Hobby Lobby May Close All 500+ Stores in 41 States

reply to post by Flatfish


So.....a company not wanting to be forced to pay for something they don't believe in, and people not wanting the Govt to pay for abortions and/or birth control is the republicans wanting to control your life......



Are you insane?

reply to post by Bone75

I'm not about to explain the moment of conception and the difference between a toenail and a fertilized egg to you AGAIN. If you didn't get it the first 5,000 times, you never will.

Apparently, the American Medical Association and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology dont understand difference either. According to them, no implantation = no pregnancy. No pregnancy = no abortion.

And by the way, this isn't about your right to kill your fetuses, this is about whether or not your employer should have to pay for it.

I don't have any fetuses, but, if we must get personal, I'll fight for your wife's right to kill her fetus! It's all about choice! An employer doesn't have the right to make those choices for your wife!

alienreality

Condoms also share a multi role use including stopping diseases from spreading, because of that fact, they are as important as what you want too.

Soap also helps to stop disease from spreading but it's just not a covered item. As a matter of fact, most "over the counter" items are not covered. Why does it always have to be all of nothing?

Obviously, we're not talking about soap, condoms, aspirin, vitamins, cotton balls, Q-tips, mouthwash, wart remover, etc... as they are not required to be prescribed by a physician.

alienreality
All of these things are life optional as far as what I should make my neighbor pay for through their taxes, If I need it I'll buy it, not force someone to buy it for me under threat of destroying everything I have worked for.

"Destroying everything he's worked for?" Are you kidding me? I don't even think he ever said it would destroy his business, he said it was against his religious beliefs. Hardly a business destroyer.

If his business shuts down, it will be of his own choosing. Unless of course, it ends up being due to customers refusing to patronize it after finding out how he insist on imposing his archaic beliefs on his employees.

alienreality
If insurance costs actually increase because of these birth control issues, then Hobby lobby should not have to be penalized.

If it doesn't raise their cost, then they are not making any choice to kill babies, and their argument becomes invalid in my opinion.. It is the woman who does this on her own.

Like I said previously, contraceptive coverage has been shown to be "cost neutral" in most cases and negligible in others. This is NOT about "cost."

This is really no different than a road leading to a strip club. All of our taxes built that road but none of us caused the other to patronize the place. Hobby Lobby is just putting forth a hollow argument in an attempt to justify what they believe to be their "God given right" and sometimes "mission," to impose their ideology on others.

Nobody cares what they choose to believe, so long as they don't try to impose it on others.

Actually since benefits are considered compensation for services rendered... it's not really up to the employer what a person does with their healthcare or what pharmaceuticals and services an employee utilizes, anymore than it's up to them how their employee's spend the dollars they are paid with. Still seems simpler to let people buy their own instead of receive health care plans through their employer.

jkeyes
reply to post by Aleister

 

How long before they tell you how many kids you can have?

I dont know may be sooner than we think....................wait were you talking about Hobby Lobby or the government?

reply to post by alienreality


I think that everyone agrees that the ACA needs to be fixed. Not repealed. The ACA has an awful lot of good features that are being utilized by millions today. Things like keeping your kids on your plan longer, no more pre-existing conditions or lifetime limits on coverage. These things are huge and I doubt that anyone wants to reverse their affects.

On the other hand, there is almost unanimous agreement that the personal mandate to purchase for-profit coverage through a private healthcare insurance provider should be eliminated. If we just replaced it with a single-payer system like Medicare for all or at the very least, a public option, you'd be surprised how many problems it would solve. Like this BS religious exemption this guy is seeking.

From 2012

"When Hobby Lobby responds to an evangelical Christian pastor concerned about their policy by calling security to escort him off the property, it's fair to say their lawsuit has nothing to do with religious freedom," said [Faithful America director and petition organizer Michael] Sherrard. "There's nothing Christian about seeking to deny health care services that will improve the lives of women and families."
Read more at www.snopes.com...

jkeyes
reply to post by beezzer

 

Obama did not win one county in Oklahoma in last election.Please view "Oklahoma did it anyway" available on video,You Know where.The tide has turned.Hobby Lobby is based out of OKC.

I actually just started a thread about that yesterday. Check it out...

Illinois vs Oklahoma

reply to post by Bone75




So according to the owners faith they do not want their insurance to offer birth control and people are OK with that.

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.


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?

One persons crazy is another's sane it seems.

There is a constitutional issue here as well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

If we change the law for religious exclusions isn't that against the establishment clause in the first amendment?

macman
reply to post by Flatfish

 

So.....a company not wanting to be forced to pay for something they don't believe in, and people not wanting the Govt to pay for abortions and/or birth control is the republicans wanting to control your life......


Are you insane?

There are already existing federal statutes in place that prohibit the use of federal funds for abortions but for some unknown reason your GOP representatives want to attach additional anti-abortion legislation into every bill that comes before them, as if they were actually going to accomplish something. Those laws are already in place! Abortion is legal and has been since the 60's and it's about time some of us got over it.

Kinda like voting 47 times to repeal the ACA, as if it could happen while the Democrats control the Senate & the White House. Talk about pissing straight into the wind, which by the way, is becoming a pattern for them.

Are you Insane?

I can summarize this nicely by just saying:

Anyone who signs up for or participates in the ACA , (aka) ,Obama nation care, is SUPPORTING ABORTION, because the entire ACA IS an abortion.. Seriously, and to keep on participating is the same as hooking up to life support and agreeing to be put in a coma.

buster2010
Do you support Christians paying for Viagra seeing how many insurance companies will pay for it? Funny how you don't hear these "Christians" complaining about that.

Personally, I don’t support any policy that forces people to purchase a corporate product. But since you brought it up, Viagra doesn't kill fertilized eggs. You seem to be under the impression that this is about sex when it's not.

reply to post by alienreality


So what? It is a Woman's choice to have an abortion or not, it isn't illegal and frankly If you are a man you have no say in it at all,
No man has, their body and their choice.
Also If you want to save all the babies what are you going to do with them? seeing that their are around 600,000 unwanted kids already...so you lot bleating how bad abortion is how about you start caring for one of those unwanted kids that are actually alive eh?.

Bone75

jkeyes
reply to post by beezzer

 

Obama did not win one county in Oklahoma in last election.Please view "Oklahoma did it anyway" available on video,You Know where.The tide has turned.Hobby Lobby is based out of OKC.

I actually just started a thread about that yesterday. Check it out...

Illinois vs Oklahoma

So he's based out of Oklahoma? What's he going to do when the 10th Circuit Court legalizes gay marriage in the state and he is asked to give a gay spouse access to insurance or other spousal benefits? Will he pull out the religious card and threaten to hold his breath until he turns blue again?

boymonkey74
reply to post by alienreality

 

So what? It is a Woman's choice to have an abortion or not, it isn't illegal and frankly If you are a man you have no say in it at all,
No man has, their body and their choice.
Also If you want to save all the babies what are you going to do with them? seeing that their are around 600,000 unwanted kids already...so you lot bleating how bad abortion is how about you start caring for one of those unwanted kids that are actually alive eh?.

edit on 3-2-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

As usual, you have misinterpreted my posts and twisted my words to give the appearance you can think rationally.. Failed again..
None of what you are saying resembles what I have been saying in any way.

Also, the argument that a woman has the right to "choose" her baby living or not is misworded by the pro abortion crowd. It should be saying "a woman's right to murder an unborn fetus. It is a living thing and when we kill living things we are always prosecuted, except if you are a woman, and aborting her own baby because they have extended rights than anyone else so they can kill babies. IM not saying I'm against it at all! I'm just wording so it isn't shrouded in words that make you feel good about yourself.

reply to post by alienreality


Wasn't just to you it was to the folk bleating how bad abortion is...think of the children they bleat but do nothing for the unwanted kids alive today.

Back to the OP imagine working there and they find out you had an abortion...Sounds like the guy in charge wouldn't want you around.

grey580
There's a zillion other regulations on the books in this country for businesses but somehow this one here is a deal breaker? BS.

Yeah it is a deal breaker. Should an Islamic restaurant owner be forced to serve pork?

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

Do you seriously consider that a fair comparison?

reply to post by Bone75

You seem to be under the impression that this is about sex when it's not.

Of course it's about sex!

.......Family Research Council fellow Pat Fagan, who eloquently explained his belief that contraception for single people should be outlawed since those who have sex outside of marriage should be punished for their actions. Right Wing Watch has the transcript:

It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. Now sure, single people are inclined to push the fences and jump over them, particularly if they are in love with each other and going onto marriage, but they always knew they were doing wrong. In this case the Supreme Court said, take those fences away they can do whatever they like, and they didn’t address at all what status children had, what status the commons had, by commons I mean the rest of the United States, have they got any standing in this case? They just said no, singles have the right to contraceptives we mean singles have the right to have sex outside of marriage. Brushing aside millennia, thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, culture and setting in motion what we have.

Of course, this isn’t an argument that remains outside of the marital bed. Once inside, contraception has the same “hiding” aspect, allowing a wife to potentially hide infidelity.

rhrealitycheck.org...

reply to post by Bone75

There's a zillion other regulations on the books in this country for businesses but somehow this one here is a deal breaker? BS.
Yeah it is a deal breaker.

Should an Islamic restaurant owner be forced to serve pork?

If they have it on the menu yes. If they do not offer that service to anyone then no.If you are trying to use that as a comparison to the issue at hand you are comparing apples and oranges because the two issues are in no way relative to each other.

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

Do you seriously consider that a fair comparison?

A fair comparison would be Muslims not covering circumcision in their health plan to employes based on religion. BTW I have no idea if they hold that belief but if they did.