- 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: Hobby Lobby decsion offers fodder for Democrat "War On Womenz" meme.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:54 pm to DCRebel
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:54 pm to DCRebel
quote:
Her point is that a) the religious beliefs of some people, under this ruling, will impact the healthcare choices of others,
These others have the opportunity to receive the care of their choice elsewhere.
quote:
and b) who gets to determine whose religious exemptions are valid?
The Courts, duh.
quote:
Couldn't a Muslim owned business now say "well, I don't want to pay for artificial insulin because sometimes that's harvested from the pancreas of a pig, and that's not Halal?"
Sure. In what world do you believe your entitled to your employer's property beyond what was contracted for?
quote:
The question isn't whether or not her arguments hold water - they do - but whether or not these companies have the right to make these sorts of decisions.
Sure, it's their money.
quote:
That is the debate. I guess you could say that she failed to address that.
She uses emotional, rational-free arguments.
1
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:55 pm to GumboPot
quote:
This WH spin is so deceptive.
Plays well to the low information base.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:59 pm to Godfather1
quote:
Plays well to the low information base.
This is all a natural progression from our collective departure from treating employment as a contractual agreement (which it should be) and treating it a social construct used to further a political agenda.
This post was edited on 6/30/14 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:59 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
Consider this a warning. You are off the ranch.
lol
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:03 pm to asurob1
quote:
I call things as I see them
yeah, and you usually see things through a particular looking glass
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:08 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:*ding*
This is all a natural progression from our collective departure from treating employment as a contractual agreement (which it should be) and treating it a social construct used to further a political agenda.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:11 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
These others have the opportunity to receive the care of their choice elsewhere.
Yes. I realize that. It doesn't make what I said any less true.
quote:
The Courts, duh.
Well yeah, which is kinda my point. It's arbitrary.
quote:
Sure. In what world do you believe your entitled to your employer's property beyond what was contracted for?
So you see her and my point then. I'm not assigning a value to that scenario, I'm simply saying that it's possible now, as was she.
quote:
Sure, it's their money.
Again, this isn't something that's devoid of political leanings or values. You can't just simply write it off as if it's that cut and try. Your income is technically "your money" - after taxes, of course.
There's a gray area. It's not black and white. There's nothing wrong with there being a gray area, but it's why people are going to disagree.
quote:
She uses emotional, rational-free arguments.
What emotion did she evoke?
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:16 pm to DCRebel
So let me get this straight. Women are mad because a privately held corporation doesn't have to provide payment for a doctor to hack a unborn child out of their bellies, or pay to provide a pill to get rid of a mistake they made the night before?
Hell I want some free viagra, maybe I need to sue over that.
Hell I want some free viagra, maybe I need to sue over that.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:20 pm to beebefootballfan
quote:
So let me get this straight. Women are mad because a privately held corporation doesn't have to provide payment for a doctor to hack a unborn child out of their bellies, or pay to provide a pill to get rid of a mistake they made the night before?
Uh, no, you didn't get that straight at all.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:24 pm to DCRebel
quote:
You can't just simply write it off as if it's that cut and try. Your income is technically "your money" - after taxes, of course.
Right, and the law cannot force me to directly pay for something of yours that I choose not to and was not agreed upon. You're comparing a direct payment for an uncontracted for benefit to taxes and it doesn't work.
quote:
What emotion did she evoke?
Let's look at the first three:
quote:
"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
No, it doesn't. It simply allows these employers to NOT cover it. These "legions of women" can seek coverage elsewhere.
quote:
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
What the frick is this nonsense? They are not the property holders. Employment comes with parameters - it's a contractual relationship. Employees are contracted to provide a service; they're personal beliefs and backgrounds are irrelevant to that relationship because they do not control the underlying property.
quote:
"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
....and paid for by whom? It's absolutely illogical to argue that employers should have no role in their employee's healthcare but at the same time say they have to pay for it.
And this is the crux of the issue and the problems thousands of us saw coming down the road with the government's never-ending intrusion into the employment relationship.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:31 pm to Navytiger74
WHEN IN DOUBT, PULL IT OUT!
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:32 pm to DCRebel
quote:How's that?
Uh, no, you didn't get that straight at all.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:34 pm to GumboPot
The Left/Progressives want the gov out of everyone's bedroom....unless of course it's bringing the checkbook.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:42 pm to GumboPot
How is the pill considered health care?
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:43 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Right, and the law cannot force me to directly pay for something of yours that I choose not to and was not agreed upon. You're comparing a direct payment for an uncontracted for benefit to taxes and it doesn't work.
Well, yeah, it can't. That's exactly what SCOTUS said, isn't it? I don't think that's the source of contention here.
quote:
Let's look at the first three:
Okay, and I saw nothing emotional at all.
quote:
No, it doesn't. It simply allows these employers to NOT cover it. These "legions of women" can seek coverage elsewhere.
I agree. She should have said "affordable coverage under these plans" or something like that.
quote:
What the frick is this nonsense?
She's drawing an equivalence to the employer crying foul for religious reasons - "You're making me do something against my religious beliefs" - to the employed being denied coverage under their employers plan because of something other than their religious beliefs.
quote:
Employees are contracted to provide a service; they're personal beliefs and backgrounds are irrelevant to that relationship because they do not control the underlying property.
This is a bit reductionist. Maybe you're arguing what you feel should be the case? The religious beliefs of employees are protected by the law under many circumstances.
quote:
....and paid for by whom? It's absolutely illogical to argue that employers should have no role in their employee's healthcare but at the same time say they have to pay for it.
Some fail to see the "logic" there, it seems. Some would argue that it's "logical" to think that the employer should have no role whatsoever in healthcare of the employee due to that being the private life of the employee.
Again, everything's not so cut and dry as you want it to be.
quote:
And this is the crux of the issue and the problems thousands of us saw coming down the road with the government's never-ending intrusion into the employment relationship.
I agree. Anyone who thought this would go over smoothly was fooling themselves.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:46 pm to ScoopAndScore
quote:
How is the pill considered health care?
The pill that Hobby Lobby actually does offer is occasionally prescribed for other medical conditions beyond pregnancy prevention.
The IUDs and morning after pills that they do not offer are typically not (and they certainly do not provide a unique medical benefit).
You would think Hobby Lobby didn't provide any contraception under their plans the way people are freaking out.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:48 pm to GumboPot
Government forces businesses to provide health insurance, making your health insurance your boss's business. Government then claims your healthcare is not your boss's business.
More unassailable left wing logic.
More unassailable left wing logic.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:49 pm to GoBigOrange86
quote:
Government forces businesses to provide health insurance, making your health insurance your boss's business. Government then claims your healthcare is not your boss's business.
All the more reason for there to be a public option, right guys?!
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:51 pm to GRTiger
quote:I think more people don't get this than do.
You would think Hobby Lobby didn't provide any contraception under their plans the way people are freaking out.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 3:51 pm to DCRebel
quote:
All the more reason for there to be a public option, right guys?!
Because the VA is doing this so well right now.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News