Supreme Court hearing Hobby Lobby v Obamacare

[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.

[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?

[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