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: 8
48
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




Not sure what your post is getting at. He is not asking any of his employees to do, or not do, anything. He is simply unwilling to pay for a procedure that is against his religious beliefs.


I am glad you simplified it. no one answered my question before and I guess you missed it so let me ask you directly.


My question is does that mean if a Mormon owns a business they can opt out for their employees insurance to cover blood transfusions?

How about if a Christian scientist owns a business their belief excludes almost all modern medicine?


In Scientology they are pretty much the same and I know they own businesses. If you can't cure it with vitamins you are pretty much screwed.

Are we supposed to make exemptions tailor made for all those faiths?

Where is the line is there a line and who determines where that line is where employers can determine what medical treatments will be covered by insurance based on their personal faith?



edit on 3-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 

Show me where he even once said that he didn't write the LETTER in my op and I will personally recommend that this thread be moved to the HOAX bin.
He didn't write the TITLE, which I have already acknowledged as being misleading, but guess what? I didn't write the title either. The letter itself is 100% authentic which I've already proved to you with the Snopes link. Get over it already



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




Not sure what your post is getting at. He is not asking any of his employees to do, or not do, anything. He is simply unwilling to pay for a procedure that is against his religious beliefs.


I am glad you simplified it. no one answered my question before and I guess you missed it so let me ask you directly.


My question is does that mean if a Mormon owns a business they can opt out for their employees insurance to cover blood transfusions?

Is the blood transfusion medically necessary? If so it has nothing to do with the topic. To clarify further, anything such as Plan B should be allowed if the mother will die without it.


How about if a Christian scientist owns a business their belief excludes almost all modern medicine?

I personally think no business should be involved in healthcare. I think if a company chooses not to provide any coverage that should be within their right. Instead all the money businesses pay towards healthcare should instead go to the employee and they should be able to purchase their own.



In Scientology they are pretty much the same and I know they own businesses. If you can't cure it with vitamins you are pretty much screwed.

Are we supposed to make exemptions tailor made for all those faiths?

I already gave you my solution. In the mean time, there is a distinction between medically necessary, and elective/convenience medicine. I would prefer to see employers be removed from healthcare completely.


Where is the line is there a line and who determines where that line is where employers can determine what medical treatments you can have based on their personal faith?



Is this procedure/treatment medially necessary, or is it elective or convenient? Easy to draw the line for me.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Lack of ability to read or correctly interpret a post is not an issue with the words that are there or the poster of those words.

It is an individual problem.

Any claim that abortion is morally wrong or against a religious belief is likewise merely the problem of an individual.

Broken down more simply:

IF [ABORTION IS WRONG]
THEN [DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION]

or perhaps ...

ABORTION BAD FOR YOU? = NO ABORTION FOR YOU.

There is literally no simpler way to state the fact.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


And that has nothing to do with my post .. which is ... if you agree HL is NOT trying to control anyone's life, then why did you add "11. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Stop trying to actively or passively control the lives of others." to the post?

Since we both agree HL is NOT trying to actively or passively control the lives of others.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


You say the line would be drawn to what is medically necessary. How do you determine what is medically necessary? Is it only life saving?


I am not trying to debate whether or not they should provide insurance that isn't really the issue here because it is law even if you hate it. Or am I misunderstanding the OP and what hobby lobby is going to court for. Is he trying to get the law repealed to where he doesn't have to provide any insurance or is he trying to get an exemption or change the law to where his insurance will not cover certain procedures? Because the two are entirely different subjects.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   

windword

I can't imagine the horror of the world in which you live, where women all around you are possibly aborting children as they ring up your groceries, teach your children, standing in front of you in line for the movies!

Oh the humanity!


I also can't stand the thought that somewhere in this world at this very moment there is a woman being raped. Does that make me a drama queen as well?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


You say the line would be drawn to what is medically necessary. How do you determine what is medically necessary? Is it only life saving?

Withoug getting way deep into it I think we can agree necessary goes beyond that. If it saved a limb it's necessary. Plan B because you forgot to bring a condom and don't want a child isn't medically necessary. Plan B because you are at high risk for serious complications during a pregnancy is.



I am not trying to debate whether or not they should provide insurance that isn't really the issue here because it is law even if you hate it. Or am I misunderstanding the OP and what hobby lobby is going to court for. Is he trying to get the law repealed to where he doesn't have to provide any insurance or is he trying to get an exemption or change the law to where his insurance will not cover certain procedures? Because the two are entirely different subjects.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

I gave my opinion that no business should be involved with insurance, and that would solve the problem. He is going to court to prevent being forced to cover Plan B type pills as that conflicts with his religious beliefs. I support this so long as it IS covered when it's medically necessary, and not a matter of conveniene to avoid responsibility for one's actions.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


OK so you agree this is about the employer wanting to dictate what procedures or medication the insurance will cover.

Am I correct?
edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Hobby Lobby should not have the right to determine what choices there employee have. They are not tax exempt, they are not a religious organization and they should not have the right to force there religious morality onto its workers. I think Hobby Lobby should not have a say whether there employees use any product or service, frankly it's none of there business. The People should have the right to protection from religion.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


OK so you agree this is about the employer wanting to dictate what procedures or medication the insurance will cover.

Am I correct?
edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

No. It's about an elective procedure that is against their religion. They do not want to pay for a elective procedure that is what they consider murder. They are not looking to dictate procedures to be covered, it is one specific procedure they object to.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   

LDragonFire
Hobby Lobby should not have the right to determine what choices there employee have. They are not tax exempt, they are not a religious organization and they should not have the right to force there religious morality onto its workers. I think Hobby Lobby should not have a say whether there employees use any product or service, frankly it's none of there business. The People should have the right to protection from religion.


They are not asking to have a say in whether their employees use any service whatsoever. How is that so hard to understand?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   


No Christian should be forced to pay for someone's contraception


But you don't want to pay for their unwanted kids either that they can't afford to pay for. Either way you're going to pay, but it'll be a lot less to pay for birth control.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Grimpachi
I am glad you simplified it. no one answered my question before and I guess you missed it so let me ask you directly.


My question is does that mean if a Mormon owns a business they can opt out for their employees insurance to cover blood transfusions?

How about if a Christian scientist owns a business their belief excludes almost all modern medicine?


In Scientology they are pretty much the same and I know they own businesses. If you can't cure it with vitamins you are pretty much screwed.

Are we supposed to make exemptions tailor made for all those faiths?

Where is the line is there a line and who determines where that line is where employers can determine what medical treatments will be covered by insurance based on their personal faith?


Those are actually much better examples than buster's Jewish circumcision comparison.

I think if you're going to force employers to provide health insurance then yes, every one of those examples should have been taken into consideration. And honestly I think they were, which is one of the many reasons why this 3000 page bill was passed without even being read and without a single Republican vote.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   

CB328



No Christian should be forced to pay for someone's contraception


But you don't want to pay for their unwanted kids either that they can't afford to pay for. Either way you're going to pay, but it'll be a lot less to pay for birth control.


Maybe it's not all about money? Maybe people should be forced to be more responsible?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:45 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


OK so you agree this is about the employer wanting to dictate what procedures or medication the insurance will cover.

Am I correct?
edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

No. It's about an elective procedure that is against their religion. They do not want to pay for a elective procedure that is what they consider murder. They are not looking to dictate procedures to be covered, it is one specific procedure they object to.


You've gone over this already but you keep switching it or ignoring what you've already covered. Hobby Lobby and it's owners are two different entities. Hobby Lobby doesn't have morals or a religion to speak of even though the owners do. The owners can stand by their Religious Values and reasoning but Hobby Lobby the Corp. can't. Legally speaking that is.

I thought you and Gryphon already had this worked out??

edit on 4-2-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


OK so you agree this is about the employer wanting to dictate what procedures or medication the insurance will cover.

Am I correct?
edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

No. It's about an elective procedure that is against their religion. They do not want to pay for a elective procedure that is what they consider murder. They are not looking to dictate procedures to be covered, it is one specific procedure they object to.


Thank you. You made it very clear with your statement. This is indeed about religion and nothing else.

To change the regulations/law would be to accommodate his religion

If we change the law for religious exclusions that would go against the establishment clause in the first amendment.

If an exception is made for his religion then of course other exceptions can be made for other religions. There really is no other way unless you wish to move towards a theocracy where we only take into consideration or change laws for a specific religion.

I have no doubt that either he will have to comply with the law or no longer run that business. I just cannot see any court in the nation violating the constitution in such a way as to give religious preference. This is a highly emotional issue for many but this is a case of constitutional law.

For a bit I thought maybe he was challenging having to provide insurance but that is clearly not the case.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   

mOjOm

OccamsRazor04

Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


OK so you agree this is about the employer wanting to dictate what procedures or medication the insurance will cover.

Am I correct?
edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

No. It's about an elective procedure that is against their religion. They do not want to pay for a elective procedure that is what they consider murder. They are not looking to dictate procedures to be covered, it is one specific procedure they object to.


You've gone over this already but you keep switching it or ignoring what you've already covered. Hobby Lobby and it's owners are two different entities. Hobby Lobby doesn't have morals or a religion to speak of even though the owners do. The owners can stand by their Religious Values and reasoning but Hobby Lobby the Corp. can't. Legally speaking that is.

I thought you and Gryphon already had this worked out??

edit on 4-2-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)

No. That is a excuse that a politician, or someone without conviction in their beliefs would use. While legally they are separate, ethically he is just as convicted. We have a business owner who is not hiding behind his business, and instead taking responsibility for what his business does. It's hilarious that so many people on ATS bash others who hide behind such things, and here we have a man who isn't doing so and ATS bashes him for not doing it. I have not ignored or switched anything. My position is unchanged, nothing has been switched, nothing has been ignored.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I don't see anything wrong with a company that says "I'm going to give you a full time job and pay you 80% above minimum wage. I'm going to provide you with health insurance, but our healthcare plan doesn't cover abortion inducing medication. That you will have to pay for yourself."

It seems everyone here would rather see this guy "free his workers from the 40 hour work week" and cut their hours to 29 a week so that he doesn't have to provide health insurance at all.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Grimpachi Thank you. You made it very clear with your statement. This is indeed about religion and nothing else.

To change the regulations/law wold be to accommodate his religion

If we change the law for religious exclusions that would go against the establishment clause in the first amendment.

I think you missed the point, it's not going against it, it's invoking it. I think you are forgetting what it actually says, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (of religion)", which is what he is arguing the government is doing.


If an exception is made for his religion then of course other exceptions can be made for other religions. There really is no other way unless you wish to move towards a theocracy where we only take into consideration or change laws for a specific religion.

It shouldn't be made for his, it should be for all. If you can show an ELECTIVE procedure goes against your religious beliefs then it should be allowed to not be covered by insurance plans you choose.


I have no doubt that either he will have to comply with the law or no longer run that business. I just cannot see any court in the nation violating the constitution in such a way as to give religious preference. This is a highly emotional issue for many but this is a case of constitutional law.

Again, you are completely missing the point that his argument is that the government is ALREADY violating the establishment clause.


For a bit I thought maybe he was challenging having to provide insurance but that is clearly not the case.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"




top topics



 
48
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join