Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision

[idb]

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."

How would they be "disadvantaged"?

 

[idb]

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.

Do you really think that contraceptive coverage or not is the reason that a woman would accept a job at HL?

 

[bripat9643]

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."

How would they be "disadvantaged"?

They don't get company provided massages or get cheuffered to their offices. That fits the liberal conception of "disadvantaged."

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Do you really think that contraceptive coverage or not is the reason that a woman would accept a job at HL?

If it were a big deal they wouldn't work there. Since many women work there it obviously isnt a big deal.
Thanks for making my point. HL's lack of coverage for four BC agents is no big deal to employees.

 

[idb]

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."

How would they be "disadvantaged"?

They don't get company provided massages or get cheuffered to their offices. That fits the liberal conception of "disadvantaged."

Which law requires those services for employees?

 

[The Rabbi]

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."

How would they be "disadvantaged"?

They don't get company provided massages or get cheuffered to their offices. That fits the liberal conception of "disadvantaged."

I had no idea I was being oppressed. Thanks!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

How would they be "disadvantaged"?

They don't get company provided massages or get cheuffered to their offices. That fits the liberal conception of "disadvantaged."

Which law requires those services for employees?

The same law that requires Hobby Lobby to provide specific contraceptives.

 

[idb]

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.

Do you really think that contraceptive coverage or not is the reason that a woman would accept a job at HL?

If it were a big deal they wouldn't work there. Since many women work there it obviously isnt a big deal.
Thanks for making my point. HL's lack of coverage for four BC agents is no big deal to employees.

Maybe not, but they are still denied that coverage compared to other companies...therefore they are disadvantaged.

 

[idb]

They don't get company provided massages or get cheuffered to their offices. That fits the liberal conception of "disadvantaged."

Which law requires those services for employees?

The same law that requires Hobby Lobby to provide specific contraceptives.

How can that be?
I don't think any law specifies the contraceptives to be covered...I could be wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you really think that contraceptive coverage or not is the reason that a woman would accept a job at HL?

If it were a big deal they wouldn't work there. Since many women work there it obviously isnt a big deal.
Thanks for making my point. HL's lack of coverage for four BC agents is no big deal to employees.

Maybe not, but they are still denied that coverage compared to other companies...therefore they are disadvantaged.

And?
People who dont work for Google dont get free bus rides and massages. So everyone who doesnt work for Google is disadvantaged on your view. You wanna pass a law?

 

[The Rabbi]

Which law requires those services for employees?

The same law that requires Hobby Lobby to provide specific contraceptives.

How can that be?
I don't think any law specifies the contraceptives to be covered...I could be wrong.

NO, it was a regulation from HHS, pursuant to Obamacare. That was the whole case. The regulation ran afoul od the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act. Once again Democrats created a problem and then made a solution that was worse.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Which law requires those services for employees?

The same law that requires Hobby Lobby to provide specific contraceptives.

How can that be?
I don't think any law specifies the contraceptives to be covered...I could be wrong.

That's what the court ruled, here. Yet you continue to pursue this unlawful breach of religious imposition by Hobby Lobby. Apparently, the sarcasm I put forth went acknowledged.

 

[idb]

If it were a big deal they wouldn't work there. Since many women work there it obviously isnt a big deal.
Thanks for making my point. HL's lack of coverage for four BC agents is no big deal to employees.

Maybe not, but they are still denied that coverage compared to other companies...therefore they are disadvantaged.

And?
People who dont work for Google dont get free bus rides and massages. So everyone who doesnt work for Google is disadvantaged on your view. You wanna pass a law?

There's no requirement for employers to provide free bus rides and massages...so no one is disadvantaged if they don't get them.

I know it's difficult...I simply can't dumb it down any more than that.
Maybe if someone else here is fluent in Moran...?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Maybe not, but they are still denied that coverage compared to other companies...therefore they are disadvantaged.

And?
People who dont work for Google dont get free bus rides and massages. So everyone who doesnt work for Google is disadvantaged on your view. You wanna pass a law?

There's no requirement for employers to provide free bus rides and massages...so no one is disadvantaged if they don't get them.

I know it's difficult...I simply can't dumb it down any more than that.
Maybe if someone else here is fluent in Moran...?

And the court ruled that certain regulations aren't within the parameters of the law. Yet, here you are screeching about religious imposition and disadvantage. Do you even know how fucking foolish you look right now?

 

[idb]

The same law that requires Hobby Lobby to provide specific contraceptives.

How can that be?
I don't think any law specifies the contraceptives to be covered...I could be wrong.

That's what the court ruled, here. Yet you continue to pursue this unlawful breach of religious imposition by Hobby Lobby. Apparently, the sarcasm I put forth went acknowledged.

Sorry, I should have put '/sarcasm' at the end of my own reply to you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe not, but they are still denied that coverage compared to other companies...therefore they are disadvantaged.

And?
People who dont work for Google dont get free bus rides and massages. So everyone who doesnt work for Google is disadvantaged on your view. You wanna pass a law?

There's no requirement for employers to provide free bus rides and massages...so no one is disadvantaged if they don't get them.

I know it's difficult...I simply can't dumb it down any more than that.
Maybe if someone else here is fluent in Moran...?

Right. And there is no lawful requirement for an employer to provide something that violates his religious conscience.
Again, you prove my point. The mandate, which was a regulation from HHS was illegal based on federal law.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And?
People who dont work for Google dont get free bus rides and massages. So everyone who doesnt work for Google is disadvantaged on your view. You wanna pass a law?

There's no requirement for employers to provide free bus rides and massages...so no one is disadvantaged if they don't get them.

I know it's difficult...I simply can't dumb it down any more than that.
Maybe if someone else here is fluent in Moran...?

Right. And there is no lawful requirement for an employer to provide something that violates his religious conscience.
Again, you prove my point. The mandate, which was a regulation from HHS was illegal based on federal law.

BUT BUT.... religious imposition! Disadvantage!

 

[Redfish]

Would one of our resident liberals please explain why government funded abortion on demand is the most important issue to you?

Of all the problems in this country, why is abortion your number one concern?

Why is killing an unborn human being your primary political issue?

 

[The Rabbi]

Would one of our resident liberals please explain why government funded abortion on demand is the most important issue to you?

Of all the problems in this country, why is abortion your number one concern?

Why is killing an unborn human being your primary political issue?

It's like the Koran to jihadis. They'll kill you if you even question it.

 

[idb]

And?
People who dont work for Google dont get free bus rides and massages. So everyone who doesnt work for Google is disadvantaged on your view. You wanna pass a law?

There's no requirement for employers to provide free bus rides and massages...so no one is disadvantaged if they don't get them.

I know it's difficult...I simply can't dumb it down any more than that.
Maybe if someone else here is fluent in Moran...?

Right. And there is no lawful requirement for an employer to provide something that violates his religious conscience.
Again, you prove my point. The mandate, which was a regulation from HHS was illegal based on federal law.

Please feel free to point out where I disagree with the court ruling as to HL's right not to fund certain types of contraception.
You can't, because I haven't.
I won't because it's the SCOTUS and they know what they're talking about.
Nevertheless, my point stands as to the disadvantage suffered by these employees because of the ruling.

Nuanced points of view are really a waste of time aren't they?