Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision

[Quantum Windbag]

[

How hard is it for the woman to ask her man to wear a 'raincoat'? Much cheaper

-Geaux

Condoms break.

And sometimes, women get IUDs for reasons that have nothing to do with contraception.

You see, that's why these decisions need to be made by doctors and not employers.

IUDs fail also, what the fuck is your point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservative Roman Catholic men have decided that a business that is based on buying products from a country that has forced abortions, the highest abortion rates in the world and mandatory contraception have decided that that the business has a Constitutional right to impose the business owners alleged anti contraception beliefs on it's employees. Apparently the overwhelming and obvious hypocrisy of the business owners was not noticed by the conservative Roman Catholic old men.

No one is being religiously imposed on from the employee level. No one is going to be fired for seeking out and acquiring products not provided by the employer. This is the repeat lie that you liberals must repeat or your little song and dance falls completely apart.

Yes they are. You confirm it in your short response. Women need to seek out products and find alternate ways to acquire products that are not provided by their employer even though those products use are protected by the constitution. That is an imposition based on the employers religion.
Anyhow, my post was more about the hypocrisy of the owners of hobby lobby and the inappropriateness of a bunch of old Roman Catholic conservative men making a decision that effects women of differing religious and political beliefs. It is obvious the justices were not judicial in their ruling and were swayed by their own religious and political beliefs.

The fact that something is protected by the Constitution is irrelevant to the discussion unless you are willing to provide all the protections of the Constitution to everyone. You don't want to do that, so you have no authority to invoke it in your defense.

That said, refusing to pay for something in no way forces you to join my religion. On the other hand, your attempts to force me to pay for every thing you want does impose your religion on me. I really do not understand why anyone has a problem with the concept.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes they are. You confirm it in your short response. Women need to seek out products and find alternate ways to acquire products that are not provided by their employer even though those products use are protected by the constitution. That is an imposition based on the employers religion.

"Not provided" does not equate to "can not have". The court already ruled on this, as well. Though I do not give two shits for what reason an employer does not provide. And yes, these are protected items under the constitution. These women are free to go and acquire them. That has nothing to do with providing them.

There can be no doubt that the women that work at HL are disadvantaged compared to women employed at other firms - as far as insurance coverage for contraception is concerned.
Because of the religious beliefs of the owners of the company.

There can be even less doubt that the government can fix that through other means than forcing people to pay for things.

 

[peach174]

Are you sure it wasn't because the HHS arbitrarily added abortion drugs to the mandate that wasn't voted on in the original bill?

My understanding was that the case was brought the court on the basis of religious freedom and was upheld.

I'm no expert in law unlike so many here so I'm happy to be corrected.

Your understanding is wrong, the entire challenge was based on the RFRA, not religious freedom. The 1st Amendment was never dealt with in the decision, just statutory law that bound the government to actually defend its actions when they did something that infringed on people's rights. Frankly, anyone that places freedom above tyranny should be rejoicing int he decision, but you chose to defend tyranny. That makes you wrong, period.

Yes - and this is why it's so ironic.
Dems passed the RFRA in 1993 and was signed by President Clinton.
Then Dems passed the AHCA in 2010 signed by President Obama.
Clinton's bill trumped Obama's bill.
Dems wrote a bill that canceled their own bill and then blame the repubs.

 

[peach174]

Yes they are. You confirm it in your short response. Women need to seek out products and find alternate ways to acquire products that are not provided by their employer even though those products use are protected by the constitution. That is an imposition based on the employers religion.

"Not provided" does not equate to "can not have". The court already ruled on this, as well. Though I do not give two shits for what reason an employer does not provide. And yes, these are protected items under the constitution. These women are free to go and acquire them. That has nothing to do with providing them.

There can be no doubt that the women that work at HL are disadvantaged compared to women employed at other firms - as far as insurance coverage for contraception is concerned.
Because of the religious beliefs of the owners of the company.

How bout the other half of the country who are pro life, they have rights too.
Hobby Lobby is providing 16 contraceptions.
You talk like all women use these 4 types of contraception , when only 8.5% of the women in this country use it.
I bet that no woman at Hobby Lobby uses those 4 types of contraception based on 91.5%of the women in this country don't use them.
Do you finally see how the left are pulling the wool over the peoples eyes?
I also bet that almost all of the 8.5% who are using them are getting them free already.

 

[Nosmo King]

If you don't like the benefits your employer is offering don't work for them. You have no Constitutional right to fringe benefits. End of story.

When the job market is tight, is that really the political message Conservatives want to give to working families?

What rights do workers have, according to the Conservative position?

They have a right to take any job they please.

Beyond that, what rights do workers have? Do they have the right to a safe workplace? Do they have a right to paid leave? Do they have the right to collective bargaining? Do they have the right to overtime pay? Do they have the right to severance packages when the decision to outsource is made?

 

[The Rabbi]

When the job market is tight, is that really the political message Conservatives want to give to working families?

What rights do workers have, according to the Conservative position?

They have a right to take any job they please.

Beyond that, what rights do workers have? Do they have the right to a safe workplace? Do they have a right to paid leave? Do they have the right to collective bargaining? Do they have the right to overtime pay? Do they have the right to severance packages when the decision to outsource is made?

Why are yoy hung up on the gov't telling employers and employees what their rights are? Why cant they work out these details per contract?

 

[Nosmo King]

They have a right to take any job they please.

Beyond that, what rights do workers have? Do they have the right to a safe workplace? Do they have a right to paid leave? Do they have the right to collective bargaining? Do they have the right to overtime pay? Do they have the right to severance packages when the decision to outsource is made?

Why are yoy hung up on the gov't telling employers and employees what their rights are? Why cant they work out these details per contract?

Do workers have the right to collective bargaining?

And it's a matter of enforcement. The law is backed up by enforcement. A labor contract can be broken by either party.

 

[The Rabbi]

Beyond that, what rights do workers have? Do they have the right to a safe workplace? Do they have a right to paid leave? Do they have the right to collective bargaining? Do they have the right to overtime pay? Do they have the right to severance packages when the decision to outsource is made?

Why are yoy hung up on the gov't telling employers and employees what their rights are? Why cant they work out these details per contract?

Do workers have the right to collective bargaining?

And it's a matter of enforcement. The law is backed up by enforcement. A labor contract can be broken by either party.

As a question of law, in some states workers have the right to collective bargaining.
A contract is backed up by courts and anyone breakng the contract is liable for damages.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why are yoy hung up on the gov't telling employers and employees what their rights are? Why cant they work out these details per contract?

Do workers have the right to collective bargaining?

And it's a matter of enforcement. The law is backed up by enforcement. A labor contract can be broken by either party.

As a question of law, in some states workers have the right to collective bargaining.
A contract is backed up by courts and anyone breakng the contract is liable for damages.

Do employers with fewer than 100 workers negotiate contracts with each individual worker? Would those contracts include worker health and safety provisions? Are the workers aware of pertinent health and safety regulations? Do employers have an legal obligation to inform employees of health and safety standards, or will most employers gloss over such items?

Do you trust companies to uphold and enforce the law, or do you think most labor laws should be repealed? If so, why?

 

[The Rabbi]

Do workers have the right to collective bargaining?

And it's a matter of enforcement. The law is backed up by enforcement. A labor contract can be broken by either party.

As a question of law, in some states workers have the right to collective bargaining.
A contract is backed up by courts and anyone breakng the contract is liable for damages.

Do employers with fewer than 100 workers negotiate contracts with each individual worker? Would those contracts include worker health and safety provisions? Are the workers aware of pertinent health and safety regulations? Do employers have an legal obligation to inform employees of health and safety standards, or will most employers gloss over such items?

Do you trust companies to uphold and enforce the law, or do you think most labor laws should be repealed? If so, why?

What is ithis? 20 questions?
THe employer-employee relationship is one that should be governed by mutually agreed on contracts, not statutes emanating out of Washington DC.
Why is that hard to understand?

 

[Seawytch]

The government is not a doctor or professional either.

-Geaux

And they aren't telling women what they can't have.

Hobby Lobby is. Because they are totally against abortion unless you are a Chinese Fetus. then you are kind of on your own.

How is me telling you I won't pay for your food denying you food? Can't you buy it yourself?

Is food included as a benefit of employment like health insurance is?

 

[Nosmo King]

As a question of law, in some states workers have the right to collective bargaining.
A contract is backed up by courts and anyone breakng the contract is liable for damages.

Do employers with fewer than 100 workers negotiate contracts with each individual worker? Would those contracts include worker health and safety provisions? Are the workers aware of pertinent health and safety regulations? Do employers have an legal obligation to inform employees of health and safety standards, or will most employers gloss over such items?

Do you trust companies to uphold and enforce the law, or do you think most labor laws should be repealed? If so, why?

What is ithis? 20 questions?
THe employer-employee relationship is one that should be governed by mutually agreed on contracts, not statutes emanating out of Washington DC.
Why is that hard to understand?

If the workplace is not safe, is it the employer's responsibility to make it so? And who is to say what efforts make a workplace safe if not federal regulations? Would you go back to 1914 when there were no federal regulations and thousands of miners died each year? Would you repeal federal regulations so the health and safety of workers was seen by employers as a negative cost of doing business?

What rights do workers have?

 

[The Rabbi]

And they aren't telling women what they can't have.

Hobby Lobby is. Because they are totally against abortion unless you are a Chinese Fetus. then you are kind of on your own.

How is me telling you I won't pay for your food denying you food? Can't you buy it yourself?

Is food included as a benefit of employment like health insurance is?

No. That means employees everywhere are starving to death because their employers dont provide free food.
Point made, game, set match.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do employers with fewer than 100 workers negotiate contracts with each individual worker? Would those contracts include worker health and safety provisions? Are the workers aware of pertinent health and safety regulations? Do employers have an legal obligation to inform employees of health and safety standards, or will most employers gloss over such items?

Do you trust companies to uphold and enforce the law, or do you think most labor laws should be repealed? If so, why?

What is ithis? 20 questions?
THe employer-employee relationship is one that should be governed by mutually agreed on contracts, not statutes emanating out of Washington DC.
Why is that hard to understand?

If the workplace is not safe, is it the employer's responsibility to make it so? And who is to say what efforts make a workplace safe if not federal regulations? Would you go back to 1914 when there were no federal regulations and thousands of miners died each year? Would you repeal federal regulations so the health and safety of workers was seen by employers as a negative cost of doing business?

What rights do workers have?

Its the employer's property ergo his responsibility. If he continues to ignore the problem and someone gets hurt he will be liable tremendous damages. WHo is in a better position to gauge the safety of a workplace, the employer and employess or some bureaucrat in Washington who may never have set foot in even a similar plant?

 

[Nosmo King]

What is ithis? 20 questions?
THe employer-employee relationship is one that should be governed by mutually agreed on contracts, not statutes emanating out of Washington DC.
Why is that hard to understand?

If the workplace is not safe, is it the employer's responsibility to make it so? And who is to say what efforts make a workplace safe if not federal regulations? Would you go back to 1914 when there were no federal regulations and thousands of miners died each year? Would you repeal federal regulations so the health and safety of workers was seen by employers as a negative cost of doing business?

What rights do workers have?

Its the employer's property ergo his responsibility. If he continues to ignore the problem and someone gets hurt he will be liable tremendous damages. WHo is in a better position to gauge the safety of a workplace, the employer and employess or some bureaucrat in Washington who may never have set foot in even a similar plant?

The bureaucrat armed with science. Industrial hygiene is not just sweeping up. The employer may be aware of health concerns, but with holds that information. I've never worked in a lumber treating facility, but I know more about the hazards present there than most employees. I've conducted the studies. I've seen the results. Should what I know be withheld from both employers and employees?

 

[The Rabbi]

If the workplace is not safe, is it the employer's responsibility to make it so? And who is to say what efforts make a workplace safe if not federal regulations? Would you go back to 1914 when there were no federal regulations and thousands of miners died each year? Would you repeal federal regulations so the health and safety of workers was seen by employers as a negative cost of doing business?

What rights do workers have?

Its the employer's property ergo his responsibility. If he continues to ignore the problem and someone gets hurt he will be liable tremendous damages. WHo is in a better position to gauge the safety of a workplace, the employer and employess or some bureaucrat in Washington who may never have set foot in even a similar plant?

The bureaucrat armed with science. Industrial hygiene is not just sweeping up. The employer may be aware of health concerns, but with holds that information. I've never worked in a lumber treating facility, but I know more about the hazards present there than most employees. I've conducted the studies. I've seen the results. Should what I know be withheld from both employers and employees?

If this were the 1920s you might have a point. But this is the 21st cecntiury and everyone in America pretty much has internet access to information.
Bureaucrats are armed frequently with junk science and since they arent onsite they dont know what the particular procedure of that company is, but make them do it anyway, even though it might be counterproductive to the job and decrease safety.

 

[Nosmo King]

Its the employer's property ergo his responsibility. If he continues to ignore the problem and someone gets hurt he will be liable tremendous damages. WHo is in a better position to gauge the safety of a workplace, the employer and employess or some bureaucrat in Washington who may never have set foot in even a similar plant?

The bureaucrat armed with science. Industrial hygiene is not just sweeping up. The employer may be aware of health concerns, but with holds that information. I've never worked in a lumber treating facility, but I know more about the hazards present there than most employees. I've conducted the studies. I've seen the results. Should what I know be withheld from both employers and employees?

If this were the 1920s you might have a point. But this is the 21st cecntiury and everyone in America pretty much has internet access to information.
Bureaucrats are armed frequently with junk science and since they arent onsite they dont know what the particular procedure of that company is, but make them do it anyway, even though it might be counterproductive to the job and decrease safety.

The internet does not provide sampling results for each and every industrial hygiene survey. What's the PEL for lead based paint? For asbestos? for copper sulfate? How many decibels can a human be exposed to for what period before permanent hearing loss occurs? What's the percentage of O2 that is considered unhealthy? Lethal?

Without bureaucrats, this WOULD be the 1920s.

 

[The Rabbi]

The bureaucrat armed with science. Industrial hygiene is not just sweeping up. The employer may be aware of health concerns, but with holds that information. I've never worked in a lumber treating facility, but I know more about the hazards present there than most employees. I've conducted the studies. I've seen the results. Should what I know be withheld from both employers and employees?

If this were the 1920s you might have a point. But this is the 21st cecntiury and everyone in America pretty much has internet access to information.
Bureaucrats are armed frequently with junk science and since they arent onsite they dont know what the particular procedure of that company is, but make them do it anyway, even though it might be counterproductive to the job and decrease safety.

The internet does not provide sampling results for each and every industrial hygiene survey. What's the PEL for lead based paint? For asbestos? for copper sulfate? How many decibels can a human be exposed to for what period before permanent hearing loss occurs? What's the percentage of O2 that is considered unhealthy? Lethal?

Without bureaucrats, this WOULD be the 1920s.

You're describing standards not regulations.
And the 1920s, an era marked by widespread prosperity and increasing life spans would be far preferable to this economic hell hole the Dems have created.

 

[Nosmo King]

If this were the 1920s you might have a point. But this is the 21st cecntiury and everyone in America pretty much has internet access to information.
Bureaucrats are armed frequently with junk science and since they arent onsite they dont know what the particular procedure of that company is, but make them do it anyway, even though it might be counterproductive to the job and decrease safety.

The internet does not provide sampling results for each and every industrial hygiene survey. What's the PEL for lead based paint? For asbestos? for copper sulfate? How many decibels can a human be exposed to for what period before permanent hearing loss occurs? What's the percentage of O2 that is considered unhealthy? Lethal?

Without bureaucrats, this WOULD be the 1920s.

You're describing standards not regulations.
And the 1920s, an era marked by widespread prosperity and increasing life spans would be far preferable to this economic hell hole the Dems have created.

Would you eliminate OSHA? How about NIOSH? How about collective bargaining rights? How about overtime pay or paid family leave? How about eliminating the eight hour work day or the five day work week? What rights do workers have? Or are the only rights that count held by the employers?

What about standards? Who do you think e4stablishes them? Employers? Or bureaucrats armed with science? And why is it so common among Conservatives to first screw the working man blue then dismiss relevant science as "junk" science?