I called my local Hobby Lobby ....

[iamwhatiseem]

Current events??

 

[MarcATL]

I asked my prochoice friends
how is ACA prochoice if it penalizes free choice of health care?

I got no answer. Nobody has even bothered to try to explain this.
Because they can't.

I asked
how can you support ACA that forces people to pay insurance companies
if you want Singlepayer without any middleman

I got a bunch of excuses.

"this is just the first version, and it needs to be reformed"
"this is the best they could do to get anything passed at all"

Now I'm just asking
to separate health care policies by parties,
so they don't have to answer to anyone but their own members
who already share the same beliefs and don't need to justify it.

If they can't even explain how this works,
why not keep it to yourselves until you work it out.

Let the political religions fund their own policies and programs.
Just like any other church!

We wouldn't let church denominations impose "what they believe as the right way" on the rest of nation.

Why do we let political parties impose their political beliefs or religions
by majority rule, and force ALL taxpayers to pay tithes to fund their programs?
Even if we disagree religiously!

Really?

That argument is pure foolishness.

The very nature of politics is to negotiate laws of government, and the central vehicle for those negotiations are political parties.

I mean...c'mon!!

*SMH*

 

[MarcATL]

True, they’re neither a healthcare provider nor a church.

What they are is an opponent of the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with ‘religious liberty.’

I am neither myself, does that mean I have no rights?

Where has anyone said this?

Can you point that out?

Thanks.

 

[MarcATL]

Current events??

As opposed to...?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

True, they’re neither a healthcare provider nor a church.

What they are is an opponent of the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with ‘religious liberty.’

I am neither myself, does that mean I have no rights?

Where has anyone said this?

Can you point that out?

Thanks.

Can you point out where I said anyone said it?

 

[chikenwing]

True, they’re neither a healthcare provider nor a church.

What they are is an opponent of the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with ‘religious liberty.’

I am neither myself, does that mean I have no rights?

Where has anyone said this?

Can you point that out?

Thanks.

Your very 1st post,but you don't even see it,its call blinded by your partisanship.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Current events??

Hey it beats whatever novasteve's latest gay sex fantasy expression thread will be in the morning.

 

[PredFan]

Pretty good huh?



P.S. - The "I" isn't me.

You idiot liberals would have nothing if you didn't have straw man arguments. You in particular have a whole straw man army.

 

[emilynghiem]

True, they’re neither a healthcare provider nor a church.

What they are is an opponent of the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with ‘religious liberty.’

I am neither myself, does that mean I have no rights?

Where has anyone said this?

Can you point that out?

Thanks.

What CCJones seemed to say or imply:

Since HL is "neither a healthcare provider nor a church,"
but only a "political opponent of ACA for purely partisan reasons"
they have no valid argument for "religious liberty"

QW replies to point out that "religious liberty"
does not require or depend on any of the above conditions.
(I also add that "religious liberty" should not depend
on whether we agree with someone's beliefs, but
should depend on if someone is ABUSING their religious
liberty to cause unlawful harm that laws or govt should prevent.)

There are at least 3 different conflicts here

A. one is a "letter of the law" issue with the legal argument
you can pick apart HL and claim since they are a corporation
and not an individual person, their argument can't be made as a corporation.
they are not a religious organization as the Catholic group that was allowed
to avoid the penalty on religious grounds.

B. another focuses on the "spirit of the law"
even if the legal argument is flawed, and doesn't count for a corporation,
religious freedom still counts for the INDIVIDUAL OWNERS who make up HL
so you can still argue that THOSE INDIVIDUALS have religious freedom
to defend themselves using these arguments

C. and what I focus on is whether
CCJ or other opponents are doing exactly what they complain about:
because they disagree politically, they are not treating and respecting
the religious beliefs or liberty of others equally under law.
Only if they AGREE religiously or politically, then they would
defend these Constitutional arguments for liberty

I believe
people are biased toward HL because of B
and people are against HL because of C.

Then they impose these biases on the arguments in A.
Even if they are not perfect arguments by the letter of the law,
people with bias B will forgive the flaws and say religious liberty matters more.
people with bias C will NOT forgive the flaws and not recognize the "religious liberty" as a valid issue but only see it as a political tactic because that is what they are doing too!

 

[emilynghiem]

That argument is pure foolishness.

The very nature of politics is to negotiate laws of government, and the central vehicle for those negotiations are political parties.

I mean...c'mon!!

*SMH*

Where in the Constitution does it say this?

People can use their Catholic church, their university systems and professional affiliations, their local caucuses, their unions or Scout Troups to represent themselves and their interests.

That doesn't give any of these groups or political parties more right to "impose their agenda" on the nation through federal legislation. That's what's wrong with the two major parties dominating and oppressing and excluding equal representation of members of other parties from the Greens to Libertarians who have been arguing about this for years.

Govt leaders and Congress are STILL BOUND by Constitutional laws and ethics.

Regardless of Party, Church, political or religious belief,
reps in Government are supposed to reflect the EQUAL representation and protection of
ALL INTERESTS. NOT just the "majority group" with more political power.
That's why corporate interests have hijacked the process, because parties and elections can be bought out.

Parties can negotiate all they want to. So can all groups.

But public policies, laws and govt are supposed to reflect the PUBLIC.

That is what is WRONG with our country and govt.
We have forgotten the duty of Govt is to represent the public interest
not "just the views of the people in the majority" and NOT just one party over another.

This is where we have lost our Constitutional focus and principles.

BY putting PARTY above Constitutional laws and duty to the nation "as a whole"
(see Code of Ethics for Govt Service, about not putting dept or party above govt duty
ethics-commission.net)

 

[Iceweasel]

I called Obama and asked him if he was God. He said 'no", I said "exactly!"

 

[MarcATL]

That argument is pure foolishness.

The very nature of politics is to negotiate laws of government, and the central vehicle for those negotiations are political parties.

I mean...c'mon!!

*SMH*

Where in the Constitution does it say this?

People can use their Catholic church, their university systems and professional affiliations, their local caucuses, their unions or Scout Troups to represent themselves and their interests.

That doesn't give any of these groups or political parties more right to "impose their agenda" on the nation through federal legislation. That's what's wrong with the two major parties dominating and oppressing and excluding equal representation of members of other parties from the Greens to Libertarians who have been arguing about this for years.

Govt leaders and Congress are STILL BOUND by Constitutional laws and ethics.

Regardless of Party, Church, political or religious belief,
reps in Government are supposed to reflect the EQUAL representation and protection of
ALL INTERESTS. NOT just the "majority group" with more political power.
That's why corporate interests have hijacked the process, because parties and elections can be bought out.

Parties can negotiate all they want to. So can all groups.

But public policies, laws and govt are supposed to reflect the PUBLIC.

That is what is WRONG with our country and govt.
We have forgotten the duty of Govt is to represent the public interest
not "just the views of the people in the majority" and NOT just one party over another.

This is where we have lost our Constitutional focus and principles.

BY putting PARTY above Constitutional laws and duty to the nation "as a whole"
(see Code of Ethics for Govt Service, about not putting dept or party above govt duty
ethics-commission.net)

This statement is so loaded I don't know where to begin.

Define " the public interest"

I bet if you ask 50 people you get 50 different answers.

Point is, it IS CURRENTLY representing the views of the people, and not the majority, that's why you can have a Civil Rights movement when the majority of citizens believe in prejudice, racism and segregation. And why you can have a massive movement for gay marriage rights when the majority of citizens have a problem w/homosexuality.

It's CURRENTLY a system of LAWS not MEN.

However, at any given time SOME portion of MEN will not agree w/the LAWS.

It seems at this time, you're part of those who are experiencing problems with the laws.

 

[Grandma]

Okay you wingnut tards, here's the situation:

The Constitution guarantees individual religious rights and liberties.

A business does not have the right to infringe upon those liberties.



Hope I didn't type that too fast for you oligarch-supporting sheep.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: It's CURRENTLY a system of LAWS not MEN.
That is why I am asking to MEET the standard of EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws.
Not bypass this with manmade party politics, where parties are NOT a checked branch of government in the Constitution.

Define " the public interest"

I bet if you ask 50 people you get 50 different answers.

Point is, it IS CURRENTLY representing the views of the people, and not the majority, that's why you can have a Civil Rights movement when the majority of citizens believe in prejudice, racism and segregation. And why you can have a massive movement for gay marriage rights when the majority of citizens have a problem w/homosexuality.

It's CURRENTLY a system of LAWS not MEN.

However, at any given time SOME portion of MEN will not agree w/the LAWS.

It seems at this time, you're part of those who are experiencing problems with the laws.

Hi Marc
What I would consider "representing or reflecting the public interest" is
CONSENSUS on either the laws themselves (such as the Code of Ethics for Govt Service that was so well written it was passed unanimously by Congress)
OR an agreement on the standards of majority rule (2/3 or over 50 percent etc.)
OR an agreement to separate policies in the case of political or religious beliefs
where people are NOT willing to compromise their beliefs for uniform govt policy.

In the case of religious or political beliefs,
people are NOT willing to compromise for majority rule, such as on:
* gay marriage issues
* death penalty and drug legalization issues
* abortion and now health care choices

So in these areas, i especially recommend to members/leaders of the diverse parties
to separate out their policies and funding, and quit trying to railroad one policy through govt,
OR write laws SO WELL they are completely neutral and do not impose a bias either way,
OR solve the conflicts so the laws written and passed DO NOT overlook or override objections based on beliefs that people have a right to.

On other areas that DO NOT involve religious or political beliefs,
such as how much budget to put into roads, or the price of postage or the % tax on X Y Z,
if people agree to majority rule, that's fine.

I just notice that people cannot agree on issues where their beliefs cannot be changed
and it does not work to impose laws by govt by majority rule that violate those beliefs.

That has never worked, we keep trying to do it for lack of a better way.
and now that we have the internet and more democratic access to meet with
reps in groups, I am suggesting we start separating these religious areas by party,
treating the unwavering conflicting positions as "political religions"
where each are equally protected by law but remain separate from public policy
except where people agree to follow them freely.

I believe our democratic system and technological access have evolved to this point
where we can have more organized representation, and do not need to rely on
majority rule to force policies "for the whole country" or "the whole state" where people could manage their own policies by party, by church or school affiliations, etc.

We can still have representative democracy for areas of law and govt that are less sensitive.

but for people's religious beliefs, it goes against human nature and the Constitution
to try to impose one policy for the whole nation when half the population disagrees.

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay you wingnut tards, here's the situation:

The Constitution guarantees individual religious rights and liberties.

A business does not have the right to infringe upon those liberties.

Hope I didn't type that too fast for you oligarch-supporting sheep.

The business owners were asking to respect their religious freedom
NOT to be fined for NOT providing drugs, even indirectly, that violate their beliefs.

AND respect the religious freedom or "right to choose" of the employees
to purchase drugs without forcing the company to be involved.

The MANDATE was imposing on the company by threatening fines
based on regulations that impose religious conflicts.

Why are you blaming the company when the federal govt imposed this contradiction?

The employees are not being banned from buying or using the drugs of their choice.
Nor is the company suggesting this.

They are trying to REMOVE themselves from the conflict
by NOT having to be forced in the middle of the access to the drugs.

The business owners WANT the employees to have freedom to buy the drugs they want.
They are not trying to take this away, but get away from the govt mandates that are FORCING the access to go through their company instead of being the choice and responsibility of the employees, as it was before these 4 drugs were added requirements.

 

[Rozman]

I don't have time to make phone calls like this one...
I'm busy working....

But hey that's me!

 

[MarcATL]

Emily, your freedom ends where it infringes upon mine.

That's the crux of the matter.

That goes for individuals, businesses and the government itself.

Think about that for a moment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Okay you wingnut tards, here's the situation:

The Constitution guarantees individual religious rights and liberties.

A business does not have the right to infringe upon those liberties.



Hope I didn't type that too fast for you oligarch-supporting sheep.

Correct.

The provisions of the ACA in question in no way interfere with the religious liberties of the owners of Hobby Lobby – where none are personally compelled to do anything they perceive to be contrary to their faith.

Paying for employees’ health insurance premiums is a form of compensation, like a wage or salary, where employers are not at liberty to dictate to employees what they may or may not do with their compensation.

The primary focus and effect of the ACA is to ensure working Americans have access to affordable healthcare, having nothing to do with seeking to disadvantage religious expression (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)). The provisions of the ACA are consequently Constitutional, do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and are lawful as they comport with the ‘compelling governmental interest’ provision of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Given these facts of law, therefore, it is both reasonable and appropriate to come to the correct conclusion that opposition to these provisions of the ACA are solely partisan, having nothing to do with the merits of the provisions or facts of law, and everything to do with the current occupant of the White House.

 

[Grandma]

Okay you wingnut tards, here's the situation:

The Constitution guarantees individual religious rights and liberties.

A business does not have the right to infringe upon those liberties.

Hope I didn't type that too fast for you oligarch-supporting sheep.

The business owners were asking to respect their religious freedom
NOT to be fined for NOT providing drugs, even indirectly, that violate their beliefs.

AND respect the religious freedom or "right to choose" of the employees
to purchase drugs without forcing the company to be involved.

The MANDATE was imposing on the company by threatening fines
based on regulations that impose religious conflicts.

Why are you blaming the company when the federal govt imposed this contradiction?

The employees are not being banned from buying or using the drugs of their choice.
Nor is the company suggesting this.

They are trying to REMOVE themselves from the conflict
by NOT having to be forced in the middle of the access to the drugs.

The business owners WANT the employees to have freedom to buy the drugs they want.
They are not trying to take this away, but get away from the govt mandates that are FORCING the access to go through their company instead of being the choice and responsibility of the employees, as it was before these 4 drugs were added requirements.

The business owners were demanding that the government force the business's religious views on law-abiding citizens.

Unconstitutional.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey.............the people who own Hobby Lobby can practice their religion all they want, and have whatever beliefs suit them.

However................they DO NOT have the right to impose their religious views on their employees via the company.