Hobby Lobby Ruling

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

SP, I'm glad to hear your common sense approach to the seal issue. I largely agree. I also think that PETA, et al, was entirely within their right to use this highly graphic scene of white seal pups with big black eyes, bleeding all over the snow to accomplish their goals. I don't agree with their goals, at all, but I defend their right to pursue them.

What I do oppose are an ignorant public that puts the graphic image and life of a seal pup over the lives of the natives relying on that harvest to feed their villages. People that will make their judgements based solely on the images they see, instead of the facts they see.

I would be of similar opinion of anyone that based their stance against abortion solely on watching that video. But it doesn't lessen the importance it has in bringing full light to the issue.

I do have a very few friends on the animal rights front. We disagree 100%. What tends to be their close similarity to those of a pro-abortion stance is their quickness to throw personal attacks and abandon reason, in the face of those that don't agree with them. Most are just wildly fanatical, and what has really surprised me, is that most of them are also pro-choice. There's a dichotomy I just can't seem to wrap my mind around.

Call it common sense, or call it being able to see through the bullshit...I guess its similar. I don't have a problem with the seal hunt, because I know the facts, I know its not nearly as brutal and sensational as Peta and other organizations would have you believe. I know they use footage of it to stir up emotion in people, and then use that emotion as a cover to not tell the whole truth, and in some cases even lie. They do it to recruit people to their cause, its shady, immoral and wrong, but it happens all the time.

The abortion video you showed is exactly the same thing.

[youtube]Y_j7RycjGYY[/youtube]

Bottom line:
This ruling does not deprive ANYONE of their rights! Where do we draw the line?? 'Oh, I support your right to believe abortion is wrong, as long as I can force you to PAY for mine'?? NO!! The line needs to be drawn here, so that the asshole with the agenda CAN'T take the next logical step, which is mandating that all doctors and hospitals must participate, because **I** say it's for the greater good.

Here's what ""pro-choice"" looks like:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g67z_xBe07Q#t=46


(tolerance and diversity... yeah right.)

Would you like me to post videos of news coverage of abortion clinic bombings? Because that makes just as much sense. Or maybe we can just consider the Westboro baptist church to be the voice of all Christians? You see, there are moron extreme-ists on both sides of every issue.

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

...

I would think your financial advisor could just take care of it for you. My investments are with a large company, so maybe it's different. But I could just tell my advisor I have moral objections XYZ, and they have plans for that (as long as they are common objections like what hobby lobby has).

I probably can with personal stuff, but the 401K is different. The IRS considers me to be the Trustee of the fund, and if I exercise too much control or set too strict guidelines for the investments, and they tank, then there's a degree of personal liability involved. At least that's the explanation I've been given by the people whom it's through. But I will investigate.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

Bottom line:
This ruling does not deprive ANYONE of their rights! Where do we draw the line?? 'Oh, I support your right to believe abortion is wrong, as long as I can force you to PAY for mine'?? NO!! The line needs to be drawn here, so that the asshole with the agenda CAN'T take the next logical step, which is mandating that all doctors and hospitals must participate, because **I** say it's for the greater good.

Actually, the bottom line is that this isn't about abortion and this ruling doesn't deal with abortion. Even though there has been more than enough posted here already for you to know that this isn't about abortion, I'll play along one last time and pretend that it is.

No one is paying for anyone else's abortion. You didn't pay for your neighbor's open heart surgery just because he had work-provided health insurance. You didn't pay for it through taxes and you didn't pay for it otherwise. Even if your neighbor is your employee and your work provides him with health insurance, you still didn't pay for his open heart surgery. Your neighbor was compensated for his work. And that compensation paid for his open heart surgery.

Unless you really think that whatever someone pays for is actually paid for by his employer (but then, of course, where does that chain stop?). But then it doesn't matter if it's health insurance or not - if an employee is using any money to pay for these types of contraceptives, the employer would have paid for these contraceptives.

Your next "logical" step is nonsensical. All it is is fear-mongering, which is a large part of the religious right's agenda when it comes to what it thinks are abortion issues. Doctors aren't being forced to perform abortions and no one is trying to make doctors perform abortion. I realize that another WBW member posted earlier a one line statement in this thread that the government's lawyers in this case said that they could compel doctors to perform abortions. That's the only time I've heard that. Even IF the lawyers said that, I don't know of any steps or measures being taken to make that a reality and I strongly doubt that there is any legitimacy to that at all.

I don't know if you know this (but you should, since SP has pointed it out multiples times in this thread alone), but doctors specialize. Not everyone performs abortions or knows how to, much like not all doctors know how to treat skin cancer or perform heart surgery. Unless it is going to become mandatory to maintain a medical license that all doctors know how to perform an abortion (and it isn't and never will be), this logical step is pure nonsense.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...


The abortion video you showed is exactly the same thing.

Sensationally graphic vs graphic without sensationalism
Emotional music vs no music
Pleading voice over vs monotone narration
Seals vs humans

Same thing? Uh. OK

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

Would you like me to post videos of news coverage of abortion clinic bombings? Because that makes just as much sense. Or maybe we can just consider the Westboro baptist church to be the voice of all Christians? You see, there are moron extreme-ists on both sides of every issue.

To borrow Bill's chosen phrase, there are many "assholes with agendas."

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...

I probably can with personal stuff, but the 401K is different. The IRS considers me to be the Trustee of the fund, and if I exercise too much control or set too strict guidelines for the investments, and they tank, then there's a degree of personal liability involved. At least that's the explanation I've been given by the people whom it's through. But I will investigate.

Maybe. I don't have employees so I don't have to deal with things at that level. But I do know that there are investments like that that are designed for companies.

Personal liability would surprise me, especially since participation in a 401(k) is voluntary on behalf of all parties. If they don't like the company's investment choices, they do other things with their money.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

Bottom line:
This ruling does not deprive ANYONE of their rights! Where do we draw the line?? 'Oh, I support your right to believe abortion is wrong, as long as I can force you to PAY for mine'?? NO!! The line needs to be drawn here, so that the asshole with the agenda CAN'T take the next logical step, which is mandating that all doctors and hospitals must participate, because **I** say it's for the greater good.

Actually bottom line people are being depraved of their rights. The ACA granted all people the right to healthcare and part of that healthcare included the morning after pill and other forms of birth control. Now...because some billionaire religious asshole thinks its his right, he's challenged the law and won, and is now denying those women access to items previously included in the ACA.
The even crazier thing, is that the law didn't change for everyone, it only changed for those few that happen to work for a company who thinks they have a right to tell their employees what they can and can't do with their healthcare. I'd actually have less of a problem with this whole situation if the ACA was amended to remove those 4 forms of birth control for everyone. It would still be upsetting, but at least you'd have a law that applied to everyone, and not just a select few.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Now...because some billionaire religious asshole thinks its his right, he's challenged the law and won,

yup.. See what I mean.

If someone stands up for the UNBORN BABY, they're a religious ass hole.

If they call a lib a baby killer, they are hate mongers and intollerant.

You can talk to these fine folk all you want, but in the end, it will just come down to being cussed out, called names, and stared down by someone that has no real comprehension of what tolerance really is.

It just makes my head spin.

I happen to be pro choice (and also pro animal rights, as a matter of fact) and yet consider myself to be quite tolerant, so long as the person with whom I am interacting is behaving maturely. I've not cursed at anyone in this thread, for example, and try to back up almost everything I say with verifiable facts.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...

yup.. See what I mean.

If someone stands up for the UNBORN BABY, they're a religious ass hole.

If they call a lib a baby killer, they are hate mongers and intollerant.

You can talk to these fine folk all you want, but in the end, it will just come down to being cussed out, called names, and stared down by someone that has no real comprehension of what tolerance really is.

It just makes my head spin.

He's had plenty of time to "stand up" for unborn babies, its just when he feels it costs him some money that he has a problem with it...he's proven that he's fine making money off investments from those very same drugs that he's now not willing to give to his employees. He's using his religious beliefs to push his agenda on to his employees. In addition, he's a hypocrite too; profiting off companies that make the birth control he opposes...if that isn't asshole worthy, then I don't know what it.

And I'm not calling you an asshole, so don't get your panties in a bunch.

[reply=Sugarpie]...

Actually bottom line people are being depraved of their rights. The ACA granted all people the right to healthcare

I have to say, how does the government have the power to grant you a right? ACA did not grant anyone anything at all. It did however mandate that people buy something that they may not or did not want. Yes some people wanted more affordable healthcare, but it is yet to be seen that ACA will provide such. I understand that at the moment people are saving money, but for how long and at what cost to the nations taxpayers and future generations. The US government is now footing the bill for at least part of 9.5 million more peoples health insurance, with a very good likely hood that 6 million of those people are 90-100% payed for by the government. Had ACA been set-up like Canada's health system it would have been far better, but that would never have happened, as the politicians receive to much money from insurance companies that would have been crippled by such legislation.

Quote:

Originally posted by nemisis02

[reply=Sugarpie]...

Actually bottom line people are being depraved of their rights. The ACA granted all people the right to healthcare

I have to say, how does the government have the power to grant you a right? ACA did not grant anyone anything at all. It did however mandate that people buy something that they may not or did not want. Yes some people wanted more affordable healthcare, but it is yet to be seen that ACA will provide such. I understand that at the moment people are saving money, but for how long and at what cost to the nations taxpayers and future generations. The US government is now footing the bill for at least part of 9.5 million more peoples health insurance, with a very good likely hood that 6 million of those people are 90-100% payed for by the government. Had ACA been set-up like Canada's health system it would have been far better, but that would never have happened, as the politicians receive to much money from insurance companies that would have been crippled by such legislation.

Maybe "right" isn't the correct word, but by law they did insure that every person in the US would be covered by the same minimum level of healthcare...so idk...its more or less a right.

And yeah, I don't know why they just didn't take a percentage of income tax and use it to pay for healthcare. It would make it simpler, and would have avoided this whole Hobby Lobby BS as well.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...


And yeah, I don't know why they just didn't take a percentage of income tax and use it to pay for healthcare. It would make it simpler, and would have avoided this whole Hobby Lobby BS as well.

Because that would cut out the humongous profits the insurance companies rake in. This is where I have a beef with the ACA. The government is basically telling everyone they have to buy a product from a select group of companies (no open healthcare market here, the government decides who can offer health insurance and who can't) and if you don't, you have to pay a fine.

Quote:

Originally posted by nemisis02

ACA did not grant anyone anything at all. It did however mandate that people buy something that they may not or did not want.

Yeah, that's what governments do. Like, for instance, they make you buy public education, roads, police coverage, car insurance, etc. that people may or may not want.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

...

Because that would cut out the humongous profits the insurance companies rake in. This is where I have a beef with the ACA. The government is basically telling everyone they have to buy a product from a select group of companies (no open healthcare market here, the government decides who can offer health insurance and who can't) and if you don't, you have to pay a fine.

How it works in Canada is that a minimum basic coverage is provided by the government, and then almost everyone has secondary coverage through their job which is not government paid coverage, its through a private for profit company. Our basic coverage doesn't cover things like prescriptions, ambulance service, dental, or vision...so your ACA sounds much more inclusive.

The Hobby Lobby decision didn't infringe on anyone's rights. All the employees of Hobby Lobby can still purchase birth control (and cheaper with this ruling). Health care is not a right, it is a benefit paid by the employer.

Liberals always want someone else to pay for what they should be paying for. Politicians like Clinton and Warren try and convince their minions that it is their right. The Left believe the government can do what ever it wants, and they soil their pants when the Supreme Court reminds them that there are limits placed on the government.

Most people are really confused by all this. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control. What they were opposed to is being forced to pay for the morning after pill. That is what the Supreme Court agreed with.