If Hobby Lobby wins...

[Quantum Windbag]

Does this help clarify HL's stance??

Hobby Lobby pays their employees cash also, which can be used to buy any birth control including outright abortion.

Why don't they object to that?

Because it doesn’t have anything to do with the ACA.

This is solely about the right’s continued opposition to the ACA motivated by purely partisan reasons.

This has nothing to do with the ACA, Hobby Lobby is not trying to get out of providing health insurance. In fact, the government actually pointed out that, if they did drop health insurance coverage entirely, they would end up saving money over actually providing insurance but not covering the 4 out of 20 contraceptives they oppose.

Which raises an interesting question, why does the government want to force people into the exchanges?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For generation upon generation, discrimination was justified on biblical grounds --

Perhaps some reading would fill the bill ...

Title: Defence Of Southern Slavery. Against The Attacks of
Henry Clay And Alex'r. Campbell,
In Which Much Of The False Philanthropy And Mawkish Sentimentalism Of

The Abolitionists Is Met And Refuted. In Which

It Is Moreover Shown That The Association Of The White

And Black Races In The Relation Of Master And Slave

Is The Appointed Order Of God, As Set Forth In

The Bible, And Constitutes The Best Social

Condition Of Both Races, And The Only

True Principle Of Republicanism.

By A Southern Clergyman.

You know what a red herring is in debate circles, don't you??

Let's just for one second say I will humor your ill fated logic train, so with that being said, I would beg to ask the 64 million dollar question, Who is being discriminated against??

The employees.

In this case. However, if Corporations gain the right to discriminate on the basis of

'the corporation's religion'

-- it would have a similar effect of what (the ill-fated) SB1062 was meant to do, to ignore federal laws and allow discrimination based on religion against a wide swath of people.

Oh My God, we can't have people able to actually defend their religion in court, and possibly win, that would mean that you are wrong that religion is completely and totally irrelevant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You keep calling it discrimination, but to meet that criteria you would need an individual / group who was treated different than the status quot.

All are being treated the same, once again you can not back your fictitious claim up.

So HL isn't asking to treat their employees different than anyone else who has to comply with the law?

You should tell them, cause we got us a hella Court case that is wound around that concept...

There is a simple solution, drop the abortifacients from the required coverage list.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The employees.

In this case. However, if Corporations gain the right to discriminate on the basis of

'the corporation's religion'

-- it would have a similar effect of what (the ill-fated) SB1062 was meant to do, to ignore federal laws and allow discrimination based on religion against a wide swath of people.

there is no discrimination here, all employees are treated equally. HL's insurance covers all kinds of birth control. Their only objection is to abortion causing drugs after the birth control has either failed or not been used.

Its really a shame that not one of you lib/dems even understands what this suit is about.

The issue is not abortion. The federal government can't fund abortion. The federal government can already pay for IUD's.

That was funny.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The employees.

In this case. However, if Corporations gain the right to discriminate on the basis of

'the corporation's religion'

-- it would have a similar effect of what (the ill-fated) SB1062 was meant to do, to ignore federal laws and allow discrimination based on religion against a wide swath of people.

there is no discrimination here, all employees are treated equally. HL's insurance covers all kinds of birth control. Their only objection is to abortion causing drugs after the birth control has either failed or not been used.

Its really a shame that not one of you lib/dems even understands what this suit is about.

I'll repeat this as many times as it needs to get through.

Plan B, Ella or IUD's are NOT abortifacients.


Hobby Lobby also used to include Plan B & Ella, for years - in their health insurance coverage.

Up until they were obliged to treat their employees the same as all others in large corporations had to in their position.

And I will point out, again, that the FDA, which actually has scientists and doctors who study the issue, disagrees.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Bible dictates that a Christian who operates a business cannot compensate his employees with anything that could be used as payment for an IUD??

Cite that passage.

Perhaps some pro life reading would fill the bill :

Abortion - Pro Life - The Bible's Teaching Against Abortion

Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; not render unto Caesar what is Caesar's unless you don't like what Caesar might do with it...

Then levy a tax on everyone to pay for the contraceptives and stop forcing people who object to them to buy them directly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Logic would ensue that where an employee spends their own money the company has no problems with. It is about taking part of the companies profits and ear marking them for insurance which has the four mentioned articles.

All employers pay their employees in one form or another, besides for FICA and SS I know of no other mandatory deductions. When a company / the government gets to the point where they have the right to tell an individual how to spend an earned paycheck we will all be screaming bloody murder!!

I mean really can you get behind someone telling YOU where or how to spend your money??

The company does not have to buy any employee contraception. They only have to compensate the employee, for his work, in part, with an insurance policy.

That insurance policy CAN be used for contraception, just like the employee's paycheck CAN be used for contraception.

To object to one and not the other is absurd.

Of course they can't object to actually paying the employee, because that would be even more absurd. In short they've chosen the lesser of two absurdities.

True.

Paying the premiums for health insurance is nothing more than compensation, the same as a wage or salary.

And as with a wage or salary the employee is at liberty to use the compensation any way he wishes, free from interference by the employer, where the relationship exists between the employee and his healthcare provider alone. That the employee may or may not use the insurance to purchase contraceptive therapies is not the concern of the employer, and in no way interferes with the religious practice of the employer.

If you really believed that you would be on Hobby Lobby's side.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

There is a transitive property in math that says if A = B and B = C, then A = C. This property can loosely be observed in the real world. If A leads to B and B leads to C, then A leads to C. Some how you wingers cannot handle this simple idea. YOU lack the ability to see from A to C. All that you do see is A, and your vision ends there.
Avatar, you are a perfect example of this lack of vision. Your suggestion that if an employee doesn't like an employer trying to ram their religious beliefs down their throat they should quit is a perfect example of only seeing A. What if no other jobs are available, should they still quit and put themselves on the street or on welfare? What if others are dependent on the employee, should the employee quit knowing the hardship it will bring on others? It is all very well to stand in the pulpit and tell others that if they don't like something they should just quit but it just shows you have a poor grasp of the situation. The bottom line is this, no employer has a right to force their religious beliefs on their employees. Giving them that right then gives them the right to force any of their beliefs on their employees and that moves those people from being employees to being slaves forced to do the bidding of their masters. Giving employers the right to turn their employees into slaves based on the employer's beliefs is an example of going from A leading to C. You just see A.

If no other jobs were available I would ask myself why, and look around. I would then discover that (A) Obamacare leads to (B) higher expenses for employes leads to (C) no jobs and conclude that Obamacare is the reason I don't have a job.

 

[paperview]

there is no discrimination here, all employees are treated equally. HL's insurance covers all kinds of birth control. Their only objection is to abortion causing drugs after the birth control has either failed or not been used.

Its really a shame that not one of you lib/dems even understands what this suit is about.

I'll repeat this as many times as it needs to get through.

Plan B, Ella or IUD's are NOT abortifacients.


Hobby Lobby also used to include Plan B & Ella, for years - in their health insurance coverage.

Up until they were obliged to treat their employees the same as all others in large corporations had to in their position.

And I will point out, again, that the FDA, which actually has scientists and doctors who study the issue, disagrees.

As usual, troll, you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'll repeat this as many times as it needs to get through.

Plan B, Ella or IUD's are NOT abortifacients.


Hobby Lobby also used to include Plan B & Ella, for years - in their health insurance coverage.

Up until they were obliged to treat their employees the same as all others in large corporations had to in their position.

And I will point out, again, that the FDA, which actually has scientists and doctors who study the issue, disagrees.

As usual, troll, you are wrong.

Which explains why the PDF I linked to earlier doesn't say what it says.

 

[1776]

Asswipe....hating people based on the color of their skin and holding them as slaves, is not justified by the Bible.

Of course, a piece of shit like you is all about distraction.

20 years from now when morality is even worse, I guess you will force employers to pay for their workers to get laid by a prostitute.

For generation upon generation, discrimination was justified on biblical grounds --

Perhaps some reading would fill the bill ...

Title: Defence Of Southern Slavery. Against The Attacks of
Henry Clay And Alex'r. Campbell,
In Which Much Of The False Philanthropy And Mawkish Sentimentalism Of

The Abolitionists Is Met And Refuted. In Which

It Is Moreover Shown That The Association Of The White

And Black Races In The Relation Of Master And Slave

Is The Appointed Order Of God, As Set Forth In

The Bible, And Constitutes The Best Social

Condition Of Both Races, And The Only

True Principle Of Republicanism.

By A Southern Clergyman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Asswipe....hating people based on the color of their skin and holding them as slaves, is not justified by the Bible.

Of course, a piece of shit like you is all about distraction.

20 years from now when morality is even worse, I guess you will force employers to pay for their workers to get laid by a prostitute.

For generation upon generation, discrimination was justified on biblical grounds --

Perhaps some reading would fill the bill ...

Title: Defence Of Southern Slavery. Against The Attacks of
Henry Clay And Alex'r. Campbell,
In Which Much Of The False Philanthropy And Mawkish Sentimentalism Of

The Abolitionists Is Met And Refuted. In Which

It Is Moreover Shown That The Association Of The White

And Black Races In The Relation Of Master And Slave

Is The Appointed Order Of God, As Set Forth In

The Bible, And Constitutes The Best Social

Condition Of Both Races, And The Only

True Principle Of Republicanism.

By A Southern Clergyman.

Whol's to say what is or isn't justified by the Bible?

And, since when does a belief that a person considers to be part of his religion have to justified in a book?

And, lastly, what if Sharia Law IS justified by the Koran? Does that give it a 1st amendment trump card,

such as the one Christians are claiming?

 

[paperview]

Asswipe....hating people based on the color of their skin and holding them as slaves, is not justified by the Bible.

Of course, a piece of shit like you is all about distraction.

20 years from now when morality is even worse, I guess you will force employers to pay for their workers to get laid by a prostitute.

For generation upon generation, discrimination was justified on biblical grounds --

Perhaps some reading would fill the bill ...

Title: Defence Of Southern Slavery. Against The Attacks of
Henry Clay And Alex'r. Campbell,
In Which Much Of The False Philanthropy And Mawkish Sentimentalism Of

The Abolitionists Is Met And Refuted. In Which

It Is Moreover Shown That The Association Of The White

And Black Races In The Relation Of Master And Slave

Is The Appointed Order Of God, As Set Forth In

The Bible, And Constitutes The Best Social

Condition Of Both Races, And The Only

True Principle Of Republicanism.

By A Southern Clergyman.

So you're saying these people's 'sincerely held beliefs' (which carried through as far as race-mixing is concerned , as late as the Donny Osmond generation) ---were wrong?

You're judging their sincerity? Is that it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

there is no discrimination here, all employees are treated equally. HL's insurance covers all kinds of birth control. Their only objection is to abortion causing drugs after the birth control has either failed or not been used.

Its really a shame that not one of you lib/dems even understands what this suit is about.

I'll repeat this as many times as it needs to get through.

Plan B, Ella or IUD's are NOT abortifacients.


Hobby Lobby also used to include Plan B & Ella, for years - in their health insurance coverage.

Up until they were obliged to treat their employees the same as all others in large corporations had to in their position.

And I will point out, again, that the FDA, which actually has scientists and doctors who study the issue, disagrees.

And what does the law say? It's the legal definition of abortion as it applies to medications that is relevant here, isn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fornication is certainly a sin according to the Bible;

shouldn't a Christian employer have the right to refuse to hire 'fornicators'? Or fire them if their sins are discovered?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which is the entire problem, in a nutshell. The state has no business dictating how a company compensates employees.

Incorrect.

The Constitution authorizes government to indeed regulate pay and other forms of compensation:

The legislature was entitled to adopt measures to reduce the evils of the "sweating system," [p399] the exploiting of workers at wages so low as to be insufficient to meet the bare cost of living, thus making their very helplessness the occasion of a most injurious competition. The legislature had the right to consider that its minimum wage requirements would be an important aid in carrying out its policy of protection.

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish | LII / Legal Information Institute

Businesses are subject to all manner of regulatory measures determined both necessary and proper by the Constitution, where wages, working conditions, and policies safeguarding consumers are appropriately implanted as a consequence of the capricious and detrimental acts of businesses who exhibit contempt for employees and consumers alike.

Blah blah blah blah. The Little Sisters and Hobby Lobby will win. ObamaCare imposes demands on them that are clear violations of their First Amendment rights.

They will win, if the Court wrongly decides the case.

What's that thing Rand Paul once said...just because 5 judges said something was constitutional, doesn't mean that it is...

...we can use that argument, correct?

 

[NYcarbineer]

pull your pants up NY, your ignorance is showing. You don't even understand what this case is about, but you are pretty good at repeating the dem/lib lies and talking points.

Do you deny that Hobby Lobby is already paying for the birth control coverage they object to,

via their taxes that go into the subsidies that apply to the insurance policies in the exchanges?

Do you deny that you can think?

Prove I'm wrong.

 

[paperview]

My point was -- people have used the bible to justify discrimination for a very, very long time. Some refuse to accept that was the case,and I really don't understand why.

 

[paperview]

People here know how much I love history.

The recent exchange reminded me of the words of a Methodist preacher named Peter Cartwright.

He was born in 1785, and raised in Kentucky. He wrote an autobiography in 1856 - Full title: Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, the backwoods preacher: The birth, fortunes, general experiences of the oldest American Methodist travelling preacher -- His commentary goes a great deal to what he saw happening in the South and compared what it was like in 1816 up to 1856, and I think shines a light on how it that transformation took place (and also what he saw plainly on the horizon):

“….it is a notorious fact, that all the preachers from the slaveholding states denounced slavery as a moral evil….I do not recollect a single Methodist preacher, at that day, that justified slavery. But O, how have times changed!

Methodist preachers in those days made it a matter of conscience not to hold their fellow-creatures in bondage, if it was practicable to emancipate them, conformably to the laws of the state in which they lived.

Methodism increased and spread; and many Methodist preachers, taken from comparative poverty, not able to own a negro, and who preached loudly against it, improved, and became popular among slaveholders; and many of them married into those slaveholding families, and became personally interested in slave property, (as it is called.)

Then they began to apologize for the evil; then to justify it, on legal principles; then on Bible principles; till lo and behold! it is not an evil, but a good! it is not a curse, but a blessing!

till really you would think, to hear them tell the story, if you had the means, and did not buy a good lot of them, you would go to the devil for not enjoying the labor, toil, and sweat of this degraded race, and all this without rendering them any equivalent whatever!

….If agitation must succeed agitation, strife succeed strife, compromise succeed compromise, it will end in a dissolution of this blessed Union, civil war will follow, and rivers of human blood stain the soil of our happy country.


The backwoods preacher, an autobiography - Peter Cartwright - Google Books

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which is the entire problem, in a nutshell. The state has no business dictating how a company compensates employees.

Incorrect.

..[bloviating redacted]

Pompous.

It's an opinion, jackass.

It's an opinion like believing the Earth is only 6000 years old is an opinion.