Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision

[Quantum Windbag]

Uh, no, not really.

Employers aren't "paying" for their employee's insurance.

Employee's are EARNING that insurance. They create the money to pay for it through their labor and time.

Now, besides the fact they call these "abortion pills" exposed their PROFOUND ignorance of all things medical, the fact is, they didn't give this insurance out as a gift.

They gave it out as compensation.

If every employer just paid their employees the amount it costs to buy a group plan, a 25 year old woman (regardless of how many men she was banging) would have an easier time getting a policy for $5000 than a middle aged executive.

Yes really. The employers are providing that insurance. When providing it violates their religious beliefs, they do not have to provide it. That is the law of the land.

Which is stupid law. The point of the first amendment isn't to give special privilege to religious belief. It's to protect it from persecution. Do you stand behind that idea generally? Do you really think religious people should be exempt from any laws that impede on their religious beliefs?

No, the purpose of the 1st Amendment is to limit the power of the government to infringe on the rights of individuals, which is why it covers a lot more than religion.

 

[dblack]

Yes really. The employers are providing that insurance. When providing it violates their religious beliefs, they do not have to provide it. That is the law of the land.

Which is stupid law. The point of the first amendment isn't to give special privilege to religious belief. It's to protect it from persecution. Do you stand behind that idea generally? Do you really think religious people should be exempt from any laws that impede on their religious beliefs?

No, the purpose of the 1st Amendment is to limit the power of the government to infringe on the rights of individuals, which is why it covers a lot more than religion.

Do you think it should employed to give religious people a pass on laws the rest of us have to follow?

 

[daveman]

Which is stupid law. The point of the first amendment isn't to give special privilege to religious belief. It's to protect it from persecution. Do you stand behind that idea generally? Do you really think religious people should be exempt from any laws that impede on their religious beliefs?

No, the purpose of the 1st Amendment is to limit the power of the government to infringe on the rights of individuals, which is why it covers a lot more than religion.

Do you think it should employed to give religious people a pass on laws the rest of us have to follow?

No. The law should be repealed.

 

[dblack]

No, the purpose of the 1st Amendment is to limit the power of the government to infringe on the rights of individuals, which is why it covers a lot more than religion.

Do you think it should employed to give religious people a pass on laws the rest of us have to follow?

No. The law should be repealed.

Exactly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which is stupid law. The point of the first amendment isn't to give special privilege to religious belief. It's to protect it from persecution. Do you stand behind that idea generally? Do you really think religious people should be exempt from any laws that impede on their religious beliefs?

No, the purpose of the 1st Amendment is to limit the power of the government to infringe on the rights of individuals, which is why it covers a lot more than religion.

Do you think it should employed to give religious people a pass on laws the rest of us have to follow?

It has since the beginning of the Republic, would you like some examples? Or do you think people who object to war whould be forced to work in tank factories?

Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The part you don't understand is that the RFRA applies to everyone and the 1st Amendment apply to everyone, not just people who believe in God.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/163/case.html

Maybe you should expand your view of the law instead of assuming that this is about religion, it is about freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, the purpose of the 1st Amendment is to limit the power of the government to infringe on the rights of individuals, which is why it covers a lot more than religion.

Do you think it should employed to give religious people a pass on laws the rest of us have to follow?

No. The law should be repealed.

Or they should find another way to give everyone the contraception that doesn't involve forcing employers to pay for it.

 

[idb]

No because as data proves our cost of healthcare was sky high before ACA. ACA has stemmed the increase by a lot. And these evil socialized gave been able to keep down the cost of healthcare in their countries so how would it possible be left wing policies are driving up the costs?

You are right.. The cost was high. Why?? Because of Left Wing Policies.

You are forgetting the unbelievable tax rate the people in those countries pay to support those socialized medical policies.

And the fact that many of the systems are catastrophes! (See: Britain's NHS.)

Interesting point there Jar

NHS comes top in healthcare survey
Study by Washington-based foundation puts healthcare provision in the US at the bottom of its report

NHS is the world's best healthcare system, report says | Society | The Guardian

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are right.. The cost was high. Why?? Because of Left Wing Policies.

You are forgetting the unbelievable tax rate the people in those countries pay to support those socialized medical policies.

And the fact that many of the systems are catastrophes! (See: Britain's NHS.)

Interesting point there Jar

NHS comes top in healthcare survey
Study by Washington-based foundation puts healthcare provision in the US at the bottom of its report

NHS is the world's best healthcare system, report says | Society | The Guardian

Of course it is, which is why everyone in the UK goes to France.

 

[JoeB131]

[

What the fuck does Romney being Mormon have to do with his political views? Does your brain actually work, or do you just type randomly on the keyboard on the hope that it makes sense?

I couldn't tell you what Romney's political views were. Were we getting Moderate Mitt from Massachusetts or Conservative Mitt from 2008 or Business MItt from 2012? You never knew what you were going to get with that guy politically.

But being a member of the fucked up, misogynistic, racist, homophobic Mormon Cult. Well, that's an easy one.

 

[dblack]

No, the purpose of the 1st Amendment is to limit the power of the government to infringe on the rights of individuals, which is why it covers a lot more than religion.

Do you think it should employed to give religious people a pass on laws the rest of us have to follow?

It has since the beginning of the Republic, would you like some examples?

That wasn't what I asked. Do you think that's right? Is that good government?

... do you think people who object to war should be forced to work in tank factories?

Of course not. The question is whether people with religious convictions should be treated differently than people with non-religious convictions. I'm asking whether you believe in equal rights, or whether you endorse class-based rights.

Maybe you should expand your view of the law instead of assuming that this is about religion, it is about freedom.

Freedom is a general concept. When rights are granted only to some, it's privilege. The First has been twisted into an excuse to violate the law, rather than a protection of freedom. It's meant to prohibit laws that violate the listed freedoms (speech, religion, etc..), not as a loophole for specific people or circumstances. The Hobby Lobby case was, indeed, a first amendment violation, but it still is - the only proper cure is to overrule the law, not create ad-hoc exemptions.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Doesn't change the fact that it leaves people dying in hallways, just like the VA, does it?

Actually, the British live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate than we do and they spend less.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course it is, which is why everyone in the UK goes to France.

You mean France where they also have socialized medicine and the government pays for abortions?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Why do you keep lying about who pays for the insurance? If you actually had an argument that was based on reality I would have no trouble with you expressing it, but all you have is a bunch of lies. Would it help if I linked you to some actual people that know how to think that can offer reasonable arguments against the Hobby Lobby decision, or do you want to stay with the stupid shit? I am serious here, I would love to see someone actually argue this question using actual facts and sound logical reasoning. I guess I have to stick with living with idiocy though.

Hobby Lobby isn't giving out insurance because they are good CHristians.


They are giving out insurance because it attracts a better class of employee than Wal-Mart or Home Depot has.

Now, I know you don't like this, but employees EARN their health insurance like they EARN their paycheck. We need to disabuse ourselves of this notion that employers give these things out of kindness. Maybe then we'll stop putting up with their shit.

 

[JoeB131]

Not all of them. The rest, it coerces. It shouldn't be allowed to do that unless it's really necessary.

I disagree. I think at a certain point, you have to go with majority rule.

99% of women use contraception. Their choice should not be dictated by rich 1%ers who believe in magic sky fairies.

If 99% of women use contraception why do we need the government to force other people to pay for it?

Same reason we need government to make sure that your employer isn't keeping a machine on the sight that will take your arm off. Same reason we need government to make sure an employer isn't hiring illegal aliens and paying them below minimum wage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you think it should employed to give religious people a pass on laws the rest of us have to follow?

It has since the beginning of the Republic, would you like some examples?

That wasn't what I asked. Do you think that's right? Is that good government?

... do you think people who object to war should be forced to work in tank factories?

Of course not. The question is whether people with religious convictions should be treated differently than people with non-religious convictions. I'm asking whether you believe in equal rights, or whether you endorse class-based rights.

Maybe you should expand your view of the law instead of assuming that this is about religion, it is about freedom.

Freedom is a general concept. When rights are granted only to some, it's privilege. The First has been twisted into an excuse to violate the law, rather than a protection of freedom. It's meant to prohibit laws that violate the listed freedoms (speech, religion, etc..), not as a loophole for specific people or circumstances. The Hobby Lobby case was, indeed, a first amendment violation, but it still is - the only proper cure is to overrule the law, not create ad-hoc exemptions.

You keep missing the point here.

Some individuals object things other people have no problem with. A great example of this is conscientious objectors to war. The law allows anyone, for any reason, to except themselves from military service if they have a sincere objection to war. According to you, this is giving special privileges to a few people, it isn't. Anyone can invoke the right to refuse to go to war. The fact that most people do not is not indicative that this is available only to a few people, despite your stubborn insistence that it is.

You really need to get over your blind spot about religion here, this is about freedom. Feel free to step up and exercise your freedom instead of complaining about the people that exercise theirs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

Doesn't change the fact that it leaves people dying in hallways, just like the VA, does it?

Actually, the British live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate than we do and they spend less.

I have been through this with you before, so I won't bother to repeat the factual evidence that points out why you are wrong. I will, however, point out that you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course it is, which is why everyone in the UK goes to France.

You mean France where they also have socialized medicine and the government pays for abortions?

I mean someplace other than the UK, which you claim has the best healthcare in the world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

Why do you keep lying about who pays for the insurance? If you actually had an argument that was based on reality I would have no trouble with you expressing it, but all you have is a bunch of lies. Would it help if I linked you to some actual people that know how to think that can offer reasonable arguments against the Hobby Lobby decision, or do you want to stay with the stupid shit? I am serious here, I would love to see someone actually argue this question using actual facts and sound logical reasoning. I guess I have to stick with living with idiocy though.

Hobby Lobby isn't giving out insurance because they are good CHristians.


They are giving out insurance because it attracts a better class of employee than Wal-Mart or Home Depot has.

Now, I know you don't like this, but employees EARN their health insurance like they EARN their paycheck. We need to disabuse ourselves of this notion that employers give these things out of kindness. Maybe then we'll stop putting up with their shit.

Prove they aren't doing it because they are good Christians, I dare you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I disagree. I think at a certain point, you have to go with majority rule.

99% of women use contraception. Their choice should not be dictated by rich 1%ers who believe in magic sky fairies.

If 99% of women use contraception why do we need the government to force other people to pay for it?

Same reason we need government to make sure that your employer isn't keeping a machine on the sight that will take your arm off. Same reason we need government to make sure an employer isn't hiring illegal aliens and paying them below minimum wage.

I have worked plenty of places where they had machines that could take my arm off, I never once saw the government standing by that machine to protect me. But thanks for admitting you really don't have an argument.

 

[dblack]

It has since the beginning of the Republic, would you like some examples?

That wasn't what I asked. Do you think that's right? Is that good government?

Of course not. The question is whether people with religious convictions should be treated differently than people with non-religious convictions. I'm asking whether you believe in equal rights, or whether you endorse class-based rights.

Maybe you should expand your view of the law instead of assuming that this is about religion, it is about freedom.

Freedom is a general concept. When rights are granted only to some, it's privilege. The First has been twisted into an excuse to violate the law, rather than a protection of freedom. It's meant to prohibit laws that violate the listed freedoms (speech, religion, etc..), not as a loophole for specific people or circumstances. The Hobby Lobby case was, indeed, a first amendment violation, but it still is - the only proper cure is to overrule the law, not create ad-hoc exemptions.

You keep missing the point here.

Some individuals object things other people have no problem with. A great example of this is conscientious objectors to war. The law allows anyone, for any reason, to except themselves from military service if they have a sincere objection to war. According to you, this is giving special privileges to a few people, it isn't. Anyone can invoke the right to refuse to go to war. The fact that most people do not is not indicative that this is available only to a few people, despite your stubborn insistence that it is.

No, it's privilege, offered only to certain people for certain reasons. Rights and freedoms are universal principles. They apply to everyone all the time, and they can only be limited by the state with just cause and extenuating circumstances. What you're defending is the opposite, special exemptions offered only for "just cause or extenuating circumstances".

You really need to get over your blind spot about religion here, this is about freedom. Feel free to step up and exercise your freedom instead of complaining about the people that exercise theirs.

You always fall back on that, but I think you know by now it's bullshit. My objection to this policy has nothing at all to do with religion, and everything to do with corporatism. Our legal code is thoroughly undermined by the practice of giving everyone a 'different deal' depending how much political clout their special interest group can muster. The growth of this kind of government is what's killing freedom.