If Hobby Lobby wins...

[Darkwind]

Yeah it's the "against her will" part that makes it illegal

The employers are not giving or being forced to give anyone a pill now are they?

In fact, they are being forced to pay someone else to give them that pill, aren't they?

What is wrong with an individual just going out and getting the extra coverage for things not covered by the employee?

And please, don't say a fucking word about why should they be inconvenienced by having to expend effort on their own behalf......

If the employee is contributing to the premium payments which I am sure they are then why can't you just say the employee's money not the employer's money is paying for the sinful coverage?

How do you ensure that no money from the employer and those employees who also pay but oppose contraception, is not used? In fact, why does an employee who has no right to the employer providing them healthcare insurance at all, get an overriding vote on what they can get as coverage? Particularly if the other employees agree with the employer?

A job and any offer of health insurance is not a democracy, up for popular vote. You do realize that, right?

 

[R.D.]

I've given you the perfect rationalization for that. Religious people rationalize all the time and cherry pick the sins they wish to take a stand on.

The employee premium contributions more than cover the "sinful" coverage so the employer is not funding them the employee is.

If an employer has no issue with paying a gay adulterer money that supports his life style why would that employer have a problem letting the employee's premium contribution pay for the sinful coverage?

Wage vs employer contribution insurance coverage. Apples and oranges

Not if part of the employee's wage is used to pay for the "sinful" part of the policy

You keep saying that. It just sounds silly.

 

[Redfish]

But they are not. Nor are they buying anything the insurance policy covers.

Employees also pay for part of their insurance so it can be argues that the employees are paying for the "sinful" coverage.

so if the employee is paying 30% of the cost, she only gets to abort 30% of her unborn child? are you really as stupid as your last few posts?

No all you have to do is see what part of the insurance that covers the sins costs and apply the total employee contribution to that part.

Then why not just let the employee pay for those items out of pocket? the end result would the exactly the same and both parties get what they want.

what you are suggesting is exactly what HL wants, if one of their employees wants a morning after pill she should go buy it on her own, not run it through their insurance.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No one can force beliefs on employees because no one is obligated to become the employee of someone else.

Heres the rub tho. What if more employers start imposing more "beliefs"? And a few turn to hundreds? The rule still applies that no one HAS to work there but many will have to work somewhere which means some will be exposed to it.

Does the worker lose their right to the CEO's belief?

Smoking and gluttony is against my religion.

I refuse to allow the health insurance carried my company to treat lung disease and diabetes.

Not at all far fetched. Hell, who would have thought any American would support what Hobby Lobby is doing?

Money talks and the gullible follow meekly behind their masters.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Tell me how paying a portion of insurance costs either A makes a law respecting the establishment of religion or B prohibits the free exercise of religion.

BTW it doesn't.

Example:

I'm an employer
Supporting abortion in any way is contrary to my religion.
The law forces me to pay my money which I labored for to pay for abortion contrary to my religious beliefs.
Being forced to pay for arbotion takes away my ability to freely oppose supporting abortion.

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE HERE.

I've given you the perfect rationalization for that. Religious people rationalize all the time and cherry pick the sins they wish to take a stand on.

The employee premium contributions more than cover the "sinful" coverage so the employer is not funding them the employee is.

If an employer has no issue with paying a gay adulterer money that supports his life style why would that employer have a problem letting the employee's premium contribution pay for the sinful coverage?

Thats the problem! Whats the next thing they decide is against their religion? What if anything can stop them from out right discriminating against people who are divorced? Adulterers? anything?

Its a slippery slope and if they are allowed to hide behind religion then its a license to do anything with the only requirement being that you believe it. Do you? Yes, yes I do....Great

 

[Redfish]

As I have said more than once now the employee contribution for insurance premiums most likely more than pays for the itemized insurance costs of the "sinful" coverage so again the argument falls apart.

Again, lying will not salvage your assault on civil liberty.

You have no legal authority to force a private company to pay for abortion. I don't care how much you love abortion, I don't care if you think Obama is god - you have no legal authority to force your beliefs on Hobby Lobby.

They are not paying for abortion. They are paying for insurance. The employee is also paying for that insurance.

Therefore the employee is funding the extremely small portion of the policy that provides coverage for abortion.

your straw man just burned down. it was too ridiculous to survive.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They are not paying for abortion.

They have refused, which has you totalitarians up in arms.

They are paying for insurance.

False, they are mandated to pay for maintenance plans. It has nothing to do with insurance.

Because it is a health maintenance plan, the payer has every right to decide what they will or will not have included.

The employee is also paying for that insurance.

Irrelevant.

Therefore the employee is funding the extremely small portion of the policy that provides coverage for abortion.

Your desperation has left your spewing absurdity.

You know you have no basis for your demands that HL be forced to provide abortions. Your war on civil liberty is failing.

 

[jknowgood]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?

Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?

Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

It would have never started if liberals didn't force people to buy health insurance. Your kind started this mess, now you can sit down and shut up. Liberals do nothing, but cause trouble.

 

[Darkwind]

so if the employee is paying 30% of the cost, she only gets to abort 30% of her unborn child? are you really as stupid as your last few posts?

No all you have to do is see what part of the insurance that covers the sins costs and apply the total employee contribution to that part.

Then why not just let the employee pay for those items out of pocket? the end result would the exactly the same and both parties get what they want.

what you are suggesting is exactly what HL wants, if one of their employees wants a morning after pill she should go buy it on her own, not run it through their insurance.

Thank you!

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah it's the "against her will" part that makes it illegal

The employers are not giving or being forced to give anyone a pill now are they?

In fact, they are being forced to pay someone else to give them that pill, aren't they?

What is wrong with an individual just going out and getting the extra coverage for things not covered by the employee?

And please, don't say a fucking word about why should they be inconvenienced by having to expend effort on their own behalf......

If the employee is contributing to the premium payments which I am sure they are then why can't you just say the employee's money not the employer's money is paying for the sinful coverage?

That would be a rational argument. I believe the issue would be the ability to separate the two. I believe the law as written, forces the abortion pills to be covered in the policy, not available for optional selection by the employee. If the choice is not optional then how would you show the pill is the part the employee is paying for and not the employer?

If you are party to an act you are an accomplice to it. The employer should not be forced by federal law to become an accomplice to that which they see as a sin in their religion. See first amendment. The only case where I know this is ignored is Christians being forced into military service, where other religions are allowed to opt out on religious beliefs.

 

[Darkwind]

Example:

I'm an employer
Supporting abortion in any way is contrary to my religion.
The law forces me to pay my money which I labored for to pay for abortion contrary to my religious beliefs.
Being forced to pay for arbotion takes away my ability to freely oppose supporting abortion.

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE HERE.

I've given you the perfect rationalization for that. Religious people rationalize all the time and cherry pick the sins they wish to take a stand on.

The employee premium contributions more than cover the "sinful" coverage so the employer is not funding them the employee is.

If an employer has no issue with paying a gay adulterer money that supports his life style why would that employer have a problem letting the employee's premium contribution pay for the sinful coverage?

Thats the problem! Whats the next thing they decide is against their religion? What if anything can stop them from out right discriminating against people who are divorced? Adulterers? anything?

Its a slippery slope and if they are allowed to hide behind religion then its a license to do anything with the only requirement being that you believe it. Do you? Yes, yes I do....Great

Wow, your desperation is beginning to unhinge you.

 

[Redfish]

In fact, they are being forced to pay someone else to give them that pill, aren't they?

What is wrong with an individual just going out and getting the extra coverage for things not covered by the employee?

And please, don't say a fucking word about why should they be inconvenienced by having to expend effort on their own behalf......

If the employee is contributing to the premium payments which I am sure they are then why can't you just say the employee's money not the employer's money is paying for the sinful coverage?

That would be a rational argument. I believe the issue would be the ability to separate the two. I believe the law as written, forces the abortion pills to be covered in the policy, not available for optional selection by the employee. If the choice is not optional then how would you show the pill is the part the employee is paying for and not the employer?

If you are party to an act you are an accomplice to it. The employer should not be forced by federal law to become an accomplice to that which they see as a sin in their religion. See first amendment. The only case where I know this is ignored is Christians being forced into military service, where other religions are allowed to opt out on religious beliefs.

he can't, its a ridiculous straw man. If the employee pays for those things out of pocket rather than via an increased premium it accomplishes the exact same end result. SCOTUS will rule for HL on this one.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No one can force beliefs on employees because no one is obligated to become the employee of someone else.

Heres the rub tho. What if more employers start imposing more "beliefs"? And a few turn to hundreds? The rule still applies that no one HAS to work there but many will have to work somewhere which means some will be exposed to it.

Does the worker lose their right to the CEO's belief?

Smoking and gluttony is against my religion.

I refuse to allow the health insurance carried my company to treat lung disease and diabetes.

Not at all far fetched. Hell, who would have thought any American would support what Hobby Lobby is doing?

Money talks and the gullible follow meekly behind their masters.

And the problem is the only basis to move forward is for someone to "believe" it and viola its true.

RW'er: Luddly do you really believe gluttony to be a sin
Luddly: Yes
RW'er: Sorry fat guys you're outta work

 

[RKMBrown]

Example:

I'm an employer
Supporting abortion in any way is contrary to my religion.
The law forces me to pay my money which I labored for to pay for abortion contrary to my religious beliefs.
Being forced to pay for arbotion takes away my ability to freely oppose supporting abortion.

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE HERE.

I've given you the perfect rationalization for that. Religious people rationalize all the time and cherry pick the sins they wish to take a stand on.

The employee premium contributions more than cover the "sinful" coverage so the employer is not funding them the employee is.

If an employer has no issue with paying a gay adulterer money that supports his life style why would that employer have a problem letting the employee's premium contribution pay for the sinful coverage?

Thats the problem! Whats the next thing they decide is against their religion? What if anything can stop them from out right discriminating against people who are divorced? Adulterers? anything?

Its a slippery slope and if they are allowed to hide behind religion then its a license to do anything with the only requirement being that you believe it. Do you? Yes, yes I do....Great

Now you want HL to pay for their employees to have sex with hookers? WOW

 

[koshergrl]

Hey I thought there was no slippery slope! That's what progressives tell us every time we remind them of the abortion/euthanasia policies they promoted in occupied Poland and the concentration camps during WWII.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then why not just let the employee pay for those items out of pocket? the end result would the exactly the same and both parties get what they want.

That would send the wrong message. Hobby Lobby must understand that they have rulers, that they must bow to those rulers.

Closed Caption demands obedience above all. HL is defiant, which leads to defiance in others. Left unchecked, then suddenly people refuse the rule of the GLORIOUS peoples democratic party.

what you are suggesting is exactly what HL wants, if one of their employees wants a morning after pill she should go buy it on her own, not run it through their insurance.

But that makes HL believe they are free, and the Obamunists will not allow such thought.

 

[buckeye45_73]

No it's about religion and arguments based on religious beliefs don't hold up.

Yeah cause murder isn't murder if the law approves of the act.

The law says abortion isn't murder just like the law says killing in self defense isn't murder.

The whole "sin" thing falls apart because even the most religious of you people can't tell me you live a life free from sin and you only want to cherry pick the sins you don't want to be party to.

actuall yes you can. Noone is sin free, true, but murder is illegal, adultry is not, so your argument is shit. And hobby lobby should be able to decide what it will pay for and what it wont. Government cant impose, private business is not helf to the constitution...its really not anymore difficult

 

[Ame®icano]

It isn't about sin.

It's about the Constitution

No it's about religion and arguments based on religious beliefs don't hold up.

Again...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Don't forget, you're reminding liberal voter about constitution. That doesn't mean anything to them.

 

[RKMBrown]

Heres the rub tho. What if more employers start imposing more "beliefs"? And a few turn to hundreds? The rule still applies that no one HAS to work there but many will have to work somewhere which means some will be exposed to it.

Does the worker lose their right to the CEO's belief?

Smoking and gluttony is against my religion.

I refuse to allow the health insurance carried my company to treat lung disease and diabetes.

Not at all far fetched. Hell, who would have thought any American would support what Hobby Lobby is doing?

Money talks and the gullible follow meekly behind their masters.

And the problem is the only basis to move forward is for someone to "believe" it and viola its true.

RW'er: Luddly do you really believe gluttony to be a sin
Luddly: Yes
RW'er: Sorry fat guys you're outta work

Now you want HL to force their employees to become obese?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?

Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?

Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

It would have never started if liberals didn't force people to buy health insurance. Your kind started this mess, now you can sit down and shut up. Liberals do nothing, but cause trouble.

It was the Heritage Foundation but thanks for the history lesson. Let me also add yesterday was Tuesday