You know, it's funny because I've spent the better part of the last month arguing against Trumpkins on here about all manner of things. Your (and Obama's) "piss in your face and tell them it's raining" style on issues like this played a part in Trump getting elected, and you can't even see it. It was a good analogy, and I stand by it. I am well aware of the history of the Revolution. I certainly didn't get it off cable news.

quote:
There is a huge difference. If a company is providing health insurance, contraception is a no brainer, every single woman I know has been on birth control at some point in their life. Providing comprehensive care must include the most popular set of hormones in the world.

I don't disagree with the science, but forcefully legislating action with which they stridently disagree with the threat of the law is a step way too far. It's a double barrel of federal prerogative that the left is learning, at this moment, can be flipped right back on them. It was an unnecessary and politically stupid stunt (not to mention contrary to everything that many on both the left and the right consider a core tenant of freedom).

quote:
Nobody is forcing the Hobby Lobby owners to actually use birth control.

Your right to religious liberty extends to the point that it does not encroach on others' liberties. You don't get to dictate that others must live by your arbitrary interpretations of ancient fables.

There isn't much difference concerning liberty in use and paying for it. In what world do you have a "right" to force me to subsidize your birth control?

I 100% agree with you that "your right to religious liberty extends to the point that it does not encroach on others' liberties". You are forcing private entities to do something they wish not to do. Women still have access to cheap and widely available BC without forcing companies to pay for it if they wish not to do so. So what's the problem?

This post was edited on 2/1/17 at 10:53 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Masterag

'Round Dallas

Member since Sep 2014

18807 posts

Posted on 2/1/17 at 11:34 am to AbuTheMonkey

quote:
You know, it's funny because I've spent the better part of the last month arguing against Trumpkins on here about all manner of things

I apologize, I prejudged you and your intent.

quote:
So what's the problem?

Religious liberty is a slippery slope and can be used as an excuse to save money. Oh, well xyz is against my religion so I can't pay for it. What's stopping people from just making shite up?

I used to live in France, and Muslims use that fricking excuse for everything! Meanwhile, they have sex before marriage, abuse women, sell and take drugs. But praise allah when it suits them.

Same with Mexicans and birth control. They have six kids from 3 daddies, but it's against their religion to use protection during out of wedlock sex.

Imho it's no different than the case of making a cake for a gay couple. You knew the risks before getting into business and you knew what the law of the land was.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by SlowFlowPro

Simple Solutions to Complex Probs

Member since Jan 2004

422960 posts

Posted on 2/1/17 at 11:38 am to Masterag

quote:
Religious liberty is a slippery slope and can be used as an excuse to save money. Oh, well xyz is against my religion so I can't pay for it. What's stopping people from just making shite up?

again

this ruling was one of statute

if you want the answer to that question, read the statute and caselaw from it

this wasn't some case that involved a judicially-created right like the right to abortion or gay marriage. it's a statutory dispute

quote:
Imho it's no different than the case of making a cake for a gay couple. You knew the risks before getting into business and you knew what the law of the land was.

it's very different b/c those are state-based prosecutions, typically via regulatory authority. there are many states who have similar statutes to RFRA , which was the issue in Hobby Lobby

Page 1 2 3 4 5