Hobby Lobby Ruling

[mrswdk]

Apparently Hobby Lobby do not provide tampons for their female employees.

Those dirty patriarchs are the true embodiment of evil.

[warmonger1981]

Lets not act like a minimum wage along with government benefits doesn't give a living wage. Isn't that the whole idea? Keep people working but never being able to get ahead. Stop thinking small kids. Global fascism on the top with socialism on the bottom for the little guys.

[Woodruff]

Yes, IF THEY TRULY WANT TO STOP ABORTIONS. You see, that's the point here. Hobby Lobby claims to be against abortion, but they are ACTIVELY WORKING TO CREATE THAT WHICH THEY CLAIM TO BE AGAINST.

So if Hobby Lobby does actually want to help stop abortions, then yes, they must help to cover for those who cannot learn to act responsibly. If Hobby Lobby is not willing to do that, then they are NOT truly against abortions, they're just against sex and they want to punish those who engage in it outside of marriage. It's really as simple as that.

Why does Hobby Lobby cover 16 of the 20 forms of contraceptives mandated by Obamacare, and did so long before Obamacare was law?

Irrelevant to the point. Is 16/20 better than 0/20? Sure...but it doesn't change my point in the slightest.

And it's a complete fallacy that if a person wants to stop something, they then have to pay to prevent it. I want to stop all murders and rape, so does that mean I have to buy everyone a gun for self defense and if I don't do so, that I'm making the problem worse? Of course not.

Are you ACTIVELY MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT for people to avoid being murdered or raped? No, so your analogy doesn't work. Do you have an analogy wherein you are actively making it more difficult for others to avoid something that you believe strongly should be stopped?

[Woodruff]

Arguing that it's a constriction on women's rights is just false, unless they were actively denying their female employees from purchasing those "evil" birth control methods (e.g. they fired an employee for using them).

Yet making it more difficult for women (due to cost, which they may not be able to afford) to access those birth control methods absolutely could lead to health problems and in fact pregnancies resulting in abortion. Doesn't it make more sense to take care of those womens' health needs as they exist while also helping to avoid those pregnancies that may end up resulting in abortion?

By that logic, they're making it more difficult for their employees to feed themselves by not buying their groceries for them.

Think about what you just said for a moment...because you seem to believe you're contradicting my point or making it look foolish, but you actually highlight exactly what I am saying. It DOES make it more difficult than if they provided it to them, doesn't it? And for an organization that has a stance of being against abortion, their position on this matter actually makes abortion MORE LIKELY. Thus, my point.

The point is that buying groceries is the individual's responsibility, not the employer's. Contraception is the same. It is not your employer's duty to manage your life on your behalf.

You're still arguing against yourself - your analogy actually works against you. This latter attempt at re-explanation doesn't change that at all.

It is not a case of 'not providing contraception makes birth control harder', it is a case of 'providing contraception would make birth control easier'.

That is simply a matter of perspective. Is 16/20 better than 0/20? Of course. Is it worse than 20/20? Of course.

[Woodruff]

To reiterate my stance (300 words or less...egad!):
The Supreme Court ruling makes sense to me, based on the idea that a business can determine what health insurance they will provide. However, a business should NOT be granted considerations based on religion, as that is irrelevant to the business. I further put forth that anyone who believes that abortion is a bad thing should be PRO-contraception by any means as that averts potential abortions.

I agree with your analysis but one side question:
Why is it that the only options for people is to have contraceptives paid for or abortions? If you cannot afford contraceptives, perhaps you should be re-thinking your actions of intercourse. If I don't have money to put gas in my car, I don't go for a joy ride. Options are out there such as the good old five knuckle shuffle or flicking the bean.

Absolutely, I agree with your point from a rationality standpoint. Unfortunately, the reality is that the human race seems to handle sex in a profoundly irrational way. Given that, I think we should react to the reality rather than the wish-it-were.

So since people cannot learn to act responsible, others have to cover for them?

Yes, IF THEY TRULY WANT TO STOP ABORTIONS. You see, that's the point here. Hobby Lobby claims to be against abortion, but they are ACTIVELY WORKING TO CREATE THAT WHICH THEY CLAIM TO BE AGAINST.

So if Hobby Lobby does actually want to help stop abortions, then yes, they must help to cover for those who cannot learn to act responsibly. If Hobby Lobby is not willing to do that, then they are NOT truly against abortions, they're just against sex and they want to punish those who engage in it outside of marriage. It's really as simple as that.

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE BETWEEN PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVES OR SUPPORTING ABORTIONS????????????????????????

I didn't say they SUPPORT abortions (in fact, I stated that their "stated stance" was against abortions). Stop putting words into my mouth.

How have we came to that as a civilized society? You even say it yourself that people cannot learn to act responsibly. What about people who choose to start eating poor diets? Is it the employers job to ensure they are being responsible and getting proper nutrition?

If the employer TRULY CARES that their employees start eating better, then the employer certainly should do so. Are they REQUIRED to do so? Of course not...yet that leads one to believe that they don't actually CARE that much that their employees start eating better. They're providing lip service about it. Excellent analogy to support my point...thank you.

For someone who is typically against big business, I'm honestly surprised that you want them involved more in people's lives. Especially something personal, such as their sex lives.

I'm against hypocricy far more than I'm against big business (I'm not against big business in a general sense, but very much against certain big business practices and certain individual large corporations because of their various tactics). If you'll carefully read my position here, I'm not at all saying that Hobby Lobby should be required to provide these contraceptives. What I AM saying is that Hobby Lobby's stated position of not wanting to provide these contraceptives goes fully against their position that abortion is a bad thing. As I said previously, it becomes clear that Hobby Lobby doesn't really care about abortion so much as they care about punishing those who engage in premarital sex.

What happens when people leave their jobs? Are they going to learn how to act responsibly until someone else is footing the bill for their contraceptives?

I'm not at all sure what you're trying to get at here, to be honest.

Why not make a government program where you can use your EBT card for any type of contraceptive as well? Doesn't that seem appropriate?

I'm not at all sure what you're trying to get at here, to be honest.

Maybe even give incentives for sterilization so that these people never have to worry about "having to deal with the punishments" of being sexually irresponsible again. Oh no, did I just say that?

If a company were serious about stopping abortion, they certainly would also provide for this under their healthcare plan. In fact, I believe Hobby Lobby does so, though I could be wrong about that. The problem with that "solution" is that it is a far more permanent solution to a potentially temporary problem (of not wanting a child).

[Woodruff]

You're arguing against yourself here. Those who aren't ready for the responsibility or don't want the lifestyle change are, for instance, quite likely to use the morning-after pill, therefore avoiding an actual abortion. Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby is actively working to make it more difficult for those people to use it, thus increasing the likelihood of the decision to abort.

Rather than "difficult to use", I think you mean less of a priority for people to pay for out of their own pocket unless something happens.

No, I mean "more difficult to use". Again, stop putting words into my mouth.

[Woodruff]

YeeHi $14 bucks and hr. Its time to party.

Regardless, it completely counters your statements.

[Phatscotty]

Lets not act like a minimum wage along with government benefits doesn't give a living wage. Isn't that the whole idea? Keep people working but never being able to get ahead. Stop thinking small kids. Global fascism on the top with socialism on the bottom for the little guys.

I don't think it's the whole idea, rather just a reality of the power the government has to assume to deal with the ramifications of printing money out of thin air. People usually think of it as wages going up, but really it just means the currency is weaker and that means it takes more of that currency to buy a unit of xyz today then it used to take last year, and the year before.

Look at gas prices. There is no severe shortage or gas lines with limits on how much you can buy. Gas prices are artificially high because our currency is weaker and weaker. It's not really about the 'price' of the gas, it's about the value of the currency you use to buy the gas.



It's not a coincidence that the 'Greenback' has changed colors a lot of times in the past decade, but more like a joke. A very sad and tragic joke, and it's on us.

[BigBallinStalin]

PS is right. US dollar bills don't look like Monopoly money.

[patrickaa317]

I agree with your analysis but one side question:
Why is it that the only options for people is to have contraceptives paid for or abortions? If you cannot afford contraceptives, perhaps you should be re-thinking your actions of intercourse. If I don't have money to put gas in my car, I don't go for a joy ride. Options are out there such as the good old five knuckle shuffle or flicking the bean.

Absolutely, I agree with your point from a rationality standpoint. Unfortunately, the reality is that the human race seems to handle sex in a profoundly irrational way. Given that, I think we should react to the reality rather than the wish-it-were.

So since people cannot learn to act responsible, others have to cover for them?

Yes, IF THEY TRULY WANT TO STOP ABORTIONS. You see, that's the point here. Hobby Lobby claims to be against abortion, but they are ACTIVELY WORKING TO CREATE THAT WHICH THEY CLAIM TO BE AGAINST.

So if Hobby Lobby does actually want to help stop abortions, then yes, they must help to cover for those who cannot learn to act responsibly. If Hobby Lobby is not willing to do that, then they are NOT truly against abortions, they're just against sex and they want to punish those who engage in it outside of marriage. It's really as simple as that.

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE BETWEEN PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVES OR SUPPORTING ABORTIONS????????????????????????

I didn't say they SUPPORT abortions (in fact, I stated that their "stated stance" was against abortions). Stop putting words into my mouth.

How have we came to that as a civilized society? You even say it yourself that people cannot learn to act responsibly. What about people who choose to start eating poor diets? Is it the employers job to ensure they are being responsible and getting proper nutrition?

If the employer TRULY CARES that their employees start eating better, then the employer certainly should do so. Are they REQUIRED to do so? Of course not...yet that leads one to believe that they don't actually CARE that much that their employees start eating better. They're providing lip service about it. Excellent analogy to support my point...thank you.

For someone who is typically against big business, I'm honestly surprised that you want them involved more in people's lives. Especially something personal, such as their sex lives.

I'm against hypocricy far more than I'm against big business (I'm not against big business in a general sense, but very much against certain big business practices and certain individual large corporations because of their various tactics). If you'll carefully read my position here, I'm not at all saying that Hobby Lobby should be required to provide these contraceptives. What I AM saying is that Hobby Lobby's stated position of not wanting to provide these contraceptives goes fully against their position that abortion is a bad thing. As I said previously, it becomes clear that Hobby Lobby doesn't really care about abortion so much as they care about punishing those who engage in premarital sex.

What happens when people leave their jobs? Are they going to learn how to act responsibly until someone else is footing the bill for their contraceptives?

I'm not at all sure what you're trying to get at here, to be honest.

Why not make a government program where you can use your EBT card for any type of contraceptive as well? Doesn't that seem appropriate?

I'm not at all sure what you're trying to get at here, to be honest.

Maybe even give incentives for sterilization so that these people never have to worry about "having to deal with the punishments" of being sexually irresponsible again. Oh no, did I just say that?

If a company were serious about stopping abortion, they certainly would also provide for this under their healthcare plan. In fact, I believe Hobby Lobby does so, though I could be wrong about that. The problem with that "solution" is that it is a far more permanent solution to a potentially temporary problem (of not wanting a child).

Again, your entire position is that Hobby Lobby has to choose between providing contraceptives or endorsing abortions. Why are these the only options for a company to choose from?

You say you are ok that if a company wanted to start addressing poor nutrition, they can do that but I have a feeling that you'd be against a company preaching celibacy until marriage.

My point on the EBT card was everyone keeps saying people cannot afford this. If they qualify for EBT cards, why not allow EBT cards to cover that type of contraceptive as well. All of this should not be the responsibility of an employer. If the contraceptive is that important to the person, they should be able to shop the free market for a plan that satisfies their wants (unfortunately we have already strayed from any kind of free market approach to solving the problems around health care and health insurance).

[patrickaa317]

You're arguing against yourself here. Those who aren't ready for the responsibility or don't want the lifestyle change are, for instance, quite likely to use the morning-after pill, therefore avoiding an actual abortion. Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby is actively working to make it more difficult for those people to use it, thus increasing the likelihood of the decision to abort.

Rather than "difficult to use", I think you mean less of a priority for people to pay for out of their own pocket unless something happens.

No, I mean "more difficult to use". Again, stop putting words into my mouth.

difficult: needing much effort or skill to accomplish, deal with, or understand.
use: take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result

How is Hobby Lobby increasing the effort or skill need to take, hold, or deploy a form of contraceptive?

[Night Strike]

You're arguing against yourself here. Those who aren't ready for the responsibility or don't want the lifestyle change are, for instance, quite likely to use the morning-after pill, therefore avoiding an actual abortion. Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby is actively working to make it more difficult for those people to use it, thus increasing the likelihood of the decision to abort.

Rather than "difficult to use", I think you mean less of a priority for people to pay for out of their own pocket unless something happens.

No, I mean "more difficult to use". Again, stop putting words into my mouth.

difficult: needing much effort or skill to accomplish, deal with, or understand.
use: take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result

How is Hobby Lobby increasing the effort or skill need to take, hold, or deploy a form of contraceptive?

Because progressives demand that other people pay for their wants. Anything other than that is a violation of their rights.

[AndyDufresne]

Look at gas prices. There is no severe shortage or gas lines with limits on how much you can buy. Gas prices are artificially high because our currency is weaker and weaker. It's not really about the 'price' of the gas, it's about the value of the currency you use to buy the gas.

The dude is trying to game silly people, so he can collect silver since silver is a commodity that often has a nice market value. It's more like:

It's not a coincidence that the 'Greenback' has changed colors a lot of times in the past decade, but more like a joke. A very sad and tragic joke, and it's on us.

I like that PS thinks trying to foil counterfeiters by using newer technology is a sign of the end of times. He sounds like the kind of guy who would oppose the ancient system of Weights and Measures vendors used, since the vendors should just accept things as they potentially look.

Because progressives demand that other people pay for their wants. Anything other than that is a violation of their rights.

It's pretty obvious "unprogressives" demand that other people pay for their wants too. Everyone is paying for a wide variety of wants across the spectrum.


--Andy

[a6mzero]

Right wingers always talking about handouts bla bla bla. 32 states receive more money from the federal government than they contribute.27 of them are RED states.

[patrickaa317]

Right wingers always talking about handouts bla bla bla. 32 states receive more money from the federal government than they contribute.27 of them are RED states.

Interesting, lets dig a bit lower into those numbers, say at the individual level.

43% of people pay ZERO federal income taxes. Willing to take a bet on how the majority of them typically vote?

[BigBallinStalin]

Right wingers always talking about handouts bla bla bla. 32 states receive more money from the federal government than they contribute.27 of them are RED states.

Interesting, lets dig a bit lower into those numbers, say at the individual level.

43% of people pay ZERO federal income taxes. Willing to take a bet on how the majority of them typically vote?

How many of them even bother to vote?

Generally, the more ignorant tend not to vote, and the more ignorant tend to be poor, so...

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Right wingers always talking about handouts bla bla bla. 32 states receive more money from the federal government than they contribute.27 of them are RED states.

Interesting, lets dig a bit lower into those numbers, say at the individual level.

43% of people pay ZERO federal income taxes. Willing to take a bet on how the majority of them typically vote?

How many of them even bother to vote?

Generally, the more ignorant tend not to vote, and the more ignorant tend to be poor, so...

Don't vote-check
Poor-check

Guess I'm ign't. Oh well.

-TG

[Phatscotty]

Right wingers always talking about handouts bla bla bla. 32 states receive more money from the federal government than they contribute.27 of them are RED states.

Interesting, lets dig a bit lower into those numbers, say at the individual level.

43% of people pay ZERO federal income taxes. Willing to take a bet on how the majority of them typically vote?

How many of them even bother to vote?

Generally, the more ignorant tend not to vote, and the more ignorant tend to be poor, so...

Whatever that number is, it tripled in 2008 and was more than double in 2012 presidential election

[mrswdk]

Voting in American elections implies that you believe you are actually being given a choice about how America is run, which doesn't sound very smart to me.

[BigBallinStalin]

Voting in American elections implies that you believe you are actually being given a choice about how America is run, which doesn't sound very smart to me.

Imagine having a US president and Congress that didn't need to hold elections. Since the former constraint of voter feedback is completely dropped, would you expect the US government to act more aggressively or less aggressively?

[PLAYER57832]

Its plain and simple. The MEDICAL care I recieve, as well as my personal beliefs about that care and just not my employer's business.. PERIOD.

Hiding behind your pocket book as if paying me for WORK somehow gives you the right to dictate my personal life is repugnant.

In fact, it is the exact opposite of what REAL believers ought to want, because as soon as employers are allowed to dictate what their employees do in this matter of health, it means that other people can similarly decide "religious freedom" to not pay for vaccines, transplants, blood transfusions, AIDS treatments, etc, etc, etc.

AND... if you can decide my medical care, then why not decide that I have to dress per your religious standards, go to your church and just plain not give any outward idea that I disagree with my employer.

Know what? You folks are mostly too young to remember, but that pretty much WAS how it was in the 50s and much of the 60s.

Welcome to "going backwards is really progress"

That the supreme court disagrees is not a surprise, just shows that their minds have long been bought out by the corporate power structure...the structure that put them in power

[mrswdk]

Voting in American elections implies that you believe you are actually being given a choice about how America is run, which doesn't sound very smart to me.

Imagine having a US president and Congress that didn't need to hold elections. Since the former constraint of voter feedback is completely dropped, would you expect the US government to act more aggressively or less aggressively?

You mean, behave aggressively towards other countries?

[mrswdk]

It's a fallacy to suggest that a choice between two very similar parties once every four years means that the American government is hog-tied and at the mercy of the will of the people. American politicians are just as good at betraying election pledges, passing bucks and kicking cans down the road as the leaders of any other country.

Didn't public approval of Congress drop to something like 10% recently? And did Congress pull itself together, change the way it operates and usher in a new era of politics? Did it do so much as shed its most unpopular members?

[PLAYER57832]

It's a fallacy to suggest that a choice between two very similar parties once every four years means that the American government is hog-tied and at the mercy of the will of the people. American politicians are just as good at betraying election pledges, passing bucks and kicking cans down the road as the leaders of any other country.

Didn't public approval of Congress drop to something like 10% recently? And did Congress pull itself together, change the way it operates and usher in a new era of politics? Did it do so much as shed its most unpopular members?

Technically, we have many parties, its just that only 2 have ever had a real chance for the presidency. (you do see varied parties represented for other positions)

Anyway, individual impact was always of minimal impact at the federal and higher state levels, by design. Stability, even relatively bad stability has historically been considered better than flip-flopping with the tides of public opinion.

HOWEVER, in the past few decades, we have seen the complete takeover by corporations, first by controlling advertisements and now by controlling most other sources of information. Real information is out there, but takes too much work for most people to bother. The internet reduces the chance that folks will meet with people who truly disagree sensibly. (ironic that a gaming site like this might be an exception, to a point).

Its no longer voting, its corporations that matter.. that is why the above ruling is so dastardly. First corporations became people monetarily, now they are allowed to have personal religious opinions and to act upon them in decisions regarding employees, simply because they pay the employee.

[crispybits]

Just a quick 7 and a bit minutes about why healthcare costs in America are so high:



Economies of scale and mass bargaining are probably too much like socialism for 'Muricans to understand the places where it is appropriate to centralise things tho - Obamacare is evol! How dare they use a system that actually lowers costs for both those who use it and those who don't!