back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Jul 3, 2014 0:11:42 GMT
you make a very good point, Rebel, which is why I mentioned the 5-4 numbers at the beginning of this thread. Obamacare was also 5-4
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 3, 2014 0:17:09 GMT
As are non-religious people. Non-religious people are not required to honor the tenets of the majority religion in this country. They get to decide on their own beliefs. We don't burn heretics anymore. You are right, you don't have to honor the tenets of any religion, and by the same token religious people are free to honor the tenets of their religion. Win-win.Yes, and that is why we have freedom FROM religion in this country as well as freedom OF religion. and a minor point, I didn't say that *I* am non-religious. You apparently made that inference, but I was talking about non-religious people as a group. Not about myself.
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jul 3, 2014 0:21:15 GMT
you make a very good point, Rebel, which is why I mentioned the 5-4 numbers at the beginning of this thread. Obamacare was also 5-4 It was, and I would maintain that was mostly an ideological ruling as well - I say mostly because they classified it as a tax, which many would say was a legal loophole. I'm certain if the makeup of the bench were different, we'd have seen a different ruling. I think, historically, there are some very clear cut decisions the SC has been called to rule on, but the majority of what they do, as megop noted, is interpretation, which in many cases is going to be driven by political ideology.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Jul 3, 2014 0:25:30 GMT
Sorry Lucy. I went to the Freedom from Religion website and read up. It's an activist organization just like any other non-profit. Doesn't mean they are correct, right and just in my opinion. I know you believe in it and rock on. But again, the process.
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jul 3, 2014 0:26:02 GMT
Oh, RS, I'm sorry about the title; it wasn't my title; just a copied one. Since you refuse to even open the linky because of the "childish" title, here's the first one from George himself:
“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
|
|
|
Post by megop on Jul 3, 2014 0:29:18 GMT
going to be driven by political ideology.
-----------
Government is politics. It's policy formation. Hence the three equal checks and balances. If all three sway too far one way or the other, that's when we are in trouble. Why there are more house members with shorter terms, less senators with longer terms and SCOTUS with tenure. To change that balance (and not referring to terms) I think would be pretty devasting and chaotic.
ETA: sorry for typos and I'm not referring to political party makeup either.
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Jul 3, 2014 0:35:24 GMT
It was, and I would maintain that was mostly an ideological ruling as well - I say mostly because they classified it as a tax, which many would say was a legal loophole. I'm certain if the makeup of the bench were different, we'd have seen a different ruling. I think, historically, there are some very clear cut decisions the SC has been called to rule on, but the majority of what they do, as megop noted, is interpretation, which in many cases is going to be driven by political ideology. I agree with you assessment on political ideology Rebelyelle. That is why every President wants to make an appointment to the SCOTUS bench with a justice that lines up with political ideology. Sometimes it backfires. Bush's nomination of Chief Justice Robert's for example. it was refreshing however that the justices were unanimous of their decision on rebuking the a president (and all future Presidents) on executive power on the NLRB "recess" appointments. When a President says he will use his pen and phone and cut the legislative branch out of the process, the justices are correct in their ruling to uphold the separation of powers....but I digress.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Jul 3, 2014 0:38:37 GMT
it was refreshing however that the justices were unanimous of their decision on rebuking the a president (and all future Presidents) on executive power on the NLRB "recess" appointments. When a President says he will use his pen and phone and cut the legislative branch out of the process, the justices are correct in their ruling to uphold the separation of powers
-----------
Exactly. Cutting one branch out of the delicate balance of power in order to push a policy agenda, would have far, far more long term upset and be our true demise as a country in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Jul 3, 2014 0:40:37 GMT
Interesting Kelpea...what does liberty of conscience mean to you? Could you entertain, that another, would have a different sense of what is social conscience?
And further, how is it spiritual tyranny, for a private held company, when people have freedom of employment pursuit and choice, not to mention, offering of government health care exchange availability?
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 3, 2014 1:05:13 GMT
You are right, you don't have to honor the tenets of any religion, and by the same token religious people are free to honor the tenets of their religion. Win-win. Yes, and that is why we have freedom FROM religion in this country as well as freedom OF religion. and a minor point, I didn't say that *I* am non-religious. You apparently made that inference, but I was talking about non-religious people as a group. Not about myself. You don't have to have a religion, but you do have to let others live by their beliefs even if it affects what you want. It is their right to do so. What is that song?
|
|
|
Post by megop on Jul 3, 2014 1:15:30 GMT
You don't have to have a religion, but you do have to let others live by their beliefs even if it affects what you want. It is their right to do so. What is that song?
------------
And that goes both ways....
|
|
|
Post by angel97701 on Jul 3, 2014 5:21:59 GMT
I've read parts of this thread over the last few days. Many facts have been twisted Check these out if you want to hear it from the CEO of Hobby Lobby, Steve Green. Steve Green VideoThen go follow the links and read the facts before you scaremonger on Hobby Lobby: Sandra Fluke's claimThis is interesting, the protestors outside of the Supreme Court don't even know what they are protesting . . . just getting on the band wagon Critics in the know?
Megyn Kelly blasts Fluke's claims here
Be educated about what the case was truly about.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:57:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 5:31:02 GMT
That's just it, they aren't prohibiting any birth control. You can have any one you want, they are just not going to pay for 4 of them.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 3, 2014 12:15:46 GMT
Oh, RS, I'm sorry about the title; it wasn't my title; just a copied one. Since you refuse to even open the linky because of the "childish" title, here's the first one from George himself: “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” ~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789 You are being ridiculous. Horrors of spiritual tyranny? There is none. Persecution? Because people have to pay for their own abortions? Really? This crap gets more ridiculous by the day.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 3, 2014 12:20:20 GMT
You don't have to have a religion, but you do have to let others live by their beliefs even if it affects what you want. It is their right to do so. What is that song? ------------ And that goes both ways.... Of course it does. Nobody always gets what they want. This case is not stopping anyone from getting what they want. They may have to pay for it themselves, but that is to be expected. I wouldn't expect anyone to fund something for me if it were against their beliefs. And I wouldn't try to force them to do so.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 3, 2014 14:50:55 GMT
This is a quote, taken from the SCOTUS decision:
It notes that the owners of the "closely held for-profit corporations have sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception" and that they object to the part of the ACA under which employers are "required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus."
I have said many times in this thread that this is not about who pays for the BC, or whether HL employees still get 16 of the required drugs. I am concerned with the first sentence of the above quote...previously the court has ruled that corporations may not opt out of laws by using religion as an excuse. That changed with this ruling and opens the door for slew of objections, based on religion. They changed from 'corporations' to 'closely held corporations' thus changing the rules for every corporation that is 'closely held' and wants to object to something on religious grounds.
What should be even scarier to every woman, liberal, pro-choice person, is this "It notes that the owners of the closely held for-profit corporations have sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception"
By siding with HL, the court seems to have opened to door to the Christian belief that life begins at conception....
I couldn't care less who pays, or doesn't pay for birth control...I care about a woman's right to choose, and I think with this ruling, we might be headed down the road to the destruction of legal abortions....and that's truly scary to me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:57:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 15:11:17 GMT
You can thank the Obama administration for that, I-95.
They tried to force companies across the nation to pay for drugs that go against the owners' conscience. The owners had no choice but to go to court.
Hobby Lobby pays their employees significantly above minimum wage, with some some employees getting as high as 93% over the average retail worker.
Up until the Obamacare regulation, they had the right to choose what they covered, and from what I've read, most of their employees are happy working there.
So because of their ridiculous regulation (which isn't even part of the original law) the "Pandora's box" has now been opened.
I would potentially lose my business if I had to provide those drugs on my policy as a business owner, because there's no way in h*ll I'd provide them.
|
|
|
Post by slkone on Jul 3, 2014 16:08:23 GMT
What should be even scarier to every woman, liberal, pro-choice person, is this "It notes that the owners of the closely held for-profit corporations have sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception" By siding with HL, the court seems to have opened to door to the Christian belief that life begins at conception.... I couldn't care less who pays, or doesn't pay for birth control...I care about a woman's right to choose, and I think with this ruling, we might be headed down the road to the destruction of legal abortions....and that's truly scary to me. Yes! And closely held corporations are not a minority. As many as 90% of companies (maybe more) in America are closely held. "...Closely held corporations employ 52% of the American workforce." Very scary indeed!
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 4, 2014 0:03:18 GMT
You can thank the Obama administration for that, I-95. They tried to force companies across the nation to pay for drugs that go against the owners' conscience. The owners had no choice but to go to court. Hobby Lobby pays their employees significantly above minimum wage, with some some employees getting as high as 93% over the average retail worker. Up until the Obamacare regulation, they had the right to choose what they covered, and from what I've read, most of their employees are happy working there. So because of their ridiculous regulation (which isn't even part of the original law) the "Pandora's box" has now been opened. I would potentially lose my business if I had to provide those drugs on my policy as a business owner, because there's no way in h*ll I'd provide them. Jodster, two things: the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists ... the experts on reproduction ... say these birth control agents are NOT abortifacients. If the Greens' belief is not factually true, they lose a lot of credibility in my eyes. Also, until Obamacare and the lawsuit came along, apparently the Hobby Lobby benefits DID cover these birth control methods. I think the link is somewhere on these 17 pages. More lost credibility. I'm not even going to touch the investment business. I'm not really interested in reading pages of explanations about how it's out of their hands. Suffice to say, if they cared enough to take the birth control issue to the Supreme Court, then they should have cared enough to find another way for the retirement accounts. Clearly, they did not ... until it became public knowledge.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:57:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 0:34:14 GMT
Lucy...
I understand what you're saying. But what about Conestoga Industries and all of the other religious businesses that are affected by this mandate? It's not like Hobby Lobby is the only business affected. It's just the one at the center of all the controversy.
As far as the investments, that's a completely different issue that doesn't affect the issue at hand. It may affect your opinion of HL, but that doesn't affect the mandate, which is what I am concerned with.
There is no way that any company owned by me would supply the "morning after" pill. No way. It's against my beliefs, and honestly, it wouldn't matter if I became an Atheist tomorrow. I'm pro-life, period. So I resent the heck out of this mandate. It interferes with the ability of anyone, not just Hobby Lobby, to be able to offer insurance for employees that doesn't violate their conscience if they believe like I do.
Of course, I'm also a conservative and think that if you're sexually active, that it's YOUR responsibility, not your employer's or anyone else's, to pay for your contraceptives, whatever they may be.
I'm glad that contraceptives are covered for women that can't afford them otherwise. But it is NOT the employer's responsibility to supply each and every kind of contraception out there, especially if, for whatever reason, it violates the conscience of those who own the company and are paying for the insurance.
And as the Court noted, if the Obama administration is so concerned about these women's access to those four drugs, then they can construct a manner that the government can provide them for the women affected by the ruling.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 4, 2014 0:40:54 GMT
And I think they will (the government, I mean). Should be interesting, because I'm sure the Republicans will fight whatever steps the administration takes to work around the issue. I don't entirely disagree with you ... I have never been completely comfortable with the contraceptive mandate. But I like it a lot better than some of the other options out there. And I do object to Hobby Lobby suddenly being squeamish about providing birth control it used to be okay with, before Obama got involved.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:57:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 1:09:21 GMT
I understand Lucy. To be honest, I haven't read about all of that, because that's not the issue that I'm concerned with. Hobby Lobby is just a figurehead at the middle of the debate as far as I'm concerned. It's the freedom for thousands of likeminded businesses to be able to continue to run their businesses without massive fines involved that I'm concerned about.
I know it's silly, because I don't have any desire to open a business...but to know that if I did, I would be limited in how I could operate my business by such a mandate is very upsetting.
BTW, I appreciate your squeamishness about the contraceptive mandate, I truly do.
|
|
|
Post by greenlegume on Jul 4, 2014 1:19:36 GMT
Jodster, can I ask how you feel about anyone's insurance plan paying for drugs like Viagra?
|
|
jeanninem
Junior Member
Posts: 97
Jun 27, 2014 0:33:42 GMT
|
Post by jeanninem on Jul 4, 2014 1:20:44 GMT
Great quote from John Oliver's show that sums it up for me:
John Oliver: “Government is not an a la carte system where you can pick and choose based on your beliefs. Taxation is more of an all-you-can-eat salad bar. You don’t get to show up and go, ‘look, I know it costs $10.99, but I’m only paying $7.50 because I have a moral objection to beets. Because of course you do, they’re an abomination of a root vegetable…. Everyone has their own version of beets.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:57:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 1:31:26 GMT
Jodster, can I ask how you feel about anyone's insurance plan paying for drugs like Viagra? If the owners choose a plan that pays for it, then that is their choice. Viagra treats a medical condition. Birth control does not, for the majority of women. Regardless, HL pays for 16 types. If the women who work their can't find something they can use from that list, and they prefer to have unprotected sex and then use the morning after pill, that is their choice and they can fork over the cash themselves. Not rocket science. They don't want their bosses in their bedrooms, they can respect their bosses beliefs. We have seriously warped the definition of a "right". Health care is not a right in the sense of the current use of that word. You have a right to seek health care but you have no right to expect others to pay even one dime for it. Nor do you have the right to expect someone else to provide their services to you for free. You are crushing their rights in order to satisfy your wants...and that is tyranny.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:57:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 1:51:59 GMT
Green Legume: Respectfully, Viagra doesn't end human life, so it's outside the scope of what I care about. Although I don't see any viable reason for it to be covered on insurance unless it's used for other than sexual purposes.
Jeannine: Respectfully, again. Number one: The issue is an employer in their own business making a decision about what they're going to cover on insurance, not taxation. These people have put their blood, sweat, and tears into these businesses, and they shouldn't be destroyed by a stupid regulation from HHS. (It's not even a law approved by Congress!) Number two: To me the issue is human life, unborn human life, but human life all the same, since I believe life begins at conception. And I am not going to pay for anyone else to end it. Period. And I don't think anyone else should be forced to either. So it may just be beets to you, but it's human life to me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:57:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 1:53:22 GMT
You are crushing their rights in order to satisfy your wants...and that is tyranny. Lynlam... that is siggy worthy! So true!
|
|
|
Post by greenlegume on Jul 4, 2014 1:57:48 GMT
Thanks for answering, Jodster. I'm not sure why that quote looks like I said that. I didn't.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 4, 2014 2:58:45 GMT
Jodster, can I ask how you feel about anyone's insurance plan paying for drugs like Viagra? I'm not Jodster, but there has always been a difference with insurance when it came to paying for medical treatment to fix a problem, and medical treatment that was elective. That's why most insurances won't pay for liposuction, etc. Many will only pay for the weight loss surgeries if there is an accompanying medical problem that needs to be treated. Whether we like it or not, or think that it's fair, the average man is supposed to be able to have an erection. So Viagra type drugs are used to fix something that is not working correctly. When you're talking about BC only for the purpose of BC, you are not talking about fixing a problem....women are supposed to ovulate. (I do realize the BC *is* sometimes used to treat a problem...heavy bleeding, etc...which is why, some years back, when it was not commonly covered in every instance, it would be covered under those circumstances.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 21:57:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 3:24:10 GMT
Thanks for answering, Jodster. I'm not sure why that quote looks like I said that. I didn't. Sorry, greenlegume. I was trying to delete everything except lynlam's quote, and I missed your name. Sorry to confuse you!
|
|