- 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: Didn't like the Hobby Lobby decision? Look at the follow up decisions
Posted on 7/5/14 at 11:24 am to wfeliciana
Posted on 7/5/14 at 11:24 am to wfeliciana
quote:
So you believe contraceptives should not be covered under insurance? Do you feel the same about viagra and vasectomies?
Absolutely.
Pay for them yourself. They cost about $10 bucks, and many places hand them out for free, like Halloween candy. It's not an entitlement
Posted on 7/5/14 at 11:31 am to wfeliciana
quote:
True. Although I do understand that is was an attempt to accommodate those groups that were truly religious oriented (and non-profit).
Non-profit is irrelevant. A non-profit is bound by almost all the rules a for-profit is bound by with the exception of paying taxes. They still comply with discrimination law, OSHA, and other rules, regulations and policies.
Liberals don't like profit and they create a separate category in their mind for for-profits but the distinction is largely artificial.
And a great point was made earlier. Does Gannett Corp not have freedom of the press because they're a corporation? Does Greenpeace lose the right to assemble because they're a corporation? Does the Southern Baptist Convention lose the right to freedom of religion because they're a corporation? Does Clear Channel lose the right to freedom of speech because they're a corporation? Y'all are in a lather about corporations being "given" personhood and rights when they already had it.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 12:39 pm to RogerTheShrubber
And whether the insurance company covers it or not is fairly irrelevant. It's about whether or not someone should be forced to pay for that coverage.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 12:47 pm to wfeliciana
quote:The effort of most households is to profit. The only difference is lack of a piece of paper saying the household is "incorporated".
Well I think the difference is that the decision focused on the regulation that required for profit companies to provide coverage. So the personal maid example to me is not in context.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:06 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
She said the ruling set up unworkable regulations that risked "depriving hundreds of Wheaton's employees and students of their legal entitlement to contraceptive coverage" and allowed "hundreds or thousands of other objectors" a similar way out.
If she really believes that there are thousands of other objectors, then I think it's safe to say that MILLIONS likely object to this nonsense. Most people are too damned busy or poor to try to fight it. Therefore, one has to wonder if maybe these regulations are all bullshite forced upon the populace by maybe 10% of the population who managed to make themselves appear to be around 50%.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:46 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
f she really believes that there are thousands of other objectors, then I think it's safe to say that MILLIONS likely object to this nonsense. Most people are too damned busy or poor to try to fight it. Therefore, one has to wonder if maybe these regulations are all bull shite forced upon the populace by maybe 10% of the population who managed to make themselves appear to be around 50%.
Deuce, the term "objectors" in this context referred to the opt out provisions in the ACA (non-profit companies objecting on religious grounds). The ACA was upheld by the S. Ct. so it is the law of the land.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:47 pm to DrEdgeLSU
quote:
And whether the insurance company covers it or not is fairly irrelevant. It's about whether or not someone should be forced to pay for that coverage.
DrEdge, it isn't irrelevant to the case, that was the issue.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The effort of most households is to profit. The only difference is lack of a piece of paper saying the household is "incorporated".
I can't stretch it that far. A household isn't the same as a for profit business. I only wish my household could turn a profit-we always seem to have a deficit.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:49 pm to wfeliciana
I'll guess your continued presence in this thread without responding to my request of an example of a plan where Viagra and vasectomies are covered and BC isn't covered is an acquiescence that you have no example.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:52 pm to the808bass
quote:
Liberals don't like profit and they create a separate category in their mind for for-profits but the distinction is largely artificial.
I don't agree and think that is an over generalization. It wasn't an artificial distinction for this case. That was the issue--the opt out provision of the ACA
quote:for non-profits due to religious beliefs.
Y'all are in a lather about corporations being "given" personhood and rights when they already had it.
Yes they do and have had for a very long time--the issue for some is how far do you extend those rights.
ETA: BTW 808, I've just got back on the board to read the threads and post. As much as I enjoy this board I don't live on it.
This post was edited on 7/5/14 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:56 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
for non-profits due to religious beliefs.
So Gannett isn't a non-profit. Do they lose freedom of the press?
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:01 pm to the808bass
quote:
So Gannett isn't a non-profit. Do they lose freedom of the press?
808, the discussion is about the case and the issues in it, e.g. the non-profit religious based opt-out.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:02 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
What rights do men have that women don't?
The right to be drafted.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:07 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
808, the discussion is about the case and the issues in it, e.g. the non-profit religious based opt-out.
I understand a reticence to address points which damage your argument.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:07 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
the issue for some is how far do you extend those rights.
Rights are not extended. If it has to be extended, it wasn't a right.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:09 pm to AUin02
I think you're playing semantics.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:16 pm to the808bass
Really 808? I could say the same regarding your response. If you want to depart from the discussion of the case that's fine. So--who said anything about Gannett losing freedom of the press because it is a for profit? The case discussed the opt out for non-profits. It wasn't dealing with anything but that (or at least the majority said it was that narrow issue). Are you asking your question in regard to the expansion of corporate rights? Again, who said anything about taking away recognized rights of a corporation? All I've seen is comments on how far the Court will expand the rights of corporations.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:49 pm to wfeliciana
Hmmmm, do you think that might, just might, have something to do with increasingly higher taxes you are paying to support entitlement programs or perhaps the higher insurance premiums you will have to pay to support the free contraceptives that you want companies to pay for?!?! Really, do you think there is even a remote possibility?!?!
Posted on 7/5/14 at 4:01 pm to conservativewifeymom
quote:
Hmmmm, do you think that might, just might, have something to do with increasingly higher taxes you are paying to support entitlement programs or perhaps the higher insurance premiums you will have to pay to support the free contraceptives that you want companies to pay for?!?! Really, do you think there is even a remote possibility?!?!
I'm sorry-what are you referring to, what post specifically.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 4:03 pm to wfeliciana
The one that states that your household is experiencing deficits.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News