- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Birth control is largely for recreational behavior, right?
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:49 pm to wfeliciana
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:49 pm to wfeliciana
It's emotional because you're giving value to who authored and agreed with the ruling and not the merits of the ruling itself. It's a logical fallacy.
And on what merits do you disagree?
And on what merits do you disagree?
1
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:53 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
It's emotional because you're giving value to who authored and agreed with the ruling and not the merits of the ruling itself.
I don't think that is what I postulated Antonio. I said they disagree with the ruling and then they look at who authored it. What you are saying is an emotional response would apply to just about everyone on this board. How many times do you see people here railing at a policy or ruling because it was made by "the liberals"? Are you saying if men do it then it is emotional? So then they are too emotional to vote?
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:54 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
The ruling doesn't change this though. Birth control is still covered.
I don't really care about Hobby Lobby and what they choose to cover or not. I do care about the government blindly ignoring what the biggest issue in this country actually is.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:57 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
How many times do you see people here railing at a policy or ruling because it was made by "the liberals"?
All the time
quote:
Are you saying if men do it then it is emotional?
Yes, if someone gives value to is making the argument instead of the argument itself, it's a logical fallacy.
quote:
So then they are too emotional to vote?
I never advocated excluding women from voting.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:58 pm to OMLandshark
Agreed 
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:09 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Honestly, the second you're on welfare, I think you should be put on some sort of probation. The state now basically owns you in one way or another. I don't think people on welfare should be able to vote, they should be put in government housing, the food they get will be super restrictive, monthly drug tests, unless you're working you have a nightly curfew, and you have a correctional officer/coach in order to get your life together. We need to give these people incentive to get off of welfare. So long as they mooch off the system and pop out more kids to get more money out of the system, they're never going to strive to get off of welfare. You work not just for the state now, but you for the people of the United States. I and every other taxpayer is now your employer and parent, so we're obviously going to have to treat you like a kid in order for you to get your life together. People on welfare have no business having kids, and there should be negative consequences to the people who are ignorant or stupid enough to have them.
OR
Instead of all that BS, why don't we just drastically reform welfare? Instead you want MORE government intrusion. Sounds like an awesome plan.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:16 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Instead of all that BS, why don't we just drastically reform welfare? Instead you want MORE government intrusion. Sounds like an awesome plan.
Then let me hear your awesome plan. Do you have one? I doubt it, or at least one any more effective than my own.
My plan is completely voluntary. If you want government cheese, then there is going to have to be some hard criteria that you're going to have to meet. If you don't want any part of it, then the door is open and you can have all your so-called rights back and good luck feeding yourself. Welfare should be treated exactly like rehab. This isn't something that was written in our Bill of Rights. It should be nothing more than a volunteer program designed to get people back on their feet, not to live their entire lives sitting on their asses and popping out kid after kid, who more often than not either strip or end up in prison at at least one point in their lives.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:19 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Look at this from an employer perspective. What's more costly: adding birth control to the regimen or let your employees play roulette, and they pop out 5 kids, all of which go on the employers insurance policy.
that sounds like a business decision
quote:
If I became president tomorrow, everyone on welfare would get as many contraceptives as they please.
using government to solve the problems of government does not work
quote:
Roe vs Wade's aftermath is proof on what I'm saying is true, since crime rates have been severely reduced since the 80s, right around the time the unwanted kids from RvW would have been committing their first major crimes.
that theory has been largely debunked
the leaded gasoline theory is the popular one now, while crack (and tougher sentencing afterwards) are the boring/most likely causes
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:22 pm to Asharad
quote:
quote: Why should I pay for $1 of my cirrhosis treatment?! #warondrunks
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:25 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
why don't we just drastically reform welfare?
i know that feel
quote:
Instead you want MORE government intrusion. Sounds like an awesome plan.
#fistbump
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:27 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Hobby Lobby's position has very little to do with sex. They still cover most birth control and still cover medicines for STDs. The issue is with medicines considered to be abortifacients. They don't have a religious objection to sex; they have an objection to medicinally killing what they consider to be life.
A couple of points I would like to put up for discussion in reference to the above post.
1. Hobby Lobby wants to not have BC medications be covered in their policies, if they are abortifacients, now nor do they have to. Yet Hobby Lobby continues to do business with China. China has state sponsored infanticide and abortions, iirc, in cases of families over the allotted children and girls. If that is the case isn't their stand on this particular issue hypocritical?
2. The constitution protects any and all points of religious view. This includes the right to be non-religious. So if a corporations "rights" are upheld at the expense of the employees differing views, is it constitutional IYO?
3. Is this a door that can ever be closed if it the ruling turns out to be much wider in scope than intended? The scope of the ruling is purportedly widening as reported by a LA Times post. LINK. The SCOTUS could be asking that the lower courts to re-evaluate the cases to see if any part(s) fall under the ruling.
Thank you in advance.
This post was edited on 7/2/14 at 8:30 pm
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:31 pm to 10888bge
quote:
The constitution protects any and all points of religious view. This includes the right to be non-religious. So if a corporations "rights" are upheld at the expense of the employees differing views, is it constitutional IYO?
what the hell does the employee's views have to do with anything? what does the ACA do to inhibit employee's religious expression?
how is federal law preventing the employee from engaging in religious belief (unless their religion is based in employer-provided MAPs)?
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:36 pm to 10888bge
quote:
f they are abortifacients, now nor do they have to. Yet Hobby Lobby continues to do business with China. China has state sponsored infanticide and abortions, iirc, in cases of families over the allotted children and girls. If that is the case isn't their stand on this particular issue hypocritical?
So doing business with a company in another country means you support all policies of that country? That didn't make sense the first 200 times someone posted it on here and it still doesn't.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:36 pm to the808bass
you 2 guys have entirely too many 8s in your respective names....at the same time
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
8s are wild.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what the hell does the employee's views have to do with anything? what does the ACA do to inhibit employee's religious expression?
One groups religious view point is being held above another groups religious freedom. Since this ruling is in contrary to Obamacare, wouldn't the Judicial branch of gov't be impeding the rights of the employees. Not that I really give a damn about it and this is just for discussion sake. Any one who has ins. through their employer has to pay for their portion of the cost as well. Under this ruling it, the BC, can't be anywhere on the plan even if the employee wants to pay 100% of it.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
I'm a trendsetter LOL DWI
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:48 pm to the808bass
quote:
So doing business with a company in another country means you support all policies of that country? That didn't make sense the first 200 times someone posted it on here and it still doesn't.
iirc the ruling states that if the belief of the owners is strongly held due to their religious beliefs, then it is in violation of the constitution. The fact that HL's beliefs don't come in to play when dealing with another business generating entity could prove that HB's beliefs aren't that strongly held.
This post was edited on 7/2/14 at 8:50 pm
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
using government to solve the problems of government does not work
I disagree that this is a problem of the government, it's a problem of the people, and no one will address it.
quote:
the leaded gasoline theory is the popular one now, while crack (and tougher sentencing afterwards) are the boring/most likely causes
I think its a combination of the three to be honest.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:49 pm to 10888bge
quote:
One groups religious view point is being held above another groups religious freedom.
no it's not
the employee's religious views has literally nothing to do with this
and even if those views mattered, the analysis is regarding public behaviors that affect religious views, not private ones
so, the ACA (a public act) infringing on the religious rights of the individuals forming the corporation of Hobby Lobby? that falls under the RFRA (or Free Exercise analysis)
Hobby Lobby having its rights infringed by the ACA has nothing to do with the religious expression of its employees. EVEN IF you push an absurd example (religion based around MAP), you're still dealing with private action, and it has no place in this discussion.
this silly argument needs to die. it's severely reaching and intellectual dishonesty
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News