Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsOK)   Hobby Lobby to continue hobby of lobbying Appeals Court to allow their other hobby of lobbing their beliefs on their employees private lobby hobbies   (newsok.com) divider line 526
    More: Followup, sidelines, appeals court  
•       •       •

7703 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2012 at 4:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



526 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-28 06:52:10 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: PanicMan: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says you can't pay for someone else's abortion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says that magic mushrooms and licked frog skins are sacred sacraments? It's religious belief, douchbag. Doesn't matter whose religion, or what support it has or doesn't have.

/Go ahead, make some more assumptions about me.


The state doesn't force anyone to pay for someone else's abortion. In fact, there's a law, called the Hyde Amendment, that says no federal tax dollars can go to abortion.

Care to be wrong about anything else?
 
2012-12-28 06:53:18 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.


The state doesn't force anyone to own a corporation.
 
2012-12-28 06:53:35 PM  

KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: ghare: KidneyStone: the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies

Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days

?? People want contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they try to go to their doctor to get them (acting responsibly) but find their EMPLOYER has interfered with them trying to act responsibly, and you think this is good?

Ahh, the Modern Republican: willfully, insistently stupid, and proud of it.

I never said they're not allowed to have them. I never said anything about not paying for a doctor visit. I never said i was even AGAINST contraceptives.

I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

Ahh, the Modern Presumptuous Douchebag: Clueless, insistently entitled, and proud of it.

/I'm a Libertarian. Some conservative views without all the bullshiat worrying about who sleeps with who or who prays to whatever they call god

Your health care costs will go up regardless, kitten.

And they go up - often - because uninsured are seeking medical treatment.

Switching to a different debate point, nancy?

Gotcha!


Please state where I switched debate points.
 
2012-12-28 06:54:02 PM  

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: You're assuming that someone making minimum wage can afford to pay for a visit to the OBGYN


Kitten, you never claimed that Hobby Lobby wouldn't pay for a trip to the obgyn? Okay then........it's amazing you forget what you write so quickly.
 
2012-12-28 06:56:03 PM  

special20: cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.

Too bad "Owner" doesn't work hard enough to afford what is legally required. Some job creator "Owner" is... he must not be very smart.


Sorry....I missed where he said the owner couldn't afford it....I believe he said the owner chose the less costly option.....
 
2012-12-28 06:57:36 PM  

Bontesla: giftedmadness: clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.

um....conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else.  Also, how does providing a morning after pill "cure" someone?

Oh my god you're trolling. I'm so sorry. I didn't realize that. I thought you were genuinely stupid.

Well done!


stating facts is trolling?
 
2012-12-28 06:58:16 PM  

KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.


Why not? It already pays for the viagra for your e.d.
 
2012-12-28 06:58:24 PM  

giftedmadness: Bontesla: giftedmadness: clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.

um....conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else.  Also, how does providing a morning after pill "cure" someone?

Oh my god you're trolling. I'm so sorry. I didn't realize that. I thought you were genuinely stupid.

Well done!

stating facts is trolling?


Asking a question isn't stating a fact, genius.
 
2012-12-28 07:01:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: giftedmadness: Bontesla: giftedmadness: clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.

um....conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else.  Also, how does providing a morning after pill "cure" someone?

Oh my god you're trolling. I'm so sorry. I didn't realize that. I thought you were genuinely stupid.

Well done!

stating facts is trolling?

Asking a question isn't stating a fact, genius.


"conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else :"

Looks like a statement of fact to me.
 
2012-12-28 07:02:55 PM  

ProfessorOhki: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: I can't tell you that again because I never told you the first time. What I can tell you again is that it is standard practice to bill over cost by 500% or more on basic items and procedures. This is no secret.

I suppose you didn't. I was getting your posts interlaced with someone else who was arguing with KidneyStone and seemed to imply that 100% of the additional cost was pushed to insurance w/o any impact on the doctors/hospital operations.


The conversation Stone and I were having was centered around whether or not insurance rates go up because of health services rendered to uninsured patients. At no point did I imply or address what you're suggesting.
 
2012-12-28 07:02:56 PM  

giftedmadness: They aren't imposing any religion on their employees.


The exact opposite of truth.

giftedmadness: The employee is free to do what he chooses with his own money.  Before Obamacare, there wasn't a mandate to provide an employee with any health benefits.  The employer had the right to offer whatever plan they saw fit to the employee.


Health insurance, if offered, is part of the employee's earned compensation. Minimum coverages are mandated by law. An employer should have just as much say in which of mandated minimum covered services are used by employees as they have in which brand of toilet paper employees buy with their earned pay: None.
 
2012-12-28 07:04:30 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: fanbladesaresharp: ElwoodCuse: Yes, the pill, morning-after pill, and IUDs are "abortion-causing devices". Whatta maroon.

Seriously...if that's the angle they use, then half of the products on their shelves (various chemicals, glues, xacto blades, wiring, hand tools) are abortion-causing devices.

/doesn't shop at HL
//Petco of Hobby stores
///prefers specialty shops that actually know their farking products

COMPLETELY off-topic, but curious. What's the story with Petco? I actually prefer them to PetSmart but that has more to do with selection than anything else. Judging by the slashies I would guess you take issue with the knowledge level of their staff?

Yes actually. I'd like to talk to someone that has more than 6 months experience selling X-hobby tools and components while chewing gum or still learning how to count back change. It's annoying. And I've been in a lot of PetCos in several states and it seems company wide.


I have the opposite problem. I work for one of Hobby Lobby's competitors, and I'm the guy that gets called when a customer has a hobby/craft question. It isn't my job description, I'm just a hobby guy myself. So instead of fumbling around, they call me and I answer the questions. I will take customers around, show them their options, find ways for them to save money or time even if it means looking for crazy off the wall idea to turn on thing into another thing or sending them to other stores. and I try to make sure they understand what to do to get the result they want. After all that I get "That sounds hard", "Isn't there a kit?", "I have to do it myself?", "Can't I use this cheaper tacky glue to hold the load bearing bit of wood together, I think it will be fine." Or my favorite, the one who walks around with me, makes their choices, goes home, obviously didn't listen to a word I said, and comes back to complain when it doesn't come out. Just remember, there are lots of dumb employees, and every one of them is a dumb customer. Add up how many dumb employees you have to deal with, and that is how many dumb customers I get.
 
2012-12-28 07:05:12 PM  

garron: pxlboy: garron: This is a simple concept people. If the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that abortion is murder, they have a moral responsibility to not pay for said murders.

But - I know there is no way but the liberal way and liberals have the right to dictate to people what they must believe and how they must spend their money. The Russians and Chinese communists use forced labor camps, jail and sometimes murder to enforce their ideologies on people. You liberals should look into it. I hear its very effective.

They also believe that contraception (regardless of its use) is abortion. They also believe all sorts of other crazy sh*t.

So what. One of the great parts of our formerly "free" country was that an employee could choose where they work. If you don't like a company's policies - don't work there, don't shop there and talk bad about them all you want - but don't force them to believe your "crazy sh*t".


You must define choice as being something only businesses have as Obamacare offers people choices they originally didn't have.
 
2012-12-28 07:07:38 PM  

Bontesla: You must define choice as being something only businesses have as Obamacare offers people choices they originally didn't have.


Corporations are people, my friend, with rights.
Employees are just pee-ons.
 
2012-12-28 07:08:09 PM  

giftedmadness: stating facts is trolling?


Try stating a fact and find out.
 
2012-12-28 07:08:57 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.


Your problem is that you are foolish enough to believe that this is the case.
 
2012-12-28 07:10:54 PM  

giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

...and forcing the employee to adhere to their employer's religion doesn't interfere with their right to not be subject to their employer's religion? Hobby Lobby's owners are more than free to not use contraception - they don't get to make the choice for their employees. Well, I suppose unless sex and/or procreation are part of their duties as employees, but I'm thinking it isn't that sort of place.

They aren't PREVENTING them from using contraception.  If one of their employees uses a contraceptive that the employee pays for herself, she will not be fired.  No freedom is abridged.

You're not getting it. It has nothing to do with it being contraception or insurance. The employer should not be applying their religion to their employees in any way, shape, or form.

They aren't imposing any religion on their employees.  The employee is free to do what he chooses with his own money.  Before Obamacare, there wasn't a mandate to provide an employee with any health benefits.  The employer had the right to offer whatever plan they saw fit to the employee.


Yes, laws can change.
 
2012-12-28 07:10:56 PM  

giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

...and forcing the employee to adhere to their employer's religion doesn't interfere with their right to not be subject to their employer's religion? Hobby Lobby's owners are more than free to not use contraception - they don't get to make the choice for their employees. Well, I suppose unless sex and/or procreation are part of their duties as employees, but I'm thinking it isn't that sort of place.

They aren't PREVENTING them from using contraception.  If one of their employees uses a contraceptive that the employee pays for herself, she will not be fired.  No freedom is abridged.

You're not getting it. It has nothing to do with it being contraception or insurance. The employer should not be applying their religion to their employees in any way, shape, or form.

They aren't imposing any religion on their employees.  The employee is free to do what he chooses with his own money.  Before Obamacare, there wasn't a mandate to provide an employee with any health benefits.  The employer had the right to offer whatever plan they saw fit to the employee.


And therein lies the problem- the health plans being chosen by the employers have been incomplete and sub-par and exclusionary, and have led to a major health care crisis in this country. Obamacare is the first step in trying to mitigate that problem. If things were perfect the way they were, why is health care/insurance even being talked about?
 
2012-12-28 07:12:55 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....


If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,
 
2012-12-28 07:14:57 PM  

ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

...and forcing the employee to adhere to their employer's religion doesn't interfere with their right to not be subject to their employer's religion? Hobby Lobby's owners are more than free to not use contraception - they don't get to make the choice for their employees. Well, I suppose unless sex and/or procreation are part of their duties as employees, but I'm thinking it isn't that sort of place.

They aren't PREVENTING them from using contraception.  If one of their employees uses a contraceptive that the employee pays for herself, she will not be fired.  No freedom is abridged.

You're not getting it. It has nothing to do with it being contraception or insurance. The employer should not be applying their religion to their employees in any way, shape, or form.

They aren't imposing any religion on their employees.  The employee is free to do what he chooses with his own money.  Before Obamacare, there wasn't a mandate to provide an employee with any health benefits.  The employer had the right to offer whatever plan they saw fit to the employee.

Yes, laws can change.


lol, no kidding? We are debating the NEW LAW! lol, you don't say.....?
 
2012-12-28 07:15:01 PM  

Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,


And therein lies the problem; the pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!
 
2012-12-28 07:16:26 PM  

Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,


So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?
 
2012-12-28 07:17:33 PM  

garron: This is a simple concept people. If the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that abortion is murder, they have a moral responsibility to not pay for said murders.

But - I know there is no way but the liberal way and liberals have the right to dictate to people what they must believe and how they must spend their money. The Russians and Chinese communists use forced labor camps, jail and sometimes murder to enforce their ideologies on people. You liberals should look into it. I hear its very effective.


What on the holy fark does this have to do with abortion?

Do we have to accommodate every stupid and wrong thing people think because every viewpoint deserves the same consideration no matter how completely and demonstrably wrong it is?
 
2012-12-28 07:17:52 PM  
"You got it, mon! Severely reduced pay all around!"
 
2012-12-28 07:18:41 PM  

giftedmadness: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?


Apples and oranges, strawman...
 
2012-12-28 07:18:57 PM  

KidneyStone: mcmiller: KidneyStone: I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

How do you feel about your health care costs going up due to unplanned or unwanted pregnancies?

Birth control costs much much less than prenatal care, delivery with potential complications, postpartum care of the mother and then years of pediatric care.

Point missed. Look up personal responsibility


Getting all morally outraged and self-righteous doesn't solve problems, but that's not really what you want, is it? You just do it to feel good about yourself, because you aren't getting pregnant like those people. Some people don't need that kind of validation, and prefer to use things like statistics to determine what course of action leads to the best outcome. Statistics. Look that up. It just so happens that offering birth control is less expensive than caring for all those extra unwanted pregnancies that would otherwise happen.

Go ahead and scream "sluts!" all you want, but leave the health care decisions to the doctors who... *gasp* ...actually know what they're doing. See if you can still get that addictive rush of extreme self-righteousness, without it actually ruining people's lives.
 
2012-12-28 07:19:31 PM  

dr_blasto: garron: This is a simple concept people. If the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that abortion is murder, they have a moral responsibility to not pay for said murders.

But - I know there is no way but the liberal way and liberals have the right to dictate to people what they must believe and how they must spend their money. The Russians and Chinese communists use forced labor camps, jail and sometimes murder to enforce their ideologies on people. You liberals should look into it. I hear its very effective.

What on the holy fark does this have to do with abortion?

Do we have to accommodate every stupid and wrong thing people think because every viewpoint deserves the same consideration no matter how completely and demonstrably wrong it is?


This. It's almost as if the churches and their practitioners think they are special and should be exempted from the rules that keep them from pushing religion on others.

Shocking, I tell you.
 
2012-12-28 07:19:53 PM  

giftedmadness: So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?


This isn't a religious or atheist organization; it's a business. That argument doesn't fly. Nice try though.
 
2012-12-28 07:21:13 PM  

mwfark: The govt is forcing Hobby Lobby to act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs, so I'm proud of this private enterprise for standing its ground against an aggressively coercive government. I believe in freedom, and Hobby Lobby should be free to run it's business as the owners see fit, and the employees are free to seek work elsewhere if they don't like it.


They aren't paying for shiat directly. Their insurance company is. Their employees pay for that insurance. Your argument is insane.
 
2012-12-28 07:22:55 PM  

dr_blasto: mwfark: The govt is forcing Hobby Lobby to act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs, so I'm proud of this private enterprise for standing its ground against an aggressively coercive government. I believe in freedom, and Hobby Lobby should be free to run it's business as the owners see fit, and the employees are free to seek work elsewhere if they don't like it.

They aren't paying for shiat directly. Their insurance company is. Their employees pay for that insurance. Your argument is insane.


They can't let pesky things logic interfere with their god-given right to sh*t on other people.
 
2012-12-28 07:23:05 PM  

Wally007: giftedmadness: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?

Apples and oranges, strawman...


it's a yes or no question
 
2012-12-28 07:24:20 PM  

giftedmadness: Wally007: giftedmadness: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?

Apples and oranges, strawman...

it's a yes or no question


No, it's a stupid question.
 
2012-12-28 07:24:53 PM  

dr_blasto: mwfark: The govt is forcing Hobby Lobby to act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs, so I'm proud of this private enterprise for standing its ground against an aggressively coercive government. I believe in freedom, and Hobby Lobby should be free to run it's business as the owners see fit, and the employees are free to seek work elsewhere if they don't like it.

They aren't paying for shiat directly. Their insurance company is. Their employees pay for that insurance. Your argument is insane.


um..no....the employer pays for the insurance.....
 
2012-12-28 07:26:24 PM  
The default setting for government involvement in religion should be set to "secular". No playing favorites on any side allowed.

It seems to be the Abrahamic religions that take the most issue with this. They see anything less than total adoption of their beliefs and practices as persecution.
 
2012-12-28 07:27:26 PM  

giftedmadness: dr_blasto: mwfark: The govt is forcing Hobby Lobby to act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs, so I'm proud of this private enterprise for standing its ground against an aggressively coercive government. I believe in freedom, and Hobby Lobby should be free to run it's business as the owners see fit, and the employees are free to seek work elsewhere if they don't like it.

They aren't paying for shiat directly. Their insurance company is. Their employees pay for that insurance. Your argument is insane.

um..no....the employer pays for the insurance.....


The insurance is part of the compensation to the worker. Since that money can go to non-employer sponsored health plans as well, the money's closer to being under the control of the employee. They then pay into an insurance pool that was organized by the employer. They're really just middlemen in the process.
 
2012-12-28 07:27:52 PM  
Not gonna happen Hobby Lobby.
Religious rights do not give carte-balance to discriminate.
There IS legal precedence.
 
2012-12-28 07:28:17 PM  

giftedmadness: So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?


,
If an Atheist company was attempting to claim an exemption because some of the money paid out as claims under their insurance policy went to religious organizations that provided medical services, I would be equally fine with telling them to STFU and pay for the damned insurance.
 
2012-12-28 07:28:34 PM  

pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!


Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion
 
2012-12-28 07:28:44 PM  

pxlboy: giftedmadness: Wally007: giftedmadness: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?

Apples and oranges, strawman...

it's a yes or no question

No, it's a stupid question.


how is it stupid?
 
2012-12-28 07:29:00 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

The state doesn't force anyone to own a corporation.


Corporations aren't in the constitution.
 
2012-12-28 07:30:21 PM  

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion


Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/understanding-the-post-offi ce -s-benefits-mess.html
 
2012-12-28 07:30:33 PM  

giftedmadness: t's a yes or no question


An atheist organization isn't necessarily a business. So it's still a strawman.
 
2012-12-28 07:30:44 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: Just pandering to those narrow-minded imbeciles that want to score some brownie points for heaven for their imaginary but insecure sky-wizard.  OH MY, GAWD doesn't like ABORTION or BIRTH CONTROL!  It sez right there in the BAHBULL!!!  Praise the LAWD!!!

Oh, and they just feel the rush of POWER they get for doing this. Doesn't matter how many lives of women they ruin with their little 'hobby' here.

Selfish, goddamn assholes. With money. Lots of goddamn money. Money that goddamn politicians just farkin' LOVE.


Unless there's something in the new testament about it, I don't think the Bible says anything negative about abortion per se. In fact the official Jewish stance is that a baby isn't a baby until it's halfway out of its mommy and that the mother's life is more important 100% of the time before that--this can also extend to the mother's mental health (how much depends on the individual rabbi). The Talmud even says (hypothetically) that delivering the baby in pieces is preferable to losing the life of the mother. Just, you know, FYI since I see a lot of "Abrahamic religions" nonsense flying around, as if they're all the same.
 
2012-12-28 07:30:53 PM  
Special 20:

"American blood was spilled to get health insurance by employers, ya know."

I don't have a source for you, but I don't believe that was the case. The way I remember reading it, FDR put in price controls as a response to the effects of the great depression. He also instituted salary caps in private industry. Almost immediately employers realized that to get top talent, they needed to follow the law but still recruit as effectively as possible. So the pitch was: "Look, Roosevelt says we can't give you but so many thousand dollars a year, so how does that cash, plus a paid vacation, plus a dandy ADD and health insurance policy package strike you?". Of course, the employers took the tax write-down for the insurance as a business expense. Entirely legal.

The federal government, as nimble then as now, took years to figure out what was going on and by that time, it was politically untenable to extend the wage controls to non-cash compensation. The best they could do was prohibit private citizens from taking the same tax deduction for health insurance that the corporations did. This was, of course, done.

And that is the primary reason our health care cost system is as it is now. It is about to change substantially, and frankly I'm more than a little concerned. It's 2700 pages of rules, passed without a single opposition vote. If nothing else, it raised the stakes on our politics by a huge degree and I don't think that is advisable. No party stays in the driver's seat forever.

I could be completely wrong about everything I just wrote except the 2700 page part. That's recent history. I don't think I have misstated facts, but if I did, I offer my sincere apologies.

We will see what happens, but I'm uneasy. Very uneasy.
 
2012-12-28 07:31:21 PM  

giftedmadness: pxlboy: giftedmadness: Wally007: giftedmadness: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?

Apples and oranges, strawman...

it's a yes or no question

No, it's a stupid question.

how is it stupid?


Because the government and religion should have nothing to do with one another. To that end, the churches should have their tax exempt statuses pulled.
 
2012-12-28 07:31:59 PM  

Bontesla: KidneyStone: Thunderpipes: ghare: KidneyStone: the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies

Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days

?? People want contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they try to go to their doctor to get them (acting responsibly) but find their EMPLOYER has interfered with them trying to act responsibly, and you think this is good?

Ahh, the Modern Republican: willfully, insistently stupid, and proud of it.

Employer interfered?

What, they stopped Sally from going out and buying stuff?

Employers should not be obligated to provide any health care. What is next, employers have to provide housing?

This guy gets what I'm saying.

Is housing part of the employee's compensation package? Then the employer must provide housing that meets the safety standards.


Dumb argument. you realize, health insurance through work is a relatively new thing. It is a benefit, because employers voluntarily offered it to entice employees. Now it is a mandated, economy crushing law. Sorry, a screw up who works in retail should not be offered a golden health care plan for free, damaging the business. What is the goddamned incentive now to ever get a real job?

Fiscal cliff or not, just because of Obamacare, we have crushing taxes starting to take effect in 2013, and it won't do a damn thing to solve the real problem with health care.
 
2012-12-28 07:33:04 PM  

giftedmadness: clyph: giftedmadness: Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

Learn the difference between "practicing your religion" and "imposing your religion on other people".

Your right to practice YOUR religion ENDS where my right to practice MY religion BEGINS. That's the distinction you teabagging fundie assholes never seem to understand. Practicing your religion means "I must wear magic underwear". That's fine. What we have a problem with is when you say "My employees must wear magic underwear".

Practice your own farking religion to your heart's content. Wear funny hats and magic underwear, eat special food, abstain from sex and dancing, whatever you think makes your invisible sky wizard happy -- all perfectly fine with us. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

If you're right, we're going to hell anyway. That's actually fine with us, as long as our afterlife doesn't mean spending an eternity surrounded by self-righteous douchebags like you.

Umm...you really fail to understand the debate.  Hobby Lobby owners are not preventing anyone from using contraceptives......are they?  No......  They just don't want to pay for it.  Pretty simple, not that hard to understand.


Except "they" are not paying for "it".
"They" are forcing "their" religeon on the employees.
While this is just fine with some few specific fundies, it is not fine with the general population, many of whom hold other religeous beliefs, OMG!
Pretty simple to understand that you have been hoodwinked, it is pretty easy to do to sycophants.
If you demand your religeous freedom, it ends right where it bumps it's nose against another's religeon.
 
2012-12-28 07:33:06 PM  

Thunderpipes: Sorry, a screw up who works in retail should not be offered a golden health care plan for free, damaging the business


Good thing that businesses aren't required to offer heath insurance for free then, right?
 
2012-12-28 07:35:05 PM  
*cue clapping*?

If subby's name is Bobbie, heads *aspload*
 
2012-12-28 07:36:01 PM  

pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.


You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?
 
Displayed 50 of 526 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report