Supreme Court hearing Hobby Lobby v Obamacare

[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.

[spence]

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

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAUAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

The people are MINE!

-spence

[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.

[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

[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.

[PaulS]

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

[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.

[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 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.

[Jim in CT]

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

Right. It's "laughable" that politicians would give financial benefits to a constituency, in order to secure future votes? That never happens? Politicians never try to buy votes?

[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 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

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

"Oops."

Hobby Lobby is before the Supreme Court right now, their case hasn't been decided yet. You "oops" seems a wee bit premature.

The ACA was declared constitutional. Obama accomplished this, by convincing the Court that it is a "tax", despite telling us repeatedly that it is not a tax. Gotta like that consietency. Say one thing to one audience, say the exact opposite to anotheraudience, and hope that no one notices.

Spence, as I have said, I like the idea of Obamacare, so don't for one second think you nailed me in a gotcha! moment. No one gets to decide whether they will be born healthy or born sick, therefore it seems just to me, that we all share in some kind of shared risk pool of some sort. But, as always, we need to do it within the confines of the constitution.

The Supreme Court may well rule against HL. That doesn't mean HL was wrong. The Supreme Court is not infallible. They upheld slavery not all that long ago, and more recently, some of your ilk refused to accept the Court's decision regarding the 2000 election.

Spence, for all your posts on this thread, for all your insults, I see you continue to cowardly dodge the only issue that matters - why is HL wrong when they say that their constitutional rights are being violated? What's the matter, The Huffington Post hasn't told you how to respond to that point yet, so you just lob insults while you're waiting?

Why can't you answer the only question that matters on this issue? Can't you show a tiny shred of intellectual honesty?

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

"When I see people with the belief that when some people do something to help people less fortunate than themselves "

Oh, please. Sandra Fluke was a student at the Georgetown University School Of Law, and she needs me to pay for her condoms? She's "less fortunate" than we are?

This isn't about charity, because there is no "needs test" to qualify for teh free contraception - under the ACA, everyone gets free contraception, not just poor people.

You are suggesting that if i opose handing out free contraception to everyone (including billionaires), that it's because I have no sympathy for those who deserve sympathy?

Wrong. My opposition to this has nothing to do with lack of sympathy. It has everything to do with the constitution.

We're not talking about giving food to starving kids here. Let's put this debate in the proper context.

[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

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

What has that got to do with the Constitution? The Constitution does not define what is or is not a religion. The Constitution neither encourages nor prohibits pot. It doesn't prohibit animal sacrifices. It leaves those matters to the States. There is probably case law in the legal tomes of various States. Some cases may have, for various reasons, reached the SCOTUS.

What's your point?

[Jim in CT]

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

Good questions. i don't know the answers. There are limits, for example, we can't allow a religion to perform human sacrifices, because that would violate the victim's right to life. Last time I read the constitution, I didn't see any mention of the right to free condoms. I did, however, read about freedom of religion.

If enough people are sick of the freedom of religion, we can change the constitution to reflect that. Until then, the constitution is what it says it is.

We'll see how the court decides. Could go either way.

[PaulS]

I asked a few simple questions. If you don't want to answer, then don't answer.

Thanks

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I asked a few simple questions. If you don't want to answer, then don't answer.

Thanks

I thought I answered your questions in terms of what was relevant to me in order to get to the point . . . if there was one. Rather than going through a lawyerese courtroom catechism of "simple questions" which were supposed to lead me to a gotcha moment, I preferred to get to a relevant point pronto. The point being the constitutional argument about which this post revolves.

But, OK. If you want simple answers to "simple questions,":

"Is Rastafarianism(sp) considered a religion?"
I don't know if Rastafarianism is a religion. Don't care.

"If so, is pot smoking allowed under the law?"
Under which law? Various States have different laws. Don't care, personally, about marijuana use. But as far as a constitutional matter, I believe there should not be absolute restrictions of it. Certainly, the Federal Government has the power, constitutionally, to "regulate" (that is a loaded and progressively misconstrued legal word) interstate commerce. But the "regulation" should be moderated to its original meaning, and it should only apply to actual INTER State commerce, not that which is purely State or local. And individual rights should not be trampled by the whim or prejudice of judges or legislatures.

How about Santeria and animal sacrifices?
I don't know if any States allow those. I don't, personally, like animal sacrifices.

"There must be case law on that?"
I don't know. As you infer, there probably is. At what level--local, State, or Federal, I don't know, nor know what decisions were made and if they contradicted others or were resolved at SCOTUS.

But case law can be, not merely precedent, but can be bad case law ergo bad precedent.

I've answered your simple questions, can you answer mine?

Do you think bad case law should be reversed?

Do you think the Constitution should be "interpreted" in its original sense, or should be molded, rewritten, to "reflect" the present, and if the latter, should that be done by SCOTUS decisions or by amendment?

Do you believe the Federal Government should be unlimited in its power?

[PaulS]

Thanks - If it's not relevant to you then just ignore the question. I don't think I have ever spent time (like you seem to constantly do) asking multiply questions to come to some "gotcha moment"

I have no interest in going down the rats hole of debating constitutional law with you. For one you know more than me and for two any time anyone gets in a debate with you it seems to last so long everyone else seems to get so bored the thread just dies.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Thanks - If it's not relevant to you then just ignore the question. I don't think I have ever spent time (like you seem to constantly do) asking multiply questions to come to some "gotcha moment"

I have no interest in going down the rats hole of debating constitutional law with you. For one you know more than me and for two any time anyone gets in a debate with you it seems to last so long everyone else seems to get so bored the thread just dies.

The Constitution was not meant to be an abstruse legal document which only lawyers and judges could understand or "know about." It was meant to be the basic governmental blueprint for how the nation, comprised of the unified States, was to be governed. And it intentionally imposed upon the central government prescribed duties to which it was supposed to be limited. The purpose was to guarantee, if followed, that the individual, YOU, had sovereign, unalienable rights which could not be trampled as had been done by the oppressive governments of the past.

I don't have some great secretive knowledge about the Constitution that you do not have access to with a little effort. That knowledge should have been taught to all of us in our formative education. Unfortunately, that is not done well, and what is done and the way it is done is too "boring" for young minds more interested in games and gonads.

But to be disinterested in your mature years as to how your government is supposed to operate, especially how it impacts your freedom to aspire and achieve your goals, and especially in light of the differences you have with others who may wish to impose their versions on you . . . to lack interest in understanding that very basic governmental foundation of the society you live in is, in my opinion, irresponsible. Not only to yourself, but to the rest of society, your children, your neighbors, your countrymen, who all depend on each other to protect our rights as individuals, or families, or groups of whatever kind.

Without the understanding of the Constitution, we fall victim to the prescriptions of the "experts" who wish to herd us into their version of how we should lead our lives. We, as a people, though we may have disagreements on personal issues, must either stand together in protecting those basic rights granted to us by our Constitution, or lose them. If we accept the government's power to deny someone else a fundamental right because we don't agree with that person's use of his right, then we must accept government's power to deny ourselves the same fundamental right. To be so blind as to think that it won't do so because we and the government happen to agree on the issue, regardless of the right, is an invitation for future government to deny our right on grounds of difference of opinion.

The Constitution is not a prescription to govern by opinion. It is a fundamental law which guarantees individuals the right to have personal opinions and to act on them so long as they don't deny others the same. It is a restriction against government by opinion, and it is the foundation for the rule of law.

It is not difficult for you, if you wish, to come to an understanding of the Constitution, and what it means for you personally, and for society in general. You can easily "know" what I do about it, if you wish. I was disinterested when I was young and when life was too interesting to be "bored" with what didn't seem to be important. I have lived long enough to understand that what is more important than my personal pleasures, per se, is my freedoms to pursue them.
And it was not difficult to learn about and understand the Constitution. I would recommend Hillsdale's free online courses on the Constitution as an easy and enjoyable start.

I happen to like you, Paul, and I think that if a person like you who believes in a moral basis for your life were to come to an understanding of the moral and legal foundation of our society, it would benefit not only you, but the rest of us as well. I would be glad to stand with you and say, as Voltaire was reputed to say "I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."