The Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, and the ACA

[rushmc 23]

I must also assume now, that you feel that all those poor employes who worked for Hobby Lobby during the years prior to Obamacare were being used and abused by this company because those bastards were not giving them the birth control and the morning after pills they had a right to and deserved!!!

Yet they still worked there

Good God Damned thing big gov came along to save the fucking day

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

Hobby Lobby doesn't have the right to dictate what type of medical care its employees receive based on the owner's beliefs.

Do you think the owners of HL should be able choose if they offer coverage?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

turtlespeed

Quote

Hobby Lobby doesn't have the right to dictate what type of medical care its employees receive based on the owner's beliefs.

Do you think the owners of HL should be able choose if they offer coverage?

Do you think the owners of Hobby Lobby (or anyone else) should be able to choose if they pay below minimum wage?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 220]

quade

***

Quote

Hobby Lobby doesn't have the right to dictate what type of medical care its employees receive based on the owner's beliefs.

Do you think the owners of HL should be able choose if they offer coverage?

Do you think the owners of Hobby Lobby (or anyone else) should be able to choose if they pay below minimum wage?

Yes.

But that is a non sequitur. Answer the question I asked.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

The answer isn't a non-sequiter. It's simply a minimum standard.

My answer is no. A company shouldn't be allowed to determine which laws it's going to observe and ignore. ACA is the law of the land. Passed by Congress. Signed by the President. Upheld by the Supreme Court. It simply doesn't get any more official than that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 220]

quade

The answer isn't a non-sequiter. It's simply a minimum standard.

My answer is no. A company shouldn't be allowed to determine which laws it's going to observe and ignore. ACA is the law of the land. Passed by Congress. Signed by the President. Upheld by the Supreme Court. It simply doesn't get any more official than that.

That is an avoidance of an answer.

What do you believe? SHOULD HL be able to choose IF they offer insurance or not?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

What part of, "my answer is no" confused you or seems like "an avoidance of an answer"?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 220]

quade

What part of, "my answer is no" confused you or seems like "an avoidance of an answer"?

Quote

My answer is no. A company shouldn't be allowed to determine which laws it's going to observe and ignore. ACA is the law of the land. Passed by Congress. Signed by the President. Upheld by the Supreme Court. It simply doesn't get any more official than that.

You said that "A company shouldn't be allowed to determine which laws it's going to observe and ignore"

You did not answer whether or not - "Do you think the owners of HL should be able choose if they offer coverage?

Do you believe it is right and just?

Or are you going to continue to dance an shuck and jive?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 220]

quade

The answer isn't a non-sequiter. It's simply a minimum standard.

My answer is no. A company shouldn't be allowed to determine which laws it's going to observe and ignore. ACA is the law of the land. Passed by Congress. Signed by the President. Upheld by the Supreme Court. It simply doesn't get any more official than that.

Off Topic . . . Do you think Government should be held to a lower standard than private companies?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 23]

quade

THAT is freedom of religion, of the employees being protected by the government.

Freedom of religion, as listed about in the Constitution, protects the people from the government.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

rushmc

***

THAT is freedom of religion, of the employees being protected by the government.

Freedom of religion, as listed about in the Constitution, protects the people from the government.

No, it protects the Flying Spaghetti Monster from the government.

[rushmc 23]

Andy9o8

******

THAT is freedom of religion, of the employees being protected by the government.

Freedom of religion, as listed about in the Constitution, protects the people from the government.

No, it protects the Flying Spaghetti Monster from the government.

It is always about food with you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,446]

I guess it depends on how you define "exercising your religion." If exercising your religion requires you to exercise secular power over people who are not in your church, then maybe your rights are ending where theirs start.

If they were Jehovah's Witnesses, should they be able to get insurance that doesn't cover blood transfusions? If they are strict Baptists (of the "women shall not supervise men" variety), should they be able to exclude women from consideration for management?

In other words, where should their ability to mold their non-religious business in a religious image end, without infringing on the rights of their employees not to be members of the same church?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[normiss 800]

What???
I have to GO to church for this job???


I HAVE seen this one personally, albeit quietly, enforced.

For some reason I didn't "fit" there.

[wmw999 2,446]

Yeah, "just not fitting" works well. As the conservative at some social welfare organizations, or a liberal where I used to work. You just can't open your mouth when folks are talking about "what we all agree on."

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Your "rights" end at the tip of my nose.

You SAY that, but you do not believe that. You think you have the right to say what I spend my money on. You also think you have the right to restrict my 2nd amendment rights even though I am not a felon or insane.

If you think it is OK to force you will onto others.... Then you do not believe in my rights at all.

[normiss 800]

I think the tip of the nose is considered the beginning of battery.