Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision

[TakeAStepBack]

It really does appear as though modern liberals have brain damage. I mean, thi sis just sad to watch them "spin" so illogically and yet continue to repeat it.

 

[Nosmo King]

"Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

Acceding to this constant demand is how we have now arrived to the point where there are dipshits who actually believe it is okay to force someone else to give them something, and if that someone else resists, they are intruding into the lives of the dipshits.

Incredible. Absolutely incredible.

If health insurance is provided as a benefit, the whole of health should be covered. to exclude portions due to some ham handed religious 'mandate' is, in essence forcing someone else's 'religion' upon others. And where in the Bible does it mention contraception? That topic is brought up in tent revivals, not scripture.

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?

 

[blackhawk]

So there is finally a piece of legislation Harry Reid will not Declare DOA in the Senate.

 

[Nosmo King]

"Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

Acceding to this constant demand is how we have now arrived to the point where there are dipshits who actually believe it is okay to force someone else to give them something, and if that someone else resists, they are intruding into the lives of the dipshits.

Incredible. Absolutely incredible.

If health insurance is provided as a benefit, the whole of health should be covered. to exclude portions due to some ham handed religious 'mandate' is, in essence forcing someone else's 'religion' upon others. And where in the Bible does it mention contraception? That topic is brought up in tent revivals, not scripture.

Wrong as usual, if the company pays for health insurance then they get to decide what it consists of unless of course you think the Government is a better judge of what is and is not my and my companies protected rights.

You would cede all workers rights to a company without the protection of law. I would rather be protected than work under nothing more than the whim of a company where I have no vote.

What are the rights of the worker?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A Hobby Lobby employee makes $9.00 an hour. Which is $18,000 a year if she is lucky enough to work a full 40 hour week. Before Taxes. After taxes, it's probably about $15,000 a year.

The cost of an IUD without insurance is $1000.00. that puts it well beyond her economic reach.

Sorry, saying, "You can't have this kind of birth control because I am a superstitious jackass who believes in Bronze Age Fairy Tales" is telling them they can't have it and is forcing your religion onto others.

No matter how many times, and with whatever flawed logic you plan to invoke over it, equating "will not provide" with "can not have" fails. It will fail in logic no matter how many times you repeat it.

Failure, Joe. Failure.

Okay, yes, if you totally ignore facts and pretend that health care is a gift and not earned compensation, then you can totally have your own reality.

I mean, Sweet Evil Jesus, you guys never learn, do you? You really think campaigning against contraception and telling women how to run their bodies is as winner for you guys? Ask Mitt Romney and Todd Akin how that worked out.

It is earned compensation if it is provided under the employee/employer agreement. if not, then you can go acquire it on your own. What you're arguing is that the government gets to decide what compensation is handed out by force. And you've mainly won this morally/ethically degenerate argument in teh courts. They make one tiny decision against providing specific products based on religious freedom and you fucks have a complete cow, lie and continue to lie over it like the flood gates of hell opened up. It's fucking sad, dude.

 

[idb]

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.

"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.

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

Then they are free to go work somewhere else. I'm sure there would be line at the door for those women who would 'accept' the coverage offered

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

[

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.

Sure, if the Doctors participated in a free market. But they are government controlled. If a woman needs contraceptives, tell her man to wear a raincoat.

-Geaux

This is nothing to do with markets.

Nor should it.

Are there doctors who would charge an inordinate amount or prescribe an expensive treatment? Um. Yeah.

Most, I would hope, are trying to do what is best for their patient.

End of the day, it really should be for the woman to decide what works best for her.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If health insurance is provided as a benefit, the whole of health should be covered. to exclude portions due to some ham handed religious 'mandate' is, in essence forcing someone else's 'religion' upon others. And where in the Bible does it mention contraception? That topic is brought up in tent revivals, not scripture.

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?

As opposed to "lets steal by force" to provide!" At least one group has a little moral/ethical ground to stand on.

 

[JoeB131]

It is earned compensation if it is provided under the employee/employer agreement. if not, then you can go acquire it on your own. What you're arguing is that the government gets to decide what compensation is handed out by force. And you've mainly won this morally/ethically degenerate argument in teh courts. They make one tiny decision against providing specific products based on religious freedom and you fucks have a complete cow, lie and continue to lie over it like the flood gates of hell opened up. It's fucking sad, dude.

No, guy, what's sad is you idiots throwing yourselves on grenades for the very rich because they waive a bible or a flag in front of you.

The fact is, you need government to regulate insurance and how it is handled. Otherwise, your employer can take the money they've set aside for insurance, and then buy policies that dont' cover much of anything.

Frankly, I think employer-provided insurance was a terrible idea from day one, but if you guys are going to INSIST we keep that instead of going to a single payer system like every other industrial democracy has done, then having the people in the form of government set parameters as to what constitutes a good policy is actually kind of reasonable.

I should also point out that private employer insurance could not function without a lot of government supports, regulations and tax credits to make it viable.

 

[bripat9643]

If health insurance is provided as a benefit, the whole of health should be covered. to exclude portions due to some ham handed religious 'mandate' is, in essence forcing someone else's 'religion' upon others. And where in the Bible does it mention contraception? That topic is brought up in tent revivals, not scripture.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

If health insurance is provided as a benefit, the whole of health should be covered. to exclude portions due to some ham handed religious 'mandate' is, in essence forcing someone else's 'religion' upon others. And where in the Bible does it mention contraception? That topic is brought up in tent revivals, not scripture.

Wrong as usual, if the company pays for health insurance then they get to decide what it consists of unless of course you think the Government is a better judge of what is and is not my and my companies protected rights.

You would cede all workers rights to a company without the protection of law. I would rather be protected than work under nothing more than the whim of a company where I have no vote.

What are the rights of the worker?

Translation: You want to force private corporations to provide you with things just because you want them.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

Sure, if you compare from firm to firm. That's not how business is done in the court based on "fair" or "advantage". If they do not like it, they may go work at a firm that offers that. It's the same as any other scenario regarding employment. Some firms offer free lunch too. I'm at a disadvantage based on that. No free lunch here.





"Will not provide" does not equate with "can not have".

 

[bripat9643]

No matter how many times, and with whatever flawed logic you plan to invoke over it, equating "will not provide" with "can not have" fails. It will fail in logic no matter how many times you repeat it.

Failure, Joe. Failure.

Okay, yes, if you totally ignore facts and pretend that health care is a gift and not earned compensation, then you can totally have your own reality.

I mean, Sweet Evil Jesus, you guys never learn, do you? You really think campaigning against contraception and telling women how to run their bodies is as winner for you guys? Ask Mitt Romney and Todd Akin how that worked out.

It is earned compensation if it is provided under the employee/employer agreement. if not, then you can go acquire it on your own. What you're arguing is that the government gets to decide what compensation is handed out by force. And you've mainly won this morally/ethically degenerate argument in teh courts. They make one tiny decision against providing specific products based on religious freedom and you fucks have a complete cow, lie and continue to lie over it like the flood gates of hell opened up. It's fucking sad, dude.

I've met 5-year-olds with more maturity than what the liberal turds in this forum display by throwing huge hissy fit over a decision that impacts them almost not at all.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

In other words, women who work at HL have to pay for 4 different types of contraception on their own. That's all you've said.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It is earned compensation if it is provided under the employee/employer agreement. if not, then you can go acquire it on your own. What you're arguing is that the government gets to decide what compensation is handed out by force. And you've mainly won this morally/ethically degenerate argument in teh courts. They make one tiny decision against providing specific products based on religious freedom and you fucks have a complete cow, lie and continue to lie over it like the flood gates of hell opened up. It's fucking sad, dude.

No, guy, what's sad is you idiots throwing yourselves on grenades for the very rich because they waive a bible or a flag in front of you.

The fact is, you need government to regulate insurance and how it is handled. Otherwise, your employer can take the money they've set aside for insurance, and then buy policies that dont' cover much of anything.

Frankly, I think employer-provided insurance was a terrible idea from day one, but if you guys are going to INSIST we keep that instead of going to a single payer system like every other industrial democracy has done, then having the people in the form of government set parameters as to what constitutes a good policy is actually kind of reasonable.

I should also point out that private employer insurance could not function without a lot of government supports, regulations and tax credits to make it viable.

Bring the goal posts back on over here.

 

[Stephanie]

This is perfect for people like OP and the Democrats calling for overstepping the ruling of laws in this country...
call them up
links in the article at site

SNIP:

Johnson Follow Ben
Jul 8, 2014 - 4:38 pm EST

Bill Gates’ new remote-controlled contraceptive microchip could be used for eugenics: critic



LEXINGTON, MA – The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding the development of a contraceptive microchip that can be remotely controlled to release hormones that can act as abortifacients into a woman's body for up to 16 years. Both the chip's potential to take a life and the potential privacy concerns have drawn criticism.

The chip, which measures 20 x 20 x 7 millimeters, can be implanted under the skin of a woman's buttocks, upper arm, or abdomen in 30 minutes. The device contains a 16-year reservoir of the drug levonorgestrel, releasing 30 micrograms a day – but the dosage can be altered by remote control, as well.

The technology was originally intended, and tested, to release osteoporosis medication in elderly women, but Dr. Robert Langer of MIT changed his focus to contraception after a personal discussion with Bill Gates. Gavin Corley, a biomedical engineer, told the BBC the technology could be used to achieve contraceptive targets in the developing world, indicating “a humanitarian application as opposed to satisfying a first-world need.”

The announcement comes as the Gates Foundation is spearheading an international, multi-billion-dollar push for expanding birth control in the developing world, bringing charges from pro-life and political that they are engaged in global population control. In June, Melinda Gates wrote that the foundation “has decided not to fund abortion” as part of its efforts.

But numerous studies have indicated that levonorgestrel, the hormone used both by this chip and the morning after pill, has a strong anti-implantation effect, meaning it acts in part by preventing a newly-conceived embryo from implanting in the uterus. One study found the hormone only has an “effectiveness rate” of 49 percent when blocking ovulation alone.

Then again, a remote-controlled computer chip that potentially leaves the patient's health at the mercy of anyone with sufficient computer skills presents its own issues.


ALL of it here
Bill Gates? new remote-controlled contraceptive microchip could be used for eugenics: critic | News | LifeSite

 

[The Rabbi]

If health insurance is provided as a benefit, the whole of health should be covered. to exclude portions due to some ham handed religious 'mandate' is, in essence forcing someone else's 'religion' upon others. And where in the Bible does it mention contraception? That topic is brought up in tent revivals, not scripture.

Wrong as usual, if the company pays for health insurance then they get to decide what it consists of unless of course you think the Government is a better judge of what is and is not my and my companies protected rights.

You would cede all workers rights to a company without the protection of law. I would rather be protected than work under nothing more than the whim of a company where I have no vote.

What are the rights of the worker?

You have an amazing ability to put words in people's mouths. Stupid words at that.
The workers have every right they contracted for when they took the job, plus protections offered by civil rights acts, etc. They also have the right to take any better job that comes along. Their main protection comes from doing a good job, making replacing them difficult and expensive. You don't understand that because like the good little bureaucrat you are you can fuck off as much as you like and never get fired.

 

[bripat9643]

"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.

Sure, if you compare from firm to firm. That's not how business is done in the court based on "fair" or "advantage". If they do not like it, they may go work at a firm that offers that. It's the same as any other scenario regarding employment. Some firms offer free lunch too. I'm at a disadvantage based on that. No free lunch here.





"Will not provide" does not equate with "can not have".

I've heard that at Google they give free massages and even send a bus to pick you up and drive you to work. Perhaps the libtuds believe the SC should decide to force every corporation to provide these benefits. Otherwise, people who work elsewhere will be "disadvantaged."

 

[The Rabbi]

"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.

In other words, women who work at HL have to pay for 4 different types of contraception on their own. That's all you've said.

If that were really the case no woman would work at Hobby Lobby. Since many of them do, maybe a majority of employees are women, his point is obviously wrong.