If Hobby Lobby wins...

[Cecilie1200]

Again that is not true. Anyone who reads anything about it can tell you its not about Abortificants[sic] its[sic] about what they BELIEVE abortificants[sic] to be DISPITE[sic] scientific evidence that they are wrong.

The usual hysterical, misspelled claims... and the usual complete lack of any evidence or backup.

The leftist fanatics are trying, as usual, to change the definition of "abortion", just as they have tried and failed to change the definition of "marriage", and even tried and failed to change the definition of "is".

But the Plan B pill can, in fact, produce abortions by the widely-accepted definition. And all the leftsts' screaming "BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY AN ABORTION!!!" won't change that fact.

These leftist fanatics are SO futile in their nutty viewpoints.....

Right. So I'll post this again and maybe you'll scream "no facts"

Based on the belief that a fertilized egg is a person, some religious groups and conservative politicians say disrupting a fertilized egg’s ability to attach to the uterus is abortion, “the moral equivalent of homicide,” as Dr. Donna Harrison, who directs research for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it. Mitt Romney recently called emergency contraceptives “abortive pills.” And two former Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have made similar statements.

But an examination by The New York Times has found that the federally approved labels and medical Web sites do not reflect what the science shows. Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/h...ion-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Oh, and NOW we have an examination by the Times. Well, fuck all those doctors out there. The NY Times examined it, so THAT'S "real science".

Two words for you: hari kiri. Look into it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again that is not true. Anyone who reads anything about it can tell you its not about Abortificants its about what they BELIEVE abortificants to be DISPITE scientific evidence that they are wrong.

Therefore with Hobby Lobby they can simply label something anything they want no matter if its true or not then oppose that thing on religious grounds even if its NOT TRUE

No one cares what your definition of Plan B is - the FACT remains that Hobby Lobby pays for contraception, they simply will not pay for Plan B, because they view it as an abortificant.

You lack to the power to crush their civil rights and force them to knuckle under to your beliefs.

Better luck next time.

Again because someone believes a turd is a snickers dont make it a snickers

Sort of like the way you believe it's your business what Hobby Lobby chooses to pay for is your business, when in fact it's not.

Or possibly the way you believe that Snopes and the NY Times are real sources on medical issues, but they're actually almost as big a joke as you are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's only a matter of time before the government mandates dietary requirements.

The whole argument is stupid since most so called religious people use birth control, have sex outside of marriage and in general piss all over the ten commandments on a daily basis.

That's exactly why the mandate is dangerous. In our 237 year history, we were never forced to buy a product or pay a penalty for not buying a product under the us constitution....until obamacare.

I agree with you.

No one should be mandated to buy insurance.

That does not mean I have to agree that the religious excuse is valid.

How about you just agree that people have a right to not want to do things for their own reasons, even if you don't like them? Can you agree with that, or are you too kneejerk compelled to go, "Aahhh, religion! Whatever it is, it MUST be wrong, because it involves religion!"

I mean, honestly. What fucking difference does it make what "most" religious people do or don't do? Since when are a person's individual beliefs and positions mandated by what other people in some arbitrarily-defined group do or don't do? Am I allowed to tell you that you're a hypocrite because "most" Spiderman fans don't agree with you on something?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Only if you know he is going to use the gun to kill someone.

The employer is not privy to anything in the medical records of their employees.

This lawsuit is about an abortion pill. Doesn't matter what's in a patient's records.

How does the employer know anyone will use an abortion pill?

And if they do the employer still is not committing a sin.

I don't know where it is written that one must prevent others from sinning.

Who said the employer gives a shit who uses abortion pills? They just don't want to pay for them themselves, which WOULD be a sin in their eyes.

By the way, who ever asked YOU to decide what is and isn't a sin for other people? I don't know where it is written that it's any of your business to vote on.

 

[bayoubill]

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?

I think Johnny Paycheck said it best...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPrSVkTRb24"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPrSVkTRb24[/ame]

 

[Cecilie1200]

How does the employer know anyone will use an abortion pill?

And if they do the employer still is not committing a sin.

I don't know where it is written that one must prevent others from sinning.

So what if no one does? No harm in not paying for it.

But it doesn't cost any more. The minimum new coverages include it.

So they aren't paying more for it.

The whole excuse that it would be a sin for them to provide insurance because of this one pill is ridiculous.

If that's a sin then isn't it a sin to hire adulterers?

So that's how we're defining "moral behavior" now? By whether or not it costs any more or less financially?

Miss the point much?

Who asked you whether or not you thought someone else's personal beliefs were "ridiculous"? More to the point, who ever said that people forfeit their right to have their beliefs protected by law simply because you, in your infinite wisdom, have declared those beliefs ridiculous?

You really need to get over this queer belief you have that you are compelled to vote on other people's personal beliefs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Who said they can't purchase whatever form of medicine/medical care they can get a doc to prescribe?

Or work for a group that will provide it to them?

That's right. Nobody. They're perfectly welcome to buy their own...or work for some dope who will buy it for them.

+1 for originality

The truth doesn't have to be "original", fucknut. It just has to be true.

If you refuse to understand something the first ten times it's told to you, the eleventh repeat is entirely your own damned fault.

 

[auditor0007]

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?

You're a fucking lying douchebag moron of a scumbag.

The employer isn't trying to control ANYTHING the employee does or doesn't do.

All the employer is saying is that he doesn't want to pay for an abortifacient.

Nothing against Birth Control, he doesn't want to be forced to pay for abortifacients.

You're a lying scumbag

The funniest thing about all of this is that it is just going to help push us toward a one payer system much sooner rather than later. What I really do not understand is why employers didn't push frantically, when the ACA was being put together, to move to get themselves out of the business of providing health insurance.

I would love to see a system where everyone was responsible for purchasing their own health insurance and employers had nothing to do with it. Employers could all be charged a payroll tax that would go toward the premiums of their employees, but people would purchase their own plans.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They are not party to it.

That's the point.

Are they party to the sins adulterers if they allow adulterers to work for them?

Are they party to homosexual sins if a gay couple comes in to buy stuff for their home?

What if a gay adulterer comes in to buy a gift for his or her bisexual lover who is also cheating on his or her spouse who happens to be an employee?

That must be especially sinful

They would be party to the sins if they bought the hotel room for the affair.

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.

Let me see if I understand your reasoning. YOU, personally, do not consider it "being party to the sins" to contribute money to something another person considers sinful, ergo YOUR opinion on the subject is objectively valid, and theirs becomes irrelevant, even though it's THEIR action being discussed, not yours.

And people who are paying money toward an insurance policy are not buying the things that the insurance policy covers.

And because YOU have come up with this novel (read: insane) notion that "The employees pay too, so THEY'RE covering the sinful parts!" the rest of us are supposed to treat that as though that's a rational, serious, intelligent remark to be pondered and discussed, rather than the insane dribblings of a mental patient who should have his dosage increased.

Is that about the size of this utter, reeking piece of shit you're passing off as a post?

Normally, I kinda like you, but now that you've been unmasked as a religiophobic halfwit, that's a thing of the past. I have no tolerance for bigots.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They would be party to the sins if they bought the hotel room for the affair.

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?

You do realize that these are the same people who think the accounting fiction of "The federal government gives money to Planned Parenthood, but they don't use that money for abortions. They just use OTHER money for abortions that's been freed up by the advent of federal money!" is a legitimate argument, right? As long as you shift it from one column in the ledger to another, it's perfectly okay.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I thought your last post was the stupidest fucking thing I'd seen all night. Then I saw THIS post, and the entire standard of measurement was reset.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Actually, the "sin thing" doesn't fall apart, because contrary to your obvious beliefs, "sin" is not defined as "the things that Spiderman has decided are allowed to be viewed that way", nor is it defined as "those things disapproved of by people who are absolutely perfect". I don't have to be a perfect Christian to retain my right to live my life according to my own personal beliefs and choices based on those beliefs. I don't have to prove to you or anyone else that I have always perfectly adhered to those beliefs. I don't actually have to prove one damned thing to you or anyone else in order to retain the right to exercise my Constitutional rights.

Read the First Amendment again, Bubba. See that phrase, "free exercise thereof"? Saying, "That is wrong and immoral and I will not be party to it" is exercising one's beliefs. For you to say, "I've decided your belief is stupid, and this ISN'T wrong and immoral, so cough up the fucking money and shut up" is prohibiting my free exercise of my beliefs.

Now, have I clarified this enough to get through that thick, miasmic haze of religious bigotry and hatred fogging your mind, or do I need to break out the Crayolas and draw you a fucking picture?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Actually better questions are?

WHY should the US government compel a private company to do anything?

If you don't like your employer's policy why the fuck don't you resign?

.

You mean like dumping garbage in the river? Throwing used medical supplies into the nearest playground?

Yeah, why should govt do anything? *fog horn*

So you see a comparison between, "Stop performing these actions" and "You must perform this action"?

Do you realize that you are actually getting more ignorant with every post, and at some point in the next two pages, your IQ is actually going to be measured in negative integers?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You kidding?

Really? You make the argument for their case and ask why they have a case.

I am trying to explain to you people why the religious argument is not a good one.

And failing miserably.

Perhaps if your brain hadn't been short-circuited by Neanderthal levels of bigotry, it might produce an argument that doesn't make people wonder if you picked your nose too deeply and stabbed your brain.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Perhaps because everyone else here has more knowledge and experience of bookkeeping than the average 5-year-old. Maybe you should try it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I always love it when some dipshit liberal does one of these "Aha! I'm SURE you think people should be forced to do THIS, though, so I win!" arguments.

See, the thing is, just because YOU are a hypocrite doesn't mean everyone else is. And just because YOU are completely comfortable with the notion of all sorts of things being forced and coerced doesn't mean everyone else is.

You know what I'd do if I had an employer whose health insurance didn't cover diabetic treatments (always assuming that leftists in this country ever allowed such freedom of choice in the health insurance field in the first place)? I'd go buy a better policy of my own and ignore theirs (because if leftists would allow such freedom in the world, I would actually be able to shop for my own health insurance instead of having to accept whatever cheap crap-ass policy my employer had chosen).

Thanks for demonstrating what a fucked-up mess your worldview has made.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I like how pro choice women want us to stay out of their right to chose but they also want us to pay for it .. Cant have it both ways..

I say to leftist women, "I'll keep my laws off your skanky body when you get your skanky body out of my wallet."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Your incredible stupidity does not limit my ability to actually think.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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?

You're a fucking lying douchebag moron of a scumbag.

The employer isn't trying to control ANYTHING the employee does or doesn't do.

All the employer is saying is that he doesn't want to pay for an abortifacient.

Nothing against Birth Control, he doesn't want to be forced to pay for abortifacients.

You're a lying scumbag

The funniest thing about all of this is that it is just going to help push us toward a one payer system much sooner rather than later. What I really do not understand is why employers didn't push frantically, when the ACA was being put together, to move to get themselves out of the business of providing health insurance.

I would love to see a system where everyone was responsible for purchasing their own health insurance and employers had nothing to do with it. Employers could all be charged a payroll tax that would go toward the premiums of their employees, but people would purchase their own plans.

The ACA was designed to fail, every conservative predicted it would, so libtards could push single payer on us.

Yes removing it from the job, and letting people shop for it like any other service would have been best, but it was the DEMOCRATS that voted for the abortion........

 

[buckeye45_73]

The issue isn't a company forcing a belief on an employee, the issue is a government forcing a belief on a company.

Does the government have a right to make you buy something that you violates your religious principles?

does the government have the right to make you buy anything....?

You really believe that every government regulation that might require a business to buy something is unconstitutional?

Yes, what planet are you from? Why does the government have any power to make anyone buy anything, it's none of their fucking business.

I love pro choicers like you, except you're only for choice when homos and abortions are concerned, other than that, you want to dictate what people are supposed to do.