaning that the Church shouldn't be trying to influence US law just as much as the US government shouldn't be influencing official Church doctrine.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Taiyed
 


The law doesn't force any individual to partake in any practices.

Seperation of Church and State goes both ways, meaning that the Church shouldn't be trying to influence US law just as much as the US government shouldn't be influencing official Church doctrine.
separation of church and state is a figment of your imagination, nothing more.

Congress has indeed passed law regulating the religious practices of its citizenry ... it's called PPACA.

practicing ... or forcibly paying for procedures that are religiously abhorrent is exactly being forced to partake in a specific practice. (which is against most religions btw)

actually, it is the government forcing the church (members) to partake ... not the other way around.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by generik
 


No. It doesn't even cover needed things like dental, optical or psychological needs for personal well being. Odd that it would cover abortions and not glasses, fillings for cavities or gender reassignment surgery for those so inclined.


so it IS a rather biased inclusion in the health plan then. nice to know that sexism is still alive and well within the government.
especially when it is ONLY going to benefit a few people of even that sex. perhaps that is how it should be fought, as gender/ideology discrimination. now if it INCLUDED things like gender change surgery, something for men, as well as something for ladies who don't selfishly want an abortion then that would be fair. what ever happened to EQUALITY? well i guess SOME are more equal than others as things like this point out. :shk:

you know it would benefit far more people to drop paying for abortions in favor of something like DENTAL. since bad teeth CAN lead to MAJOR health problems, that will cost the plan more in the long run. optical coverage would also benefit far more people. as well as psychological help, which today is becoming more needed by more people. are physiotherapy and chiropractic services covered? as they again would help far more people. much better to have some or all of this covered BEFORE covering ELECTIVE procedures that DO NOT AFFECT someones HEALTH and will only benefit SOME people.

as it has always been pointed out by the pro-abortion side. "it is a person's choice", as a choice and NOT a necessity then why should it be covered, and paid for by the general public? AND YES the general public WILL PAY for it through increased costs in goods and services, to cover the plan.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by generik
 

because the "pill" is not solely a pregnancy prevention tool.

abortion is entirely a different topic and from what i've read, the exchanges are permitting one policy per exchange to refuse coverage for them ... however, BCPs are frequently used as medically necessary treatment for a variety of other medical issues and should be covered as medically necessary.

however, therein lies the conflict.

personally, regardless of the religious argument, i am more dismayed that PARENTS aren't in a complete tizzy over their minors receiving said procedures without parental consent ... and, employers are paying for it !!!



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
so which "Biblical mandates and guidelines" are they picking and choosing in their operating model?

Do they require their employees to pay 10% for working there?

Do they kick female employees out of the store when they're menstrating?


These retards need to take the Jesus out of JesusJustBuyMyStuffSoICanMakeMoney businesses.


Someone explain please exactly what running a business(Greed) has to do with Religion (greed) anyway?
edit on 26-10-2012 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 





personally, regardless of the religious argument, i am more dismayed that PARENTS aren't in a complete tizzy over their minors receiving said procedures without parental consent ... and, employers are paying for it !!!


How? How are employers paying for a minor to receive procedures without parental consent? As far as I know minors aren't eligible to receive health insurance benefits from an employer and should still be on their parents health coverage.

Most companies don't offer health insurance coverage until the employee reaches the age of 19 and are full time employees.

But someone can prove me wrong.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


now where did i say pregnancy preventers should not be covered?
i certainly don't recall saying that especially since i DO believe in contraceptive use for those who want to play around but not get pregnant. at least they are being partially responsible.
i am also aware that many use the "pill" for use other than contraceptives.

you have brought to mind yet another inequity of this healthcare plan that i hadn't even thought of.
why should yet again a small PORTION of society have THEIR MEDICATIONS paid for while the rest have to pay for their own medications? or did i somehow miss the part that said ALL MEDICATION is covered EQUALLY for EVERYONE, that ALL MEDICATION will now be FREE? :shk: i mean seriously the "pill" is rather cheap especially when compared to LIFE SAVING drugs, like diabetic medication and supplies, hormones, steroids and other meds that are NEEDED TO MAINTAIN LIFE, that also cost a small fortune. as far as i have heard taking the "pill" is not a LIFE SAVING DRUG. so thanks again for pointing out another bad bias in the plan, that should not be tolerated regardless of where you stand on the ideological points of abortion or contraceptive use. after all fair is fair, this is a PUBLIC health care plan and as such should treat ALL PEOPLE the same. why should only a small segment of society get treated better than the rest?



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by olliemc84
 


How are employers paying for a minor to receive procedures without parental consent? As far as I know minors aren't eligible to receive health insurance benefits from an employer and should still be on their parents health coverage.

Most companies don't offer health insurance coverage until the employee reaches the age of 19 and are full time employees.

But someone can prove me wrong.
??? let me get this straight before i answer, ok ?
parent obtains health insurance via employer = employer pays majority expense.
minor child receives care (abortion for example) without parental consent (with assistance of school nurse - see PPACA for details)
bill for care is submitted for payment by employer provided insurance company.

if we're good so far, then ... the employer is paying for both the insurance and the care (treatment) and the eventual increases along the way ... all without parental/employee consent.
{when such care/treatment causes an increase in premiums, yes, the employer pays again)

as for employer offerings, i was offered coverage at age 17 with a one year waiting period. (effective at 18+)

yes, that was a long time ago, but, if minors are to be covered by parental insurance until age 26, no offerings should be made to any minor or adult prior to age 25.
however, that's another topic for another thread


ETA --> just in case someone wants to start the thread, i am curious ... how are the parents to be treated with relation to providing insurance for adult children ??
can they be fined, forced, jailed or denied their own coverages ???
i don't recall reading anything about such in the Act itself.
*** perhaps it is one of those "yet to be determined" decisions made by the IPAB ?
edit on 26-10-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by generik
 

you didn't use the pill in your attack on abortions, however, they are not separable.
both present a religious conflict.

if one is permitted and covered, so should the other be.

abortifacients come in a wide variety of products, you cannot pick and choose the healthcare choices of others, that's the whole point.

at least we agree the pill has other medical uses.
however, if i'm not using it, i'm not paying for someone else to use it either.
and, as it would be a religous conflict for some, why should they or i be forced to do so ?

this is not an argument about abortion but you chose to direct it that way.
i chose to redirect you to the topic at hand.

which is the one question most seem to be avoiding ...
is the potential fine of 1.3 million PER DAY religious persecution or not ??

who said anything about meds being free ?? i didn't.
besides, all the meds you mentioned (except BCPs) are already covered by most insurances.
i don't follow your point here.


the only free meds i know of usually come from a drs office.
occasionally from the manufacturers themselves and once in a while from a non-profit sponsorship. why would you presume any meds would be free ??
just because they are covered doesn't make them free.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by olliemc84
 


How are employers paying for a minor to receive procedures without parental consent? As far as I know minors aren't eligible to receive health insurance benefits from an employer and should still be on their parents health coverage.

Most companies don't offer health insurance coverage until the employee reaches the age of 19 and are full time employees.

But someone can prove me wrong.
??? let me get this straight before i answer, ok ?
parent obtains health insurance via employer = employer pays majority expense.
minor child receives care (abortion for example) without parental consent (with assistance of school nurse - see PPACA for details)
bill for care is submitted for payment by employer provided insurance company.

if we're good so far, then ... the employer is paying for both the insurance and the care (treatment) and the eventual increases along the way ... all without parental/employee consent.
{when such care/treatment causes an increase in premiums, yes, the employer pays again)

as for employer offerings, i was offered coverage at age 17 with a one year waiting period. (effective at 18+)

yes, that was a long time ago, but, if minors are to be covered by parental insurance until age 26, no offerings should be made to any minor or adult prior to age 25.
however, that's another topic for another thread


ETA --> just in case someone wants to start the thread, i am curious ... how are the parents to be treated with relation to providing insurance for adult children ??
can they be fined, forced, jailed or denied their own coverages ???
i don't recall reading anything about such in the Act itself.
*** perhaps it is one of those "yet to be determined" decisions made by the IPAB ?
edit on 26-10-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA


There are only 6 states in the country that allow minors to get abortions without parental consent. So why even bring the argument up?

If Hobby Lobby doesn't like it they don't have to open stores in those states.

Funny, since there is a store right down the street from my house. In a state which allows minors to get abortions without parental consent.

But regardless, your argument is off topic.

Should the Hobby Lobby receive fines? Yes. They aren't a church, so for them to use the religion angle is a joke.




Romans 13:7
Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.




1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.


They don't seem to worry about coveting money, do they?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Here is some updated information.



The Obama administration filed legal papers today in an attempt to stop the lawsuit the Christian craft store Hobby Lobby brought against the HHS mandate, which violates the consciences of Christian companies.

The Justice Department asked a federal judge to deny Hobby Lobby’s request to block the pro-abortion HHS mandate, which requires companies to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs.

The Obama administration claims Hobby Lobby is wrongly using religious to get around a federal law and U.S District Judge Joe Heaton will hold a hearing on the lawsuit and [color=gold]request for injunction on November 1.

lifenews.com (random blog)



And then just yesterday,




An Oklahoma-based evangelical Christian-led business will present arguments in federal court regarding a preliminary injunction against the HHS Mandate [color=gold] next Thursday.

christianpost.com


So the Hobby Lobby injunction is going to hearing before the Administration's injunction against their injunction.
The recursive nature of ethics in this country is truly bizzare,
perhaps the department of redundancy department
can look into it further.


Mike Grouchy





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join