|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 30, 2014 11:05:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 30, 2014 11:17:13 GMT -8
Not suprised. I have to wonder if there is going to be a surge in Chritian Scientist business owners. I foresee many law suits down the road.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jun 30, 2014 12:09:05 GMT -8
MUCH easier to not shop at whatever a "Hobby Lobby" is than to stop eating Chick Fil A... So that's good. Honestly didn't even know what a Hobby Lobby was until after the owners outed themselves as batsh1t loons.
The positive here is that women's rights now become a campaign issue, and we all know who wins that battle.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 30, 2014 12:54:06 GMT -8
The cons on the court have opened a huge can of worms.
The owners / managers of business will now feel free to attempt to force their religious views onto their employees.
What if a woman who is not married becomes pregnant? Will Hobby Lobby refuse to pay for her medical care because she has 'lived in sin'?
We will see hundreds of lawsuits.
Horrible ruling.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 30, 2014 15:25:14 GMT -8
The cons on the court have opened a huge can of worms. The owners / managers of business will now feel free to attempt to force their religious views onto their employees. What if a woman who is not married becomes pregnant? Will Hobby Lobby refuse to pay for her medical care because she has 'lived in sin'? We will see hundreds of lawsuits. Horrible ruling. That is quite a stretch. One is the government forcing them to directly fund something they think is murder. The other is not providing something (they have already paid for unless they are self insured) that they think is a good idea because it results from something that they think is not appropreiate. Two hugely different things.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jun 30, 2014 15:36:45 GMT -8
Two hugely different things. Not really.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 30, 2014 15:41:32 GMT -8
MUCH easier to not shop at whatever a "Hobby Lobby" is than to stop eating Chick Fil A... So that's good. Honestly didn't even know what a Hobby Lobby was until after the owners outed themselves as batsh1t loons. The positive here is that women's rights now become a campaign issue, and we all know who wins that battle. Hobby Lobby only objected and will only not fund morning/week after type drugs. Drugs that remove what they consider life. They consider life to begin at conception. They do provide 16 other types of contraception for their employees through their insurance. I bet not many know that detail as they fly off the handle and go ape-$#!+.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 30, 2014 15:42:08 GMT -8
MUCH easier to not shop at whatever a "Hobby Lobby" is than to stop eating Chick Fil A... So that's good. Honestly didn't even know what a Hobby Lobby was until after the owners outed themselves as batsh1t loons. The positive here is that women's rights now become a campaign issue, and we all know who wins that battle. Did women lose the right to contraceptives in this ruling? Men for that matter? Why are they loons for that matter? A relatively small, family oriented business that has a particular set of values? Are people forced to work there or Chick-fil-A FWIW? Do these companies make business decisions that reduce the pool of employees available to them and both lose and gain customers with their decisions? It is a free market, no? Is it up to the government to set de facto employee hiring guidelines beyond eeoc? Kind of onerous, don't you think - if you draw out that logic train to other forced issues... I guess I am not tracking the conclusions you draw and yours and the others responses... Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jun 30, 2014 15:46:54 GMT -8
MUCH easier to not shop at whatever a "Hobby Lobby" is than to stop eating Chick Fil A... So that's good. Honestly didn't even know what a Hobby Lobby was until after the owners outed themselves as batsh1t loons. The positive here is that women's rights now become a campaign issue, and we all know who wins that battle. Hobby Lobby only objected and will only not fund morning/week after type drugs. Drugs that remove what they consider life. They consider life to begin at conception. They do provide 16 other types of contraception for their employees through their insurance. I bet not many know that detail as they fly off the handle and go ape-$#!+. I have purchased and given the morning after pill more than once. Does Hobby Lobby consider me a murderer then, or just the woman? Am I an accessory? Don't really care, but interesting none the less... It isn't about the list of drugs they do and don't cover, it is about forcing employees to accept a corporation's morals as a condition of employment. And the logical implications of that can be taken to great lengths - one has to wonder if this ruling is A) simply a shot at the ACA, or B) a dangerous new precedent. One also has to wonder when Scalia is going to die "retire".
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 30, 2014 15:51:36 GMT -8
Hobby Lobby only objected and will only not fund morning/week after type drugs. Drugs that remove what they consider life. They consider life to begin at conception. They do provide 16 other types of contraception for their employees through their insurance. I bet not many know that detail as they fly off the handle and go ape-$#!+. I have purchased and given the morning after pill more than once. Does Hobby Lobby consider me a murderer then, or just the woman? Am I an accessory? Don't really care, but interesting none the less... It isn't about the list of drugs they do and don't cover, it is about forcing employees to accept a corporation's morals as a condition of employment. And the logical implications of that can be taken to great lengths - one has to wonder if this ruling is A) simply a shot at the ACA, or B) a dangerous new precedent. One also has to wonder when Scalia is going to die "retire". Were you forced by the government to provide them or did you do it for personal reasons based upon your personal conduct and values? Did your employer pay or do you feel it should have? Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 30, 2014 15:55:58 GMT -8
What if I demanded the government protect my right to free speech by letting me belt out Pantera lyrics at the county library I work at, or stand up and ridicule the druggie who died and interred at the funeral home I work at?
I can make logical "rights" arguments that we all agree are ludicrous but are actual constitutionally protected, unlike birth control.
Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 30, 2014 16:02:41 GMT -8
Hobby Lobby only objected and will only not fund morning/week after type drugs. Drugs that remove what they consider life. They consider life to begin at conception. They do provide 16 other types of contraception for their employees through their insurance. I bet not many know that detail as they fly off the handle and go ape-$#!+. I have purchased and given the morning after pill more than once. Does Hobby Lobby consider me a murderer then, or just the woman? Am I an accessory? Don't really care, but interesting none the less... It isn't about the list of drugs they do and don't cover, it is about forcing employees to accept a corporation's morals as a condition of employment. And the logical implications of that can be taken to great lengths - one has to wonder if this ruling is A) simply a shot at the ACA, or B) a dangerous new precedent. One also has to wonder when Scalia is going to die "retire". Again, I ask, if a smsll, family owned business, as was limited in the ruling, chooses to limit the pool of potential employees for reasons legal under EEOC, then, isn't it their right to make those choices? It also limits their customer base, no? Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jun 30, 2014 16:03:23 GMT -8
Did women lose the right to contraceptives in this ruling? Men for that matter? Why are they loons for that matter? A relatively small, family oriented business that has a particular set of values? Are people forced to work there or Chick-fil-A FWIW? Do these companies make business decisions that reduce the pool of employees available to them and both lose and gain customers with their decisions? It is a free market, no? Is it up to the government to set de facto employee hiring guidelines beyond eeoc? Kind of onerous, don't you think - if you draw out that logic train to other forced issues... 1. We are not sure how this ruling will be interpreted in the future. Contraceptives could very well be the next court case. Women who are working for certain corporations just lost part of their health rights - that is not debatable. 2. They are loons because they think stopping sperm from attaching to an egg is the moral equivalent of murder and people who engage in those activities without professing their transgressions to an imaginary being will spend an eternity in an imaginary bad place. 3. 561 stores, 21,000 employees, and $2 billion + in revenue... Small, family oriented, huh? 4. No, no one is forced to work anywhere - unless of course your unemployment benefits are cut early. Even then, if you wish to wade through the supply-saturated labor market, you are more than welcome to work anywhere. Hopefully this will happen, but the more likely scenario is an increase in unwanted children growing up in poor conditions and becoming drags on the economy and others' resources. (edit:: Chic Fil A makes a damn good sandwich. I love those more than they hate gays, sorry. 5. It is as free a market as there exists on Earth, really, though you seem to rarely agree with that statement. They reduce the available labor market, though again, with unemployment still high they have little to worry about there. The business decision was quite clear, HL believes (correctly) that the "religious right", if you will, accepts their own to such a degree (see, Fox News) that any loss in customer base will be dwarfed by the support from those "stick to themselves" conservatives who want to confirm their prejudices internally by sticking it to the progressive, young, anti-religious left-wing socialist public opinion government. 6. Don't know why you make the connection to hiring regulations, it doesn't exist... Denying health choices to women you employ is not going to mean HL doesn't hire them, it only means the old, white men running the company get to shove their "moral views" down female throats, and fire them if they don't like it. (Since, you know, these workers all sign "at-will" employment contracts and we all like to be able to fire people if we want to)
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 30, 2014 17:36:58 GMT -8
Nobody is shoving anything down anyone's throats. The women who work for them can buy supplemental insurance or pay for it on a one-off basis. The government forcing business to do something against their morals is much worse than that.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jun 30, 2014 17:43:23 GMT -8
Nobody is shoving anything down anyone's throats. The women who work for them can buy supplemental insurance or pay for it on a one-off basis. The government forcing business to do something against their morals is much worse than that. Incorrect. Our conservative, behind the times SCOTUS just forced employers' moral codes down the throat of females in the workplace. The Supreme Court officially decided that the moral and religious views of a corporation (who knew corporations could feel such things? still haven't seen one executed...) trump the health choices of female employees.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 30, 2014 17:45:22 GMT -8
You won't pay for my hamburger therefore you are forcing me to be as vegetarian.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 30, 2014 18:12:40 GMT -8
Thanks. More later but when fid contraceptives become a "health right?"
In my day, we were careful and/or used a rubber or she had a contraption or pill. If we still failed, we'd scrape up money for an abortion or decide to carry it.
It was never a right. That underpins the rest of your argument.
Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Zuma on Jun 30, 2014 19:16:12 GMT -8
Thanks. More later but when fid contraceptives become a "health right?" You know, I've been on the fence about this subject, but that might just push me over.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jun 30, 2014 19:29:11 GMT -8
You won't pay for my hamburger therefore you are forcing me to be as vegetarian. "Doc, I have health insurance through work, can I have this medication I need?" "No, I'm sorry, your corporation has decided that that medication doesn't conform to their moral code."
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jun 30, 2014 19:36:39 GMT -8
Thanks. More later but when fid contraceptives become a "health right?" In my day, we were careful and/or used a rubber or she had a contraption or pill. If we still failed, we'd scrape up money for an abortion or decide to carry it. It was never a right. That underpins the rest of your argument. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards Is Viagra a health right? Is blood pressure medication or insulin a health right? It seems you are okay allowing your employers moral code to determine which particular conditions they'll insure. So be it, if that's what you're comfortable with. Of course, this ruling doesn't really affect your choices, so you don't mind. What if the new drug needed to save your life was the result of stem cell research? Could your employer say "nah, sorry"? Conservatives get blinded by their views on abortion and miss what this ruling is really saying. And really, conservatives thoughts on abortion shouldn't mean much anyway - don't want an abortion, don't have one, but stay out of other's lives and don't bring the government into doctor's offices.
|
|