Supreme Court hearing Hobby Lobby v Obamacare

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

By that logic, what substantial burden is there on Hobby Lobby to comply with Federal law? The company is using resources (i.e. employees) which may not share the same religious convictions. Then...According to Jesus Christ, as long as the owners of the Hobby Lobby lead their life according to his teaching everything should be all hunky dory…

-spence

"By that logic, what substantial burden is there on Hobby Lobby to comply with Federal law?"

Of course they have to obey the law. But Congress, and the Courts, must make sure that the laws do not violate the Constitution.

"The company is using resources (i.e. employees) which may not share the same religious convictions."

Correct, the company does not require employees to share their religious views. Hence, the employees are free to fornicate all they want, and get as many abortions as they want. The employees, the way I read the Constitution, are not allowed to force the owners to pay for their choice to engage in recreational sex.

"According to Jesus Christ, as long as the owners of the Hobby Lobby lead their life according to his teaching everything should be all hunky dory"

More simple-minded, petty mockery of that which you disagree with.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Spence, corporations are people! You don't remember?

Didn't we go to college with Corperation? man what a party animal..






And that is the reason why hobby lobby should not be exempt from this.. hobby lobby practices no religion.

That is actually a point that adresses the constitutionality of the issue, instead of attacking the character of the owners. I respect that.

Unfortunately for you, your assumption that there is no correlation between corporations and the people who own them, has been settled by the Supreme Court, and not in your favor. In the recent and famous "Citizens United" case, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, like people, have a first amendment right to free speech, and can exercise that right in the form of campaign contributions.

If business owners, via the companies they own, have the right to free speech...by what logic would they not also have the right to freedom of religion?

[Jim in CT]

Spence or Nebe, please answer this question...

If Obamacare provides free contraception to those who choose to engage in recreational sex...why everyone aho chooses to engage in a recreational pursuit, get the associated safety gear free as well?

If I ride a motorcycle, why can't I get a free helmet?
If I SCUBA dive, why can't I get a free dive computer?

Why do only fornicators get free stuff associated with their chosen 'hobby'?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence or Nebe, please answer this question...

If Obamacare provides free contraception to those who choose to engage in recreational sex...why everyone aho chooses to engage in a recreational pursuit, get the associated safety gear free as well?

If I ride a motorcycle, why can't I get a free helmet?
If I SCUBA dive, why can't I get a free dive computer?

Why do only fornicators get free stuff associated with their chosen 'hobby'?

This entire topic is titillating to you isn't it

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This entire topic is titillating to you isn't it

-spence

What answer do I have to give to your question, to get you to answer my question?

If people who choose to sleep around get free contraception from Obamacare, why don't people who choose to ride motorcycles get free helmets from Obamacare?

Please answer the question. Or admit that you cannot.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What answer do I have to give to your question, to get you to answer my question?

If people who choose to sleep around get free contraception from Obamacare, why don't people who choose to ride motorcycles get free helmets from Obamacare?

Please answer the question. Or admit that you cannot.

There you go. Off the rails.

How does wanting contraception covered under insurance relate to sleeping around?

Did you use contraception when you were dating your now wife? Were you sleeping around? I wasn't then. I don't think my wife was. Her contraception was covered by her insurance.

This is ignoring the fact that there can be medical reasons to take contraception.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

There you go. Off the rails.

How does wanting contraception covered under insurance relate to sleeping around?

Did you use contraception when you were dating your now wife? Were you sleeping around? I wasn't then. I don't think my wife was. Her contraception was covered by her insurance.

This is ignoring the fact that there can be medical reasons to take contraception.

"How does wanting contraception covered under insurance relate to sleeping around?"

I assume that if someone isn't engaging in recreational sex, they have no need for contraception. I also don't like people who want someone else to pay for the tools involved for consequence-free sex. If you want to have consequence-free sex, you have that right, just please leave me, and my wallet, out of it.

"Did you use contraception when you were dating your now wife? "

I did. I paid for it myself.

"Were you sleeping around?"

Maybe you could call it that. I was certainly fornicating, which was my choice, and I didn't see that it was anyone else's responsibility to be involved. It was between the 2 of us. My language is not a complimentary way of describing it, I'll admit.

"Her contraception was covered by her insurance"

But her employer was not forced by law to provide it for free. Apples and oranges.

"This is ignoring the fact that there can be medical reasons to take contraception"

That's true. I don't know what Hobby Lobby's position is on that. The Catholic Church, for example, is not opposed to contraception that's prescribed for medical conditions. Maybe (I'm purely speculating) HL's plan provides for contraception when there is a ned. In any event, HL's concern is with the abortificants, and there is almost never a legitimate medical need for an abortion.

I think I tried to answer your questions. Maybe you can answer one of mine...regardless of how you personally feel about this, how do you get past the constitution?

As I said, the constitution allows many people to do things that I find morally repugnant, like holding a non-violent Klan rally. It makes me sick that anyone would listen to the Klan. But I would not be in favor of a law that made it illegal to listen to them.

Personal ideology has no absolutely place whatsoever in the discussion of whether or not someone has a constitutional right to do something.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

This is ignoring the fact that there can be medical reasons to take contraception.

Ultimately, there can be "medical reasons" for regulating everything we do. Including wearing helmets when motorcycle riding.

Ignoring that fact by including a select list of items which must be insured makes it appear that there is an agenda beyond "health" reasons for including contraception and not everything else. Even more so when so much of the other things not included are far more expensive than contraceptives. If we don't include daily meals of adequate nutritional value, proper housing and clothing, restful bedding, physically refurbishing vacations and pastimes, etc. as part of an adequate health insurance policy, why include contraception? And if we believe that individuals must provide for their own of the above, why not individuals providing their own contraceptives?

How about this plan? Since just about everything we do affects our health, instead of being compensated with a paycheck for work, how about we are provided with an insurance plan which covers all available expenses we are capable of accruing? Everything we purchase will be paid for with our insurance card. We must all work at some employment, either in businesses created by others, or those created by ourselves, or by being independent contractors. We must be able to prove, on a yearly basis (or some lesser interval), that we are productively employed, and, if so, will be issued by federal government authorities the overall insurance card. How diversified our opportunities are will depend on the initiative of entrepreneurs, for whatever personal reason, to provide them. If a social crisis occurs because there are not enough inventers to provide us with basic needs or diverse needs for recreation and emotional well being, government selected experts who have been educated with abilities to create new games and ideas for society to enjoy will do so. And the compulsory schools will be able to determine the aptitudes of students for entrepreneurship, etc. So if not enough businesses are created, those who have the aptitudes will be ordered to create them or relinquish their insurance cards.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I think I tried to answer your questions. Maybe you can answer one of mine...regardless of how you personally feel about this, how do you get past the constitution?

You see it as the government restricting Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs. I see it as Hobby Lobby imposing their religious beliefs on their employees. Reproductive issues should be covered by healthcare, IMHO. Period. I also see it as HIGHLY hypocritical that they covered it before the ACA, but don't cover it now, by splitting hairs with 'aborticant's? was the term.

I truly believe, they disagree with the law politically, and are using this as an excuse. Maybe it is financially motivated, as I think there are a large number of companies looking for excuses to cut benefits and doing so under the guise of the the ACA.

I still commend them for paying above minimum wage.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

You see it as the government restricting Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs. I see it as Hobby Lobby imposing their religious beliefs on their employees.

Ahhh . . . the "I see it" . . . "you see it" argument. That'll get us . . . nowhere. That's why a Constitution and its form of government was created. So that we could see it differently but still cooperate as a society/country. As Jim says, how you see it does not answer his question to you regarding the Constitution. Of course, from what I gather by all the various posts on the political thread site, "liberals" or "progressives" either don't particularly care about the Constitution, or claim to not understand it and leave it up to various parts of the Federal Government to tell them what the Constitution "means." And, besides, as Spence would say, that's all academic. What Uncle Sam (Uncle Same?) says is what is, and must be obeyed. Although it can be bitched about if "conservatives" are in charge.

Reproductive issues should be covered by healthcare, IMHO. Period. I also see it as HIGHLY hypocritical that they covered it before the ACA, but don't cover it now, by splitting hairs with 'aborticant's? was the term.

Why, other than your opinion, should contraceptives be covered and not other "reproductive issues"? Just about everything we do affects our "reproductive" health. Including far more expensive things such as those in my post above which included a "plan" to cover it all.

I truly believe, they disagree with the law politically, and are using this as an excuse. Maybe it is financially motivated, as I think there are a large number of companies looking for excuses to cut benefits and doing so under the guise of the the ACA.

Companies only provide "benefits" if it benefits them to so provide. There is a rather fixed amount they are willing or able to expend on labor in order to competitively achieve their goals. That amount does not differ whether it is in benefits or cash. Benefits are an attractive method of compensation both to the employer and employee if they can be relieved of payroll taxes. There is no reason for a company to "cut benefits" if they have to be replaced with tax loaded compensation. The overall compensation, with or without benefits, is the total package the employee and employer agree on. If the overall compensation makes the company uncompetitive it must be adjusted or all, including the employees, lose their job. If the ACA adds to the fiscal burden of companies, it would be reasonable for them to resist it. If it doesn't, there is no advantage for them to resist it or "cut benefits."

I still commend them for paying above minimum wage.

I'm sure they appreciate your commendation. What do you think of my above "insurance plan"?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

You see it as the government restricting Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs. I see it as Hobby Lobby imposing their religious beliefs on their employees. Reproductive issues should be covered by healthcare, IMHO. Period. I also see it as HIGHLY hypocritical that they covered it before the ACA, but don't cover it now, by splitting hairs with 'aborticant's? was the term.

I truly believe, they disagree with the law politically, and are using this as an excuse. Maybe it is financially motivated, as I think there are a large number of companies looking for excuses to cut benefits and doing so under the guise of the the ACA.

I still commend them for paying above minimum wage.

"I see it as Hobby Lobby imposing their religious beliefs on their employees."

I don't see how anyone can claim that. Is HL doing anything to try and change the beliefs of their employees?

"Reproductive issues should be covered by healthcare, IMHO. Period"

And if enough people believe that, we can amend the constitution to reflect that. Until then, the feds do not get to ignore the parts of the constitution that they don't happen to like.

Why should reproductive issues be covered by healthcare, but not motorcycle helmets, which are more expensive?

"I also see it as HIGHLY hypocritical that they covered it before the ACA"

I don't think that matters. Choosing to voluntarily do somehting is one thing, being forced by law is something else. I choose to give money to the Catholic Church. If Obama tried to pass a law requiring everyone to donate money to the Catholic Church, I would oppose that law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Does that make me a hypocrite? I don't think so. I don't care if they win this case, and the next day, open an abortion clinic at every store. What they are objecting to, is the government trying to force them to do something which is very likely unconstitutional.

"I truly believe, they disagree with the law politically, and are using this as an excuse. "

Maybe. But if the law they are challenging is unconstitutional, there motives do not matter, do they?

One last time. I get that you sympathize with what the feds are doing here, and that you are dubious as to HL's intentions.. But please tell me why it's not unconstitutional to demand that they abandon their religious beliefs, specifically pertaining to the freedom of religion?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Ignoring that fact by including a select list of items which must be insured makes it appear that there is an agenda beyond "health" reasons for including contraception and not everything else. .

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

This is a way to throw a few goodies to people who tend to vote Democrat, and once again, to increase dependency on the feds...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This is a way to throw a few goodies to people who tend to vote Democrat, and once again, to increase dependency on the feds...

Yes, this is what his agenda has been since day one. He is not a Leader
serving the good of the entire nation, just anybody and anything that
helps his own "what's good for him "agenda.

[spence]

I love it, the master plan to rig elections through free abortives.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

The people are MINE!

-spence

[PaulS]

That is a problem they'll never overcome - the lack of compassion and empathy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I truly believe, they disagree with the law politically, and are using this as an excuse. Maybe it is financially motivated, as I think there are a large number of companies looking for excuses to cut benefits and doing so under the guise of the the ACA.

I still commend them for paying above minimum wage.

Incredibly dismissive . It couldn't be because of religious beliefs because that's all BS. Right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, the master plan to rig elections through free abortives.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

The people are MINE!

-spence

It's over guys. Spence has uttered the magic word:

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

Can't argue with that. Discussion over. Case closed.

Nah . . . that's all he's got . . . nothing . . . just the bleating of sheeple.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That is a problem they'll never overcome - the lack of compassion and empathy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, the progressive lack of compassion and empathy for those who hold religious beliefs is stunning.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That is a problem they'll never overcome - the lack of compassion and empathy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Paul. What you don't understand, is that you cannot throw out the Constitution, even for reasons you sympathize with.

I love the liberal notion that you are morally superior just by virtue of declaring yourself a liberal.

Paul, who has more sympathy for the family that owns HL. Me or you? Just curious.

Constitution, shmonstitution.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It's over guys. Spence has uttered the magic word:

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

Can't argue with that. Discussion over. Case closed.

Nah . . . that's all he's got . . . nothing . . . just the bleating of sheeple.

No, the magic word is "Moot."

You're taking my evil laugh out of context.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No Paul. What you don't understand, is that you cannot throw out the Constitution, even for reasons you sympathize with.

I love the liberal notion that you are morally superior just by virtue of declaring yourself a liberal.

Paul, who has more sympathy for the family that owns HL. Me or you? Just curious.

Constitution, shmonstitution.

I like how you're trying to parrot Detbuch like a toddler parrots their older brother...it's cute.

Just wait till the ACA goes before the Supreme Court and they find it unconstitutional. That will sure reinforce your argument...

Oops.

-spence

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No Paul. What you don't understand, is that you cannot throw out the Constitution, even for reasons you sympathize with.

I love the liberal notion that you are morally superior just by virtue of declaring yourself a liberal.

Paul, who has more sympathy for the family that owns HL. Me or you? Just curious.

Constitution, shmonstitution.

I certainly don't think I'm morally superior to anyone bc of some label. It is more based on the action of others. When I see people with the belief that when some people do something to help people less fortunate than themselves it is only so they will vote for that party, I do consider myself morally superior to them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, the progressive lack of compassion and empathy for those who hold religious beliefs is stunning.

The statement had nothing to with religious beliefs but rather the laughable feeling that doing something is to "increase dependency on the Feds"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, the magic word is "Moot."

You're taking my evil laugh out of context.

-spence

I got the attempt to "Moot." But it was an exaggerated spin into the context of absurdity. So I normalized its unreality into more believable messaging--granted, the normalization was as Mootly absurd as your original . . . but just as feebly provocative.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I like how you're trying to parrot Detbuch like a toddler parrots their older brother...it's cute.

You might see it that way, as usual, by skimming the surface of things and avoiding the underlying principles. Jim doesn't have the same approach to the Constitution as I do. He is more accepting than I to the bending of its principles, especially in matters of charity. I think he once alluded to being influenced more by his Catholicism. He also, being a good soldier, accepts with finality what SCOTUS decides. I don't believe those decisions must stand if they are faulty. Again, you revert to the tactic of ridicule when you have nothing substantial to say. It becomes you, or you become it . . . either way, it works.

Just wait till the ACA goes before the Supreme Court and they find it unconstitutional. That will sure reinforce your argument...

Oops.

-spence

If this was supposed to be "parroting" me, your analogy fails yet again. In the thread which discussed the ACA being decided by the Court, I said that I did not know which way it would go, and that it might well be upheld . . . Ooops! . . . back at ya.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If this was supposed to be "parroting" me, your analogy fails yet again. In the thread which discussed the ACA being decided by the Court, I said that I did not know which way it would go, and that it might well be upheld . . . Ooops!

So where's the constutional argument? Theoretical or applied?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Is Rastafarianism(sp) considered a religion? If so, is pot smoking allowed under the law? How about Santeria and animal sacrifices? There must be case law on that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Is Rastafarianism(sp) considered a religion? If so, is pot smoking allowed under the law? How about Santeria and animal sacrifices? There must be case law on that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or peyote and native Americans...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The statement had nothing to with religious beliefs but rather the laughable feeling that doing something is to "increase dependency on the Feds"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But my statement did have something to do with progressivism and religion. To achieve the transformation of the American regime that was instituted by the Founders constitutional republic, Progressives had/have to eliminate the People's attachment to basic constitutional principles and various cultural traits and institutions, including religion. Those things stood/stand in the way of the authoritarian regime Progressives see as a necessary and historical imperative. Old "norms" had to be "normalized" into a homogenous acceptance of rule by elite experts. Old notions such as self reliance, or individual sovereignty, or state's sovereignty, or God and family being more important than government, or unalienable rights, or certain exclusive rights of association, or even the limitation of the central government to a small list of enumerated powers, had to be phased out. In essence, the central government actually must have supreme power over all aspects of our lives.

So my statement did have something to do with progressivism and religion, and has implications of much more. And I, in no way, meant to disparage your laughable feeling.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So where's the constutional argument? Theoretical or applied?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Constitutional argument about what?