Another Company Is Staging A Hobby Lobby-Esque Birth Control Fight

[alan1]

Although I have nothing against birth control, I do realize that some religions forbid it. I applaud Eden Foods for standing up for their religious convictions. Our freedoms (including religious freedom) came at a high cost, and must be maintained.

Once we give up one freedom, whether it be religious freedom or 2nd amendment freedom, then all freedoms can be voided. We can't pick and choose the liberties that we agree with.

Keep in mind that our freedoms as spelled out in the Bill of Rights are not in terms of absolutes–that is, rights without any exceptions. As Oliver Wendell Homes said "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." In reality, our freedoms are not determined by our interpretation of the constitution but rather the courts. Thus, there will always be exceptions to what we refer to as our freedoms depending on the issue.

I wish government welfare recipients rights ended before it hit my wallet.

 

[Stephanie]

YOU let people like flopper and lakattoa interpret WHAT THE bill of rights and constitution says.... you will be living your lives IN SLAVERY TO government and to people who don't want to exert making their lives anything.../

you'll be living in slavery TO GOVERNMENT AND TO A PARTY who cares NOTHING ABOUT you the TAXPAYERS..ONLY THEIR WET DREAMS

 

[Flopper]

Although I have nothing against birth control, I do realize that some religions forbid it. I applaud Eden Foods for standing up for their religious convictions. Our freedoms (including religious freedom) came at a high cost, and must be maintained.

Once we give up one freedom, whether it be religious freedom or 2nd amendment freedom, then all freedoms can be voided. We can't pick and choose the liberties that we agree with.

Keep in mind that our freedoms as spelled out in the Bill of Rights are not in terms of absolutes–that is, rights without any exceptions. As Oliver Wendell Homes said "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." In reality, our freedoms are not determined by our interpretation of the constitution but rather the courts. Thus, there will always be exceptions to what we refer to as our freedoms depending on the issue.

So telling you, "I'm not giving you my money" is the same in your eyes as punching you in the nose? Why don't you come over here, take some money out of my purse, and when I punch you in your nose, you can compare the difference firsthand?

I think you're missing my point. To expand on your example, if the government is taking your money to pay income taxes they have the right to do so because laws have been passed to levy those taxes and the courts have found those laws constitutional.

There are no absolute rights. The validity of every right depends on the particular issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Keep in mind that our freedoms as spelled out in the Bill of Rights are not in terms of absolutes–that is, rights without any exceptions. As Oliver Wendell Homes said "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." In reality, our freedoms are not determined by our interpretation of the constitution but rather the courts. Thus, there will always be exceptions to what we refer to as our freedoms depending on the issue.

So telling you, "I'm not giving you my money" is the same in your eyes as punching you in the nose? Why don't you come over here, take some money out of my purse, and when I punch you in your nose, you can compare the difference firsthand?

I think you're missing my point. To expand on your example, if the government is taking your money to pay income taxes they have the right to do so because laws have been passed to levy those taxes and the courts have found those laws constitutional.

There are no absolute rights. The validity of every right depends on the particular issue.

No, I think YOU are missing the point. Having the "right" to do something is different from having the "power" to do something. The government has the right to collect income taxes because a VERY LIMITED ability to do so is built directly into our system, and approved by the people who have to pay those taxes. The government has the POWER to spend it on things not actually appearing in our laws because the courts and lazy fucktards like you have decided it should, against the will of the people who have to pay.

See, one of the big differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals have just enough brain power to argue, "Is it possible for us to do this?" and conservatives have enough brain power to argue, "SHOULD we do it?"

Or maybe it's just that conservatives have the moral structure to understand that laws should be based on right and wrong, and liberals believe laws ARE right and wrong, because they have no moral structure at all.

On further reflection, it's probably both.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned about this.

GINSBURG: Supreme Court Has 'Ventured Into A Minefield' On Obamacare Decision

The Founders warned us about an Obama and an entitlement Society.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This is what the anti-choice pro-birth zealots really want - ban all forms of birth control.

No, we simply don't want to pay for your rubbers.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned about this.

GINSBURG: Supreme Court Has 'Ventured Into A Minefield' On Obamacare Decision

The sooner she dies the better.

Not until a republican is president again.

 

[Flopper]

So telling you, "I'm not giving you my money" is the same in your eyes as punching you in the nose? Why don't you come over here, take some money out of my purse, and when I punch you in your nose, you can compare the difference firsthand?

I think you're missing my point. To expand on your example, if the government is taking your money to pay income taxes they have the right to do so because laws have been passed to levy those taxes and the courts have found those laws constitutional.

There are no absolute rights. The validity of every right depends on the particular issue.

No, I think YOU are missing the point. Having the "right" to do something is different from having the "power" to do something. The government has the right to collect income taxes because a VERY LIMITED ability to do so is built directly into our system, and approved by the people who have to pay those taxes. The government has the POWER to spend it on things not actually appearing in our laws because the courts and lazy fucktards like you have decided it should, against the will of the people who have to pay.

See, one of the big differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals have just enough brain power to argue, "Is it possible for us to do this?" and conservatives have enough brain power to argue, "SHOULD we do it?"

Or maybe it's just that conservatives have the moral structure to understand that laws should be based on right and wrong, and liberals believe laws ARE right and wrong, because they have no moral structure at all.

On further reflection, it's probably both.

The judiciary branch is the only body that has the right to interpret the Constitution and how it applies today, that means neither you, nor I or anyone else has that right.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Yet more Prog Sophistry.

What Eden is doing is not banning birth control. It just doesn't want to pay for it. The female employees are perfectly free to acquire birth control on their own.

If the employee uses money out of her paycheck to acquire birth control, then Eden did pay for it.

That's what makes this entire controvery so fucking retarded.

Excellent point.

That is the dumbest argument ever presented on USMB and you think it's an excellent point. Do you liberals have a brain? Sheesh!

 

[dblack]

This is what the anti-choice pro-birth zealots really want - ban all forms of birth control.

Uh.. no, this a company not offering insurance that covers birth control. You don't get the difference?

 

[Lakhota]

If the employee uses money out of her paycheck to acquire birth control, then Eden did pay for it.

That's what makes this entire controvery so fucking retarded.

Excellent point.

That is the dumbest argument ever presented on USMB and you think it's an excellent point. Do you liberals have a brain? Sheesh!

It most certainly is an excellent point. It's all part of her compensation package - directly and/or indirectly - except that her employer is trying to cheat her out of some of her compensation - which he should make up for in cash.

Boycott Eden Foods.

 

[dblack]

Excellent point.

That is the dumbest argument ever presented on USMB and you think it's an excellent point. Do you liberals have a brain? Sheesh!

It most certainly is an excellent point. It's all part of her compensation package - directly and/or indirectly - except that her employer is trying to cheat her out of some of her compensation - which he should make up for in cash.

Well, yeah. If they promised that kind of coverage, and then renigged - they should make up the difference. Is that the case here though? It was my understanding that they're just refusing to abide by the ACA mandates.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The law says that for these companies part of how you compensate your employees has to be with an insurance policy that meets the law's requirements. If the employer wants to cut the employee's compensation somewhere else in order to cut the cost of providing the insurance,

they can do that.

Basically, SCOTUS gave employers permission to cut pay. And some RWs are okay with that. In fact, some call getting a cut in pay "freedom".

My idea was that if a company has a religious objection to the birth control, let them opt out of providing insurance that covers birth control,

BUT,

the dollar cost value of the birth control coverage has to be calculated and the employer must pay the employees a supplemental amount, above and beyond their paycheck, for that amount, that the employee can then use, or not, to add the coverage himself or herself.

You're on a roll. /the employer is still paying for it if they have to pay a bonus. Give it up, the SCOTUS said NO!

 

[Plasmaball]

This is what the anti-choice pro-birth zealots really want - ban all forms of birth control.

Nope, birth control is a good thing. Your boss just shouldn't have to pay for it if they don't believe in it.

i dont believe in cancer..

 

[Vigilante]

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Does this mean that companies will also be able to opt out of providing for the very expensive and Frankensteinian "medical procedure" of "gender reassignment" "surgery" [assisted amputation of healthy organs to complete a mental delusion]?

What is this world coming to!..

You had better believe it!

 

[Plasmaball]

If the employee uses money out of her paycheck to acquire birth control, then Eden did pay for it.

That's what makes this entire controvery so fucking retarded.

Excellent point.

That is the dumbest argument ever presented on USMB and you think it's an excellent point. Do you liberals have a brain? Sheesh!

you do know how Insurance works right?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Excellent point.

That is the dumbest argument ever presented on USMB and you think it's an excellent point. Do you liberals have a brain? Sheesh!

It most certainly is an excellent point. It's all part of her compensation package - directly and/or indirectly - except that her employer is trying to cheat her out of some of her compensation - which he should make up for in cash.

Boycott Eden Foods.

it's dumb. Same as saying Eden paid for her car. Or her housing.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

​

I find it amazing that old queen and others like him think they have a stake in the birth control controversy.