- 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
0
Posted on 3/25/14 at 1:42 pm to wilfont
quote:
Hobby Lobby does provide birth control. They are opposed to paying for abortion and the morning after pill
If thats the case just stop hiring women. Wait...that's illegal?. So they have to hire them AND pay for their dumb decisions. No consequences for women--yay!!
Posted on 3/25/14 at 1:48 pm to tigersaint26
in a court case in Virgina a few months back the court ruled a company can be African American, so then why can it not be religious?
Posted on 3/25/14 at 1:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
I think both sides are completely full of shite on this one.
The idea of crafting a health plan for your employees based on some religous belief (that isn't defined anywhere) is ridiculous. I also think those who don't like Hobby Lobby's health plan should get a job at Wicks and Sticks.
The idea of crafting a health plan for your employees based on some religous belief (that isn't defined anywhere) is ridiculous. I also think those who don't like Hobby Lobby's health plan should get a job at Wicks and Sticks.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 1:53 pm to a want
quote:I disagree. There should be no limitation on whatever retarded reasoning the owner of the business wants to use.
The idea of crafting a health plan for your employees based on some religous belief (that isn't defined anywhere) is ridiculous.
quote:Completely agree.
I also think those who don't like Hobby Lobby's health plan should get a job at Wicks and Sticks.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 1:56 pm to Scruffy
quote:
I disagree. There should be no limitation on whatever retarded reasoning the owner of the business wants to use.
Like only providing health insurance to employees who are Methodists ?
This post was edited on 3/25/14 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 3/25/14 at 1:57 pm to a want
quote:Sure. That situation then falls under the second statement you posted.
Like providing health insurance to employees who are Methodists only?
Get a job elsewhere. Plus, it isn't like the person wouldn't know the situation going in.
This post was edited on 3/25/14 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 3/25/14 at 1:59 pm to a want
quote:Why do you say this as if there is even a shred of fact to it? Seems to me that a property owner should be able to determine what he/she is willing to support via his resources. It is such a shame that this concept of freedom is actually considered extreme in our nation today.
The idea of crafting a health plan for your employees based on some religous belief (that isn't defined anywhere) is ridiculous.
quote:Of course, the problem is that the GOVERNMENT is the one that doesn't like Hobby Lobby's plan.
I also think those who don't like Hobby Lobby's health plan should get a job at Wicks and Sticks.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 2:00 pm to a want
quote:I'll go you one further. A person should be allowed to hire ONLY Methodists if they so desire. Freedom. Such a wonderful concept.
Like only providing health insurance to employees who are Methodists ?
Posted on 3/25/14 at 2:01 pm to a want
quote:
I also think those who don't like Hobby Lobby's health plan should get a job at Wicks and Sticks.
I don't know why but that made me
Posted on 3/25/14 at 2:01 pm to Scruffy
That's very libertarian, but not particularly workable in real life. Think about smaller communities with few employers.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 2:08 pm to SettleDown
quote:
It is such a shame that this concept of freedom is actually considered extreme in our nation today.
All laws are an infringement on freedom. Should we just go balls-out anarchy?
Posted on 3/25/14 at 2:13 pm to a want
quote:I'm just talking about the freedom to be NOT forced to act in a way against one's own beliefs. That's BASIC freedom right there. I think you should be allowed to act freely as long as you don't harm someone else and no, failing to GIVE someone something THEY want is NOT harming them.
All laws are an infringement on freedom. Should we just go balls-out anarchy?
If we aren't free to operate according to our own beliefs as long as we aren't harming someone else or preventing them from acting in accordance with their beliefs, then we may as well remove that line in the Anthem about land of the free.
Alas. Somewhere along the line in our country, a substantial number of people have come to the absurd conclusion that owning a business eliminates one's freedom to do with his property what he'd like. It's a joke.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 2:19 pm to a want
quote:Howso? Should a company not have ability to spend its own resources as it's ownership chooses--ridiculous or not?
The idea of crafting a health plan for your employees based on some religous belief (that isn't defined anywhere) is ridiculous.
Many might consider our company's practice of outfitting everyone with MacBook Pros ridiculous. But it's nunya business, because its nacho money.
This post was edited on 3/25/14 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 3/25/14 at 2:22 pm to a want
quote:Yay! Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
All laws are an infringement on freedom. Should we just go balls-out anarchy?
Posted on 3/25/14 at 3:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's almost impossible to have a discussion with a person about this without them bringing up the "Viagra" argument
Yeah, I get that argument a lot. They can never explain the correlation though. They normally come back with a comment about "war on women," whatever that means.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 3:55 pm to boxcarbarney
quote:Hell. I'm fine with a company not covering viagra. I think if your dick don't work and you want it to, that's on you.
it's almost impossible to have a discussion with a person about this without them bringing up the "Viagra" argument
Yeah, I get that argument a lot. They can never explain the correlation though. They normally come back with a comment about "war on women," whatever that means.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 3:57 pm to SettleDown
quote:
I wouldn't call getting birth control a "health care" decision anyway. I'd call it a lifestyle decision given that there is literally zero REQUIREMENT for birth control(and no, I'm not anti-birth control...........very much for in fact)
Birth control should only be required by an insurer/plan if it has some actual medical need like someone with endometriosis. In that case, there is a legitimate health concern and not just someone's choice whether to have children or not.
This is why the new ACA laws annoy the heck out of me. It is not the responsibility of an insurer or employer to account for your life decisions (having sex without desire to have a baby, smoking, drinking, etc). You should be responsible to take over the consequences or needs for those choices.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 4:00 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:The other annoying thing about the birth control issue is that its importance is being GREATLY inflated given that the cost of the pill is less than pretty much anyone with a job pays for a whole host of minor monthly items.
Birth control should only be required by an insurer/plan if it has some actual medical need like someone with endometriosis. In that case, there is a legitimate health concern and not just someone's choice whether to have children or not.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 4:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's almost impossible to have a discussion with a person about this without them bringing up the "Viagra" argument
My insurance doesn't cover Viagra. Although, I wish it covered the cost of condoms. That seems more comparable than Viagra/birth control.
Why do insurance companies have a war on men?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News