Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
They are challenging the law because of religious beliefs.
= They feel that the law should not pertain to them.
I am not in any way for the government making anything mandetory such as insurance.
I am stating that they are trying to fight the( law unjust or not) because they feel that they should not have to follow it on religious beliefs.
They only feel it is unjust because of their "moral ethics". How can you sit there and say it any other way?
It is about religion versus the law. Otherwise they would just state that the law is unjust. Not because it goes against their Christian beliefs.
I see that you are taking a hardline position on this( it is very obvious). That is fine, I feel that it is interfering with your logical ability to se what it really is. Therefore this will be my last post on the subject.
Have a wonderful day fellow ATS member.
My reply was that in my opinion, IF that was the reason (which it is not), then it is gender discrimination to only allow women options to reduce pregnancies, especially when condoms are less intrusive and have fewer side effects to accomplish the same goal
actually, the USSC determined the entire "mandate" unConstitutional and the whole package ONLY acceptable as a tax.
Originally posted by Taiyed
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by Taiyed
Hobby Lobby is a Corporation, not a Church.
Sorry, but they have to follow the law.
The law is unconstitutional. Sorry, the government has to follow the Constitution.
The SCOTUS reviewed the entire law, they never determined this portion of it unconstitutional.
So sorry, Corporations, including Hobby Lobby, need to follow the law.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
yes, i was following along, just in a different time zone i think.
i didn't mean to infer that you did think that way, was just trying to emphasize the point you were making, because the conversation is truly ridiculous as there is no "real-life" comparison between any of them ... condoms, pills, procedures.
ummmm, then you don't want me to be honest on that point
trust me, they will and they do ... by the fistfulls
yes, they buy them too, just don't think for one minute they'll pass up freebies, i've never seen it happen yet.
here's a question going back to the original comment about the potential fine.
what if ... HL converted their business model to a Christian based co-op ??
do you think that would stop these silly court cases in their tracks ??
and why is it that only a company, ie, church, hospital, school, non-profit, can claim exemption via conscientious reasons ??
how did the individual get locked out of such an option ??
why is it that "our" morals (those not religiously affiliated), couldn't possibly be infringed by this ridiculous mandate ?
this opinion is far too extreme as medical services are denied regularly. (as in daily)
Well for most people there is a co-op that can allow them to opt out. I can see the argument for needing something, since medical access can not be denied. I think perhaps an emergency care payment to gain access to emergency rooms would be fine. I also personally think someone should be able to opt out and have to wear a special bracelet or some such notifying people they do not qualify for emergency care, and at that point they are left to live or die.
The issue becomes what do you do when service can not be denied, and will not be paid for by the recipient, they then becomes a burden on society and we pay their bill.
actually, we are paying indigent care because we agreed to long ago and long before insurance dug its claws into our society as deeply as it has.
we are paying for indigent emergency room care because they do not have insurance.
in this, i also disagree because the whole concept of insurance is to diversify risk which means no one in the risk pool is "paying their own way".
More insured = more people paying their own way
only in a pipedream.
= we should pay less for others
No, the "burden" exists because no one can be denied service.
The indigent burden exists in part because they have no insurance, do not pay, and make use of services
they should never be denied emergency care, that's the whole point.
If someone refused insurance on religious beliefs they should be denied emergency care, as they are willfully opting out
couldn't agree more.
the government shouldn't be holding our hands, at some point we have to make decisions about our lives
The appellate court agreed to an en banc hearing and agreed to place Hobby Lobby’s appeal before the entire court rather than the usual three-judge panel.
Hobby Lobby Granted Full Appeals Court Hearing on Mandate Challenge
plenty have already received 'waivers'
If you allow one religious employer to opt out
it has to apply across the board for every religion/covered procedure. Slippery slope.
how in the world did you come to that conclusion ?
Hobby lobby is trying to present themselves as the epitome of morality in all things business and I simply don't agree
our own government sells to China
RXs for women and men have NEVER been universally offered or covered, why should they be now?
What I find a bit puzzling is they somehow manage to set aside their strong religious convictions in favor of profit yet promote themselves as being more about religion when taking a moral stand via health care coverage for women.
apparently, HL would appreciate equal treatment.
We don't turn it on/off when it conveniently serves our bottom line.
that, it is.
It's damn hard sticking to your convictions.
I'd have to disagree. We provided non-emergency medical transport for medicaid clients. We transported patients from our local mental health office to larger facilities up north. The client initially requires emergency transport to the local facility for emergency treatment. Some can be suicidal/experiencing psychotic episodes, LE would often assist.
RXs aren't 'emergent care' anyway.
Beside the obvious answer that it makes them violate their religious beliefs, I wonder how we came to the point where we say the Feds can order an employer to put anything in their health plans?
I really don't see how providing health care hinders an employer's freedom of religion.