SC Weighs Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate

...because, Obama!! That's why. Bigotry, discriminAtion, racism, sexism, intolerance, etc... all only bad if a Republican is doing it.
 
It is not about another person's faith. You are completely wrong about this.

It is about a soulless separate entities "faith". It is about a for profit corporation's faith. We (meaning the legal fiction) let the owners of Hobby Lobby exist separate and apart from themselves. This separate entity is claiming to have a "faith". It never goes to church. It cannot "believe" and it has no "faith". It is a legal fiction so that the owner can protect himself and his assets.

It is a joke to think a corporation has a faith and it is a joke to think that this pretend "faith" can be substantially burdened by a few dollars paid for other people's optional coverage for birth control.

This case is laughable. It just reflects how absurd conservatives have become where this is some big deal.
 
It simply shows that you have no tolerance or understanding about people who do not think or believe what you believe. Because someone protects themselves legally or goes public to raise cash does not automatically stop their beliefs and how they operate.
 
I am intolerant of claims that a secular for profit corporation has any "faith" at all.

The owner or owners might have a faith and can certainly exercise this in their own personal affairs.

They should not, however, attempt to compel their faith on anyone who works for a secular, non-profit business that shield them by law of responsibility for the actions of that entity. If it is to be a separate legal entity, then they must treat it that way. They do not get to impute their faith on it.

This is obscene and contrary to the very values upon which this country was founded.

The owner of a secular for profit company should not dictate what his employees believe or how they act in their private lives. It is up to the employee to decide whether to use birth control. This is, to me, what this case is really about.

It is not some high and mighty consideration of what values or faith the owner may or may not have. It is whether the owner can dictate through a separate legal entity what the employees do.
 
"This is obscene and contrary to the very values upon which this country was founded."

So exactly what are these very values that the country was founded on that is so contrary and obscene?

Hobby Lobby didn't have to offer health insurance, but they did. Then they were mandated to offer specific parts of health insurance by the government, parts that were offensive to their values and beliefs in the name of it being a "tax", which is/can be a burden. I'm sure the employees that want birth control can find it for free or a very low cost, but then they would argue a la Sandra Fluke that it is a burden upon them. Of course then the argument would be from the left and the circle would be complete.
 
What a complete waste of my time you clowns are.

Right wing circle jerk.

The separation of church and state found in the First Amendment is a two way street. It allows each of us to be from interference in our personal lives.

You guys want to live in Saudi Arabia.
 
?
'This is obscene and contrary to the very values upon which this country was founded. "

hard to tell if this was disingenuous or intentionally sarcastic
 
"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."

Wow, I just don't see that separation of church and state you speak of, and you call me names. Ignorance can be cured.
 
Paso is working the bigoted hate machine today. If you are not in agreement with the Michael Moore wing, do not reply.
 
I said values.

It is bigoted to think that a for profit private corporation should follow the law and allow its employees to determine what medical benefits they receive.

Wow.

Right wing echo chamber.
 
paso
'It is bigoted to think that a for profit private corporation should follow the law and allow its employees to determine what medical benefits they receive.

Wow. "

This is a serious question. did the employees of Hobby Lobby have some kind of vote that showed they wanted tor free those drugs the company has refused to give?

As for whether a private company should follow the law is laughable when you have the POTUS picking and choosing and ignoring laws almost daily. His ignoring of laws certainly has significantly larger consequences that this company's decisions.
 
Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

You obviously dislike religion to the point you believe nobody has any rights to their religion outside of their living room. Sad.
 
It is worse than that Vol, he begins to use letters to churches from Jefferson as Constitutional rights and fails to justify his opinions. Sad. Then when called out about it he takes the typical left wing tact and begins to call names. That's the only card the left has to play when they cannot win an argument based on facts.
 
And btw, notice how he consistently injects for-profit into his statements. I'm curious why non-profits should get a pass in this discussion?
 
What questions have any of you asked or answered?

This is a right wing echo chamber.

The case involves a private, for-profit corporation. You deal with the actual facts as you find them in a case. A private for-profit corporation cannot have an imputed "faith". There is nothing that complying with the same set of laws that allows for its separate legal existence that should bother this fictional "person".

You don't like it then don't incorporate.

You want the benefits from incorporating then comply with the law.

I can see a non-profit corporation actually having a reasonable argument that it has a "faith". I still think it is ludicrous that the provision of optional coverage of contraceptives is a substantial burden on that faith, but at least they have an argument to having a separate faith.
 
Hate has nothing to do with this. Yes, I'm sure there are God-haters who would oppose Hobby Lobby regardless of the merits, but there are very legitimate reasons to oppose them in this case.

For the record, I have no hatred at all for Hobby Lobby. I've posted this before, but I'll do it again for those who don't know. My mother worked at Hobby Lobby for several years in their Plano store - not a manager, just a floor worker. My dad came down with prostate cancer. His doctor recommended that he have proton therapy rather than the usual radiation treatment. Proton therapy is dramatically more expensive. Their health insurer refused to cover it. Somehow David Green found out about this and did something to enable my dad to get the care for free (which wouldn't have happened even if the carrier covered the treatment). We have no idea how Green found out about it, why he cared about the husband of a lowly floor worker he's never met, or what arrangement he made. (We do know that he did not go to the insurer but made the arrangement directly with the treatment center.) All we know is that after over $1M of care that didn't cost my family a penny, my dad is cancer free and living a good life because of David Green. Not only do I not hate David Green, I"ll love the man until the day I die for what he did. In addition, Green could have publicized this to make himself or his company look good. Instead, he did it quietly and sought no fanfare or recognition. He truly did what Jesus would have done and sought no glory for himself.

However, none of that changes how wrong he is on this issue. When Green decided to incorporate he set up an inanimate entity separate and apart from himself. It is also an entity that is a creation of the government and exists solely at the discretion of government. To suggest that this inanimate entity has religious rights or beliefs is absurd and not within the intent of the First Amendment and RFRA. Like I said when this issue was previously discussed, if Hobby Lobby was a sole proprietorship (and not a separate entity from Green), I would see the issue very differently.

Also, if corporations have religious rights, where do we draw the line? Should they have the right to vote? If not, why not?
 
Thanks for telling your Dad's story. It brought a big smile to my face.

Correct me with your legal opinion. Corporations exist as virtual or fictitious persons simply granting limited protection to the actual people involved in the business of the corporation. This limitation of liability is one of the many advantages to incorporation, and is a major draw for smaller businesses to incorporate; particularly those involved in highly litigated trade.

I just do not think an entity becomes "inanimate" just because they incorporate any more than Apple lost its innovative culture when it incorporated. Making a change from a sole proprietorship or a limited partnership to a corporation is mostly a liability move.

If someone does not believe in the cultural values of an organization (innovative - Apple, religious - Hobby Lobby, aggressive-GE profit driven -Exxon, liberal - Ben and Jerry's), do not invest and become an owner. Having your lawyers change your legal standing does not / should not eliminate your culture. Culture drives success.
 
If a company can pick and choose any law to obey based on their "religious values," we will have no regulations of any kind.
The owners of Hobby Lobby have the right to not use birth control all they want, but they don't have the right to force their values on their employees.
 
This view that because a company does not provide birth control it is somehow forcing their values is so stupid. If they want birth control, go buy it. The company is not preventing the use or telling them not to use it. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees employees get a health plan, much less specific therapeutic classes of drugs. They simply do not want to be forced to provide it.
 
You guys are so far in left field that you are out in the parking lot.

There is a federal law that requires large employers provide coverage for contraceptives (if they decide to provide healthcare). This is Constitutional.

I get that you want to recast the facts and the law to fit your versions of the facts, but this is not the case.

Can any of you do this?

Can any of you answer Deez's question about whether Hobby Lobby should be able to vote?
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top