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.

 

Hobby Lobby May Close All 500+ Stores in 41 States

page: 26
48
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I have to ask are you misusing "cites" for sites or citations? It's rather annoying either way.


I didn't cherry-pick anything; I gave clear, precise, well-documented references. I have never claimed that health insurance was for "general care" and you know it, or you would quoted me. (***) I read the citations and quoted from them. You tried to twist things out-of-context and were surprised, I guess, that I didn't say "oh, okay" because I'm sure, for a lot of posters, your awkward argumentative style is just too frustrating to deal with.


*** Are you talking about this:

Gryphon66
Health care plans generally include(d) regular doctor's office visits, pharmaceuticals and hospitalization.
in which I was specifically disputing your comment about "catastrophic" care insurance? Very well, make what hay you can with that. The context is obvious.

Is it arrogance to stand up to people who stubbornly persist in irrational postings? Who twist every possible phrasing into something that fits their own agenda? Is it arrogance to stand up for facts in the face of dishonesty? Well, then, I'm arrogant.

Your the one who says you're dropping the matter ... only to try to get in what you think of as your last witty pot-shots. Not only is that intellectually dishonest, friend, that style of discussion is sophomoric, puerile and snide.

Prove that I'm ignorant of the Constitution. Prove that I'm ignorant of healthcare. Quote me and cite (that's a verb) your references. Demonstrate it; don't just state it.

All you've proven is that you're willing to go the distance in your chicanery, well guess what, I'm willing to go the distance to oppose it.

Why don't you try to tie your position back to the real question in the discussion? Expand on how a corporation should be able to avoid the laws of the land because of a religious interpretation. Or, delineate FROM THE TEXT OF THE ACA something that proves your contention about subsidies. Or, keep up the inept personal attacks on my posting style; I care not.
edit on 15Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:22:07 -060014p032014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I have to ask are you misusing "cites" for sites or citations? It's rather annoying either way.


I didn't cherry-pick anything; I gave clear, precise, well-documented references. I have never claimed that health insurance was for "general care" and you know it, or you would quoted me. I read the citations and quoted from them. You tried to twist things out-of-context and were surprised, I guess, that I didn't say "oh, okay" because I'm sure, for a lot of posters, your awkward argumentative style is just too frustrating to deal with.

Is it arrogance to stand up to people who stubbornly persist in irrational postings? Who twist every possible phrasing into something that fits their own agenda? Is it arrogance to stand up for facts in the face of dishonesty? Well, then, I'm arrogant.

Your the one who says you're dropping the matter ... only to try to get in what you think of as your last witty pot-shots. Not only is that intellectually dishonest, friend, that style of discussion is sophomoric, puerile and snide.

Prove that I'm ignorant of the Constitution. Prove that I'm ignorant of healthcare. Quote me and cite (that's a verb) your references. Demonstrate it; don't just state it.

All you've proven is that you're willing to go the distance in your chicanery, well guess what, I'm willing to go the distance to oppose it.

Why don't you try to tie your position back to the real question in the discussion? Expand on how a corporation should be able to avoid the laws of the land because of a religious interpretation. Or, delineate FROM THE TEXT OF THE ACA something that proves your contention about subsidies. Or, keep up the inept personal attacks on my posting style; I care not.


Expand on how the government must dictate the every workings of a corporation. You haven't even addressed the fundamental and underlying problem in that the federal government really has no right nor responsibility to get involved with what sort of insurance coverage Hobby Lobby does or does not buy. Your ignorance of the Constitution and the intent of the founders was shown by your earlier ignorant posts when you, feebly attempting to school another poster, demonstrated an ignorance of both the commerce clause and the 14th amendment. This was followed up with an ill informed, ignorant stance on healthcare and it was amusing to use your own citations (cite is internet slang and in common usage) to contradict for preformed conclusions.

For the dense in the room: when your taxes are used to fund something or subsidize something, you are subsidizing something. When you are forced to go into a risk pool you do not need because otherwise there would not be enough funds to cover the others in the pool, you are subsidizing things. Obviously logical and critical thinking are foreign to you.

Oh, and I only mentioned leaving this train of discussion because YOU said so first and claimed "thread drift." Were you drunk or do you simply not remember what you post?


I find it amusing that you tear down others in arrogance and then get offended when your foibles are pointed out to you.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I'd be glad to be schooled in critical thinking, but I don't think it'll be by someone with your obvious level of ... ability.

I haven't made an argument about "the government must dictate the every workings of a corporation" so why would I expand on it. That's your ludicrous assertion. Say more about it if you will.

Government does have a need to be involved in the insurance issue, it's called the law of the land as specifically represented in this case by the ACA. Do you really think that your own beliefs dictate reality to the rest of the world? You don't think ACA should be in place, and so it isn't? Granted, ACA is a horrific law, but it is the law. That's on the verge of "psychotic" reasoning you're doing there friend; I really hope you're not suffering from deeper problems than is evidenced by the style of your postings.

Am I really ignorant? Since you're almost sputtering in redundancy here: "Your ignorance of the Constitution and the intent of the founders was shown by your earlier ignorant posts when you, feebly attempting to school another poster, demonstrated an ignorance of both the commerce clause and the 14th amendment."

The Commerce Clause says exactly what I said it does as does the Fourteenth. My comments on healthcare stand for themselves.

You're really caught up in your own fantasy of how good a debater you are, aren't you? Sadly, your posts demonstrate otherwise. For example, I challenge you to find one location on the internet that uses "cite" as a noun instead a verb. Find one. Just one.

EDIT: Here, I found ONE reference for you. (Cite as noun) They are as desirous of covering their mistakes as you appear to be, LOL. But there you go. I sit corrected on this issue. There was ONE reference.

I'm very careful to attack the message and not the messenger. I'm sorry you don't like someone standing up to your posted silliness, but you won't find a single case where I have called a poster a name or talked about a posters ignorance or 'density' ... can we find that in yours? LOL.

The answers are obvious. If you're doing anything other than grandstanding, take it up with me in U2U. We're wasting screen with this garbage.

I beg pardon from the other readers of the thread. I'm quitting this particular field.

edit on 15Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:41:15 -060014p032014266 by Gryphon66 because: Added some ['s

edit on 15Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:57:47 -060014p032014266 by Gryphon66 because: Ate some crow.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I'd be glad to be schooled in critical thinking, but I don't think it'll be by someone with your obvious level of ... ability.

I haven't made an argument about "the government must dictate the every workings of a corporation" so why would I expand on it. That's your ludicrous assertion. Say more about it if you will.

Government does have a need to be involved in the insurance issue, it's called the law of the land as specifically represented in this case by the ACA. Do you really think that your own beliefs dictate reality to the rest of the world? You don't think ACA should be in place, and so it isn't? Granted, ACA is a horrific law, but it is the law. That's on the verge of "psychotic" reasoning you're doing there friend; I really hope you're not suffering from deeper problems than is evidenced by the style of your postings.

Am I really ignorant? Since you're almost sputtering in redundancy here: "Your ignorance of the Constitution and the intent of the founders was shown by your earlier ignorant posts when you, feebly attempting to school another poster, demonstrated an ignorance of both the commerce clause and the 14th amendment."

The Commerce Clause says exactly what I said it does as does the Fourteenth. My comments on healthcare stand for themselves.

You're really caught up in your own fantasy of how good a debater you are, aren't you? Sadly, your posts demonstrate otherwise. For example, I challenge you to find one location on the internet that uses "cite" as a noun instead a verb. Find one. Just one.

I'm very careful to attack the message and not the messenger. I'm sorry you don't like someone standing up to your posted silliness, but you won't find a single case where I have called a poster a name or talked about a posters ignorance or 'density' ... can we find that in yours? LOL.

The answers are obvious. If you're doing anything other than grandstanding, take it up with me in U2U. We're wasting screen with this garbage.

I beg pardon from the other readers of the thread. I'm quitting this particular field.

edit on 15Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:41:15 -060014p032014266 by Gryphon66 because: Added some ['s


The issue is, neither document said what you assert they say. I even posted the relevant text. That is the problem with Constitutional revisionists--they try to shoehorn their agendas into a document that does not support them and rely on the fact that most Americans are ignorant of their own founding and governing documents, as you clearly demonstrate, to get away with it.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Now, on to something topical:

Here's the thing about corporations having "religious beliefs" and being able to thereby ignore the law that some of you may not have considered.

Let's say that a corporation is owned by Muslims. Are all you ladies that work there going to be okay with wearing a burka on a day-to-day basis?

Or, let's say that a corporation is owned by practitioners of Santeria ... everyone okay with the sacrifice of a live chicken to honors the spirits at lunchtime, everyday? We'll be sprinkling the fresh blood over your work areas to bless them and help productivity. Mana, man.

Or, let's say that a Hindu sect of Aghori take over your company ... I'm assuming you'd be okay with them drinking out of human skulls and munching on corpse-parts, right? Can't forbid them their religious beliefs, now can we?

Some folks seem to think that "religious beliefs" always equate to "my own brand of Christianity" ... but it doesn't. Fair and equal before the law, right? Careful what you ask for.

Religion has no place in the work place. Period.

AMENDING my last there because I'm sure it's about to be gleefully nitpicked:

Religion has no place in the average work place, religious organizations excepted. Period.
edit on 16Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:22:54 -060014p042014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:45:53 -060014p042014266 by Gryphon66 because: LOL



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by bbracken677
 


You and "the wife" are paying for a plan. The plan includes certain coverages. While consumers have often had to add coverages for certain medical issue and/or diseases that the blood-sucking leeches, I mean, insurance companies excluded, there has never been to my knowledge a "choose 20 items of coverage" insurance plan. It covers what it covers.

A plan may cover heart treatment, but you die of cancer. It may cover hospitalization, but a piano drops on you.

With all respect, this line of reasoning is "straining at a gnat" ...

As to our other contention, allow me to say that personally, I despise the idea that the legal fiction of a corporation could or would have the natural rights arising from Personhood and protected in the Bill of Rights.

I find it abhorrent. We very nearly had an element in the Bill of Rights restricting Monopoly, and I believe that the spirit of that would cut the modern "corporation" to ribbons.

Jefferson lost though, and that was not included. And my opinions are my own.

The facts, however, remain.


You just do not stop, do you?

My previous coverage had NO coverage for pre-natal care etc because I chose a plan without it. I made no remark about choosing from a list of coverages what I wanted. I had a CHOICE of plans....the only choice I have now is pretty much regarding deductible and how much I want to pay for coverage. If you do not see this, and continue to argue stupidly as you have, I cannot help it. The fact is, you do NOT have the choices you had previously and you WILL pay for coverages you do not need nor would have chosen otherwise (unless you are an idiot and let the salesman choose your coverage for you).

As you so eloquently put it: The Facts Remain. Choice has been reduced to: I do not have the right to maintain my previous coverage, I do NOT have the right to maintain my previous doctor. I wonder how many more lies are hanging around out there that have not been discovered.

Oh...and if you claim I do have the right to maintain my old coverage because Obama delayed by a rear or whatever that particular change, please explain that to my insurance carrier. They dropped my insurance before TPTB changed their minds and will not offer it any longer. I can only choose from the un-Affordable Care Act approved plans. IE: I can choose my deductible and level of coverage...whooo



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by bbracken677
 


My argument comes directly from the documents of the Supreme Court decisions.

Your evidence includes the inimitable jurisprudence of Slate Magazine, et. al.

I have made no claims about my legal qualifications; you're merely attacking a strawman.

The decision says what it says. I have posted that evidence.

Ask yourself this question: if the matter of whether "Corporations are People" had previously been settled, why is SCOTUS hearing the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga cases AT ALL? If your assertion were correct (and it's not) they would have merely cited the previous decisions.

They didn't; your position is incorrect.
edit on 18Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:05:58 -060014p062014266 by Gryphon66 because: Slate not Salon ... approximately the same difference.


Apparently reading comprehension suffers immensely. I stated that the implications of the decision resulted in this case being brought up before the Supremes for a decision. I also stated, since you apparently cannot understand my point, that there is no guarantee what the decision would be. Please read and understand wtf I wrote before as I am not going over it again.

Your argument of "here is the case" is facile on many levels. Virtually ANY interpretation of the ramifications of that decision by ANYONE with any knowledge and/or experience regarding that decision are virtually unanimous in what the potential implications are. Just do the freaking research. Again, I am not repeating myself...we can just wait and see what the decision will be. I have made my point, you made yours...sort of.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   

grey580
And this sets a precedent. Christians can say no to contraceptives. Now can Jews refuse to employ people because they aren't circumcised?


In a right to work state, yes they can. Just as employers can refuse to hire a smoker.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Gryphon66
Now, on to something topical:

Here's the thing about corporations having "religious beliefs" and being able to thereby ignore the law that some of you may not have considered.

Let's say that a corporation is owned by Muslims. Are all you ladies that work there going to be okay with wearing a burka on a day-to-day basis?

Or, let's say that a corporation is owned by practitioners of Santeria ... everyone okay with the sacrifice of a live chicken to honors the spirits at lunchtime, everyday? We'll be sprinkling the fresh blood over your work areas to bless them and help productivity. Mana, man.

Or, let's say that a Hindu sect of Aghori take over your company ... I'm assuming you'd be okay with them drinking out of human skulls and munching on corpse-parts, right? Can't forbid them their religious beliefs, now can we?

Some folks seem to think that "religious beliefs" always equate to "my own brand of Christianity" ... but it doesn't. Fair and equal before the law, right? Careful what you ask for.

Religion has no place in the work place. Period.

AMENDING my last there because I'm sure it's about to be gleefully nitpicked:

Religion has no place in the average work place, religious organizations excepted. Period.
edit on 16Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:22:54 -060014p042014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:45:53 -060014p042014266 by Gryphon66 because: LOL


I agree with this whole heartedly.

I also believe it is wrong for it to be mandated that employers MUST provide any form of insurance to their employees. If the government wants people to have healthcare, then they should figure out how to take that burden on themselves, not shuck it off to commerce. And then write in a billion loopholes that put us back in a bad situation (although I may be just predicting here a little bit).

Like i said above....we provide insurance as a strategic decision, as well as a way to display our values as a company. Being told that we were doing it wrong...that just pisses you off. All of a sudden our display of values becomes "not good enough". It was good enough for our CEO to have the exact same insurance as the front line folks.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   


Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.


I think they might be a bit out of touch with reality. There are many Christians, that still call themselves Christians, that make up their OWN MINDS as to how they will handle contraception. Call them smart Christians, whatever.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Yep...consider all the exemptions (corporate and union) to the law that have been approved. Consider that Congress is exempt. Here I thought there was a law in place that clearly stated that any law that Senators and Representatives applied to themselves as well. Seems that either Congress or the Administration are in violation of the law.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

charlyv



Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.


I think they might be a bit out of touch with reality. There are many Christians, that still call themselves Christians, that make up their OWN MINDS as to how they will handle contraception. Call them smart Christians, whatever.


Choice is a great thing....as long as you have choice. When you do not have the ability to choose the specter of tyranny looms largely.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Gryphon66
Now, on to something topical:

Here's the thing about corporations having "religious beliefs" and being able to thereby ignore the law that some of you may not have considered.

Let's say that a corporation is owned by Muslims. Are all you ladies that work there going to be okay with wearing a burka on a day-to-day basis?

Or, let's say that a corporation is owned by practitioners of Santeria ... everyone okay with the sacrifice of a live chicken to honors the spirits at lunchtime, everyday? We'll be sprinkling the fresh blood over your work areas to bless them and help productivity. Mana, man.

Or, let's say that a Hindu sect of Aghori take over your company ... I'm assuming you'd be okay with them drinking out of human skulls and munching on corpse-parts, right? Can't forbid them their religious beliefs, now can we?

Some folks seem to think that "religious beliefs" always equate to "my own brand of Christianity" ... but it doesn't. Fair and equal before the law, right? Careful what you ask for.

Religion has no place in the work place. Period.

AMENDING my last there because I'm sure it's about to be gleefully nitpicked:

Religion has no place in the average work place, religious organizations excepted. Period.
edit on 16Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:22:54 -060014p042014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:45:53 -060014p042014266 by Gryphon66 because: LOL


The basic problem with the above arguments is simply this: Hobby Lobby is not forcing their employees to do anything, nor are they limiting their personal choices (You do not have to wear a Cross, you do not have to participate in Christian ceremonies or rites, nothing like that such as you propose in the above "examples".) On the contrary, they are attempting to exercise choice on their own behalf...your argument is that people should not be forced to indulge in religious ceremonies, rites, etc. Their argument is that they should not be forced to participate in an activity that is counter to their religious beliefs.

If you want to make a sane point then argue why they want to exercise their religious freedom here at home and yet purchase from "infidels". Of course....do they really have much of a choice?



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Kali74


this proves to me that the moral question is just a hoax with this guy...he's a fake Christian poser....he after the profits, and profits alone....and him having to pay out more money in health care, cuts into his personal designated religion...the collection of his own fortune....you're worth 5 billion, buddy....you're just an old white thug, trying to make more money from a different set of whores.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

bbracken677

Gryphon66
Now, on to something topical:

Here's the thing about corporations having "religious beliefs" and being able to thereby ignore the law that some of you may not have considered.

Let's say that a corporation is owned by Muslims. Are all you ladies that work there going to be okay with wearing a burka on a day-to-day basis?

Or, let's say that a corporation is owned by practitioners of Santeria ... everyone okay with the sacrifice of a live chicken to honors the spirits at lunchtime, everyday? We'll be sprinkling the fresh blood over your work areas to bless them and help productivity. Mana, man.

Or, let's say that a Hindu sect of Aghori take over your company ... I'm assuming you'd be okay with them drinking out of human skulls and munching on corpse-parts, right? Can't forbid them their religious beliefs, now can we?

Some folks seem to think that "religious beliefs" always equate to "my own brand of Christianity" ... but it doesn't. Fair and equal before the law, right? Careful what you ask for.

Religion has no place in the work place. Period.

AMENDING my last there because I'm sure it's about to be gleefully nitpicked:

Religion has no place in the average work place, religious organizations excepted. Period.
edit on 16Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:22:54 -060014p042014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:45:53 -060014p042014266 by Gryphon66 because: LOL


The basic problem with the above arguments is simply this: Hobby Lobby is not forcing their employees to do anything, nor are they limiting their personal choices (You do not have to wear a Cross, you do not have to participate in Christian ceremonies or rites, nothing like that such as you propose in the above "examples".) On the contrary, they are attempting to exercise choice on their own behalf...your argument is that people should not be forced to indulge in religious ceremonies, rites, etc. Their argument is that they should not be forced to participate in an activity that is counter to their religious beliefs.

If you want to make a sane point then argue why they want to exercise their religious freedom here at home and yet purchase from "infidels". Of course....do they really have much of a choice?


A company cannot have religious beliefs. It isn't a person. It is a construct, and has no free will of its own.

The people behind the company....they can have beliefs 6 ways to Sunday. But the company itself...it has no beliefs.

To make it a religious debate...that is the problem. Religion and work should have no relation unless your work is religion (which is another discussion).

I agree that he shouldn't have to offer a specific service in his insurance package. No argument there. But it has nothing to do with his religious beliefs, as the company is a not capable of believing anything. It has everything to do with the US Government over stepping its bounds by forcing companies to provide what the government obviously doesn't feel it can provide (without making a butt load of money for the individuals that run the government, anyway).

Its all a crooked ass cash grab. In this case, someone gave the insurance companies a golden goose.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


But according to Romneybot 2.0 companies are people.



Are you saying he is wrong??



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Why did you even bother asking that question? This isn't a topic for zero sum thinking.

You will find very, very little for Romney and I to agree upon.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


A recent Supreme Court decision upheld 1st Amendment rights for corporations, so whether a privately owned company is entitled to those same rights is open for debate and the Supremes, having established a precedent will have to decide.

The concept of corporate personhood is not a new concept by any means.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

bbracken677
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


A recent Supreme Court decision upheld 1st Amendment rights for corporations, so whether a privately owned company is entitled to those same rights is open for debate and the Supremes, having established a precedent will have to decide.

The concept of corporate personhood is not a new concept by any means.


The right to free speech is not the same as religious freedom. A corporation has a right to free speech...sure. That speech will be delivered by a person, but all that aside....

...are you extrapolating the first amendment protection for corporations (which is really only meant to allow them to donate tons of cash for political reasons, as money = speech) into full protections under the Bill of Rights? So the military wouldn't be able to take over a football stadium in a national emergency (such as Katrina)? Because of 4th amendment rights?

Yeah, thats pretty dumb. LOL



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join