07-18-2014 04:07 PM
484 ... 45678 ...
tools
  1. sydneycooper1979's Avatar
    Just to be clear, we are not talking about what women need, but their recreational activities. No one is saying they want to deny antibiotics or flu shots. The company has no say in what their employees do off the clock, why should they be forced to subsidize it?
    Whoa whoa whoa. Recreational activities????? So married women who don't want to have children should just stop having sex with their husbands? Sex is part of a healthy marriage. And to be clear, there are loads of women who take birth control pills to regulate hormones, to help regulate the way their reproductive cycles operate in general. It's not just about recreational sex.hobby Lobby has no problem covering Viagra, which IS purely recreational. Or wait......married men should still be able to have sex with their wives right? It's part of a healthy marriage right? So why the double standard? Why does an employers religious belief get to dictate what health coverage I am entitled to? I am paying the premiums and am entitled to the full scope of coverage under the law. It's not like women are asking for something for nothing. Geez how insulting.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    msndrstood, A895 and nolittdroid like this.
    07-02-2014 09:21 AM
  2. sydneycooper1979's Avatar
    Let's walk on the path of logic for a minute. The question here is not whether a corporation can operate in whichever manner they please - the question is whether they have to follow a law that is in place and applies to all corporations. They asked for an exemption from the law based upon sincerely held religious beliefs. Let's pretend for a minute that Hobby Lobby doesn't buy the vast majority of its base goods from China, a country that, by all accounts, has a colorful history of forced abortion and female infanticide. Let's say they (the family behind HL) truly have personal religious beliefs against abortion. I'm cool with that. What I am not cool with is:

    A) The political theory: A corporation is not a person, an individual, with "freedom of religion" rights under the Constitution. The claim is that corporations, as a single entity, are afforded the these rights - if that's the case, why don't corporations have the right to vote? To marry? Because they aren't people. Corporations are man-made creations that are governed specifically by the government. They register, form, and pay taxes. Folks incorporate for tax reasons and to limit their liability. Individuals certainly aren't afforded those same privileges. So, is it fair that corporations can claim "I'm a corporation" on one had, and then claim "I'm an individual with Constitutional rights" on the other hand? That doesn't seem reasonable. Further, an entity (corporation or individual) should not get pick and choose which laws they have to follow and which they do not based upon their religious beliefs. We certainly don't let anyone be stoned to death at work because it's part of Sharia religious law at a Muslim corp, do we? No. We expect that corporations will follow the laws in place to govern corporations, regardless of the principals' religious affiliation because CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE.

    B) My individual rights under the law are affected: The ACA was put in place primarily to avoid exactly what is referred to above: companies picking and choosing what to cover and what not to cover. The idea was that insurance companies must provide a baseline level of coverage for everyone, including birth control options. No one says an employee must use any of the birth control methods offered. However, to deny me coverage of my IUD because of the corporation's religious beliefs is sticking your nose in my bedroom. Let's play this out: Let's say pills and the shot make me extremely depressed and my husband is allergic to latex - now what? Now I have to pay thousand of dollars out of pocket to to get my IUD? Who can afford that? And I personally can vouch that sometimes it takes surgery to remove those things. Which is thousands of dollars WITH insurance. What if I can afford to have it implanted on my own dime, but the doctor screwed up and now I have to pay for out-of pocket surgery to remove it if I ever want to have children again?? The government-formed entity that is the corporation I work for gets to influence how I go about my family planning because that entity "has religious rights?" Pleeeeeeease. Have your personal beliefs but don't think that your company gets to stand in my bedroom and tell me that, what is REQUIRED BY LAW, is unattainable for me because of those beliefs. THAT is completely against what this country was founded on.

    C) Um, science. Yes, as mentioned, they cover 16 other forms of birth control besides the IUDs and the morning after pill on the basis that the forms of birth control they've gotten exemption from are abortive in nature. However, an abortive, by nature, takes a fertilized, implanted egg that would otherwise become a baby and gets rid of it. According to...science, that's not how these forms of birth control work. The egg is not BOTH fertilized and implanted when these forms of birth control do their thing. To be pregnant/have life, you must have both. These forms of birth control interrupt the fertilization (or ovulation) process. They do not abort an already fertilized and implanted egg. So, the entire lawsuit was fueled by their "belief" that these birth control methods are abortive. Believing something doesn't make it true.
    msndrstood, A895 and nolittdroid like this.
    07-02-2014 09:27 AM
  3. toober's Avatar
    Whoa whoa whoa. Recreational activities????? So married women who don't want to have children should just stop having sex with their husbands? Sex is part of a healthy marriage. And to be clear, there are loads of women who take birth control pills to regulate hormones, to help regulate the way their reproductive cycles operate in general. It's not just about recreational sex.hobby Lobby has no problem covering Viagra, which IS purely recreational. Or wait......married men should still be able to have sex with their wives right? It's part of a healthy marriage right? So why the double standard? Why does an employers religious belief get to dictate what health coverage I am entitled to? I am paying the premiums and am entitled to the full scope of coverage under the law. It's not like women are asking for something for nothing. Geez how insulting.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Whether or not it is part of a healthy marriage, sex without the intention of creating offspring is recreational. We do not need sex to survive.it's not essential to our life. And to be clear, I do not think male enhancement drugs should be covered either. I am not saying that anyone should stop having sex, I am saying that they should stop making other people stop paying for it. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should buy their own birth control and/or Viagra and stop asking employers to subsidize their good time.
    Scott7217 and bclinger#IM like this.
    07-02-2014 09:36 AM
  4. SteveISU's Avatar
    I don't think, regardless of political affiliation or personal beliefs, Christianity shouldn't have some higher priority when it comes to the First Amendment.

    Posted via Droid Razr M on the Android Central App
    Who said it does? People of any faith are free to protect their religious freedom in this country. The conflict becomes when they feel their religious laws supersede local, state, and federal laws.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-02-2014 09:36 AM
  5. sydneycooper1979's Avatar
    Whether or not it is part of a healthy marriage, sex without the intention of creating offspring is recreational. We do not need sex to survive.it's not essential to our life. And to be clear, I do not think male enhancement drugs should be covered either. I am not saying that anyone should stop having sex, I am saying that they should stop making other people stop paying for it. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should buy their own birth control and/or Viagra and stop asking employers to subsidize their good time.
    And as I said birth control has more uses than just preventing pregnancy.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-02-2014 09:39 AM
  6. sydneycooper1979's Avatar
    07-02-2014 09:40 AM
  7. SteveISU's Avatar
    And as I said birth control has more uses than just preventing pregnancy.
    The decision doesn't affect common forms of birth control. Plan B is OTC so you're actually better off paying out of pocket for it than trying to get a prescription for a non-OTC form and paying a huge copay for it.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-02-2014 09:49 AM
  8. sydneycooper1979's Avatar
    The decision doesn't affect common forms of birth control. Plan B is OTC so you're actually better off paying out of pocket for it than trying to get a prescription for a non-OTC form and paying a huge copay for it.
    Very true


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-02-2014 09:50 AM
  9. toober's Avatar
    And as I said birth control has more uses than just preventing pregnancy.
    So instead of limiting coverage to when it is medically needed, we need to approve it for any and every use?
    07-02-2014 10:17 AM
  10. sydneycooper1979's Avatar
    Yes. That's one of the main points of the ACA. To give everyone equal access to a baseline degree of Healthcare. Let me give you an analogy. When you pay for the salad bar at a restaurant, you are paying for access to everything offered on the salad bar. You don't get to pay less because you are allergic to the crab in the seafood salad.
    A895 likes this.
    07-02-2014 10:23 AM
  11. sydneycooper1979's Avatar
    I mean there are a variety of uses for antidepressants but we don't distinguish coverage.
    nolittdroid likes this.
    07-02-2014 10:24 AM
  12. sydneycooper1979's Avatar
    Also corporations are not people and have no right to stand in judgment of how people use their Healthcare.
    nolittdroid likes this.
    07-02-2014 10:27 AM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    B) My individual rights under the law are affected
    Specifically, which constitutional rights do you think are being affected? And once you explain that, can I also count on your support for employers to buy my guns for me, since those are also a constitutional right?
    07-02-2014 11:09 AM
  14. sydneycooper1979's Avatar
    Rights under the ACA which is a law.
    07-02-2014 11:12 AM
  15. sydneycooper1979's Avatar
    Nowhere did I mention the Constitution
    07-02-2014 11:13 AM
  16. SteveISU's Avatar
    Yes. That's one of the main points of the ACA. To give everyone equal access to a baseline degree of Healthcare. Let me give you an analogy. When you pay for the salad bar at a restaurant, you are paying for access to everything offered on the salad bar. You don't get to pay less because you are allergic to the crab in the seafood salad.
    What we are seeing right now is the result of one side whom determined 100% of what that baseline is with next to no debate, next to zero input from the other side, and passed in the unilateral fashion it was. Challenges at the level of the SC are gonna happen when 50%+ of the voices in this country were shut out from the discussion. A collective bunch of politicians and bureaucrats with next to zero experience in healthcare chose whats best for everyone. I can't imagine why this hasn't gone more smoothly.
    07-02-2014 11:15 AM
  17. SteveISU's Avatar
    Rights under the ACA which is a law.
    Rights that change daily at the whim of our president.
    07-02-2014 11:17 AM
  18. toober's Avatar
    Also corporations are not people and have no right to stand in judgment of how people use their Healthcare.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...=1&word=person

    You may want to read up on the subject before making assertions such as this.
    Also corporations are not people and have no right to stand in judgment of how people use their Healthcare.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...=1&word=person
    07-02-2014 11:20 AM
  19. A895's Avatar
    Just to be clear, we are not talking about what women need, but their recreational activities. No one is saying they want to deny antibiotics or flu shots. The company has no say in what their employees do off the clock, why should they be forced to subsidize it?
    Off the clock? So if I get hurt off the clock company health care shouldn't cover me?

    Posted via Droid Razr M on the Android Central App
    07-02-2014 11:34 AM
  20. A895's Avatar
    Whether or not it is part of a healthy marriage, sex without the intention of creating offspring is recreational. We do not need sex to survive.it's not essential to our life. And to be clear, I do not think male enhancement drugs should be covered either. I am not saying that anyone should stop having sex, I am saying that they should stop making other people stop paying for it. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should buy their own birth control and/or Viagra and stop asking employers to subsidize their good time.
    Lol. I wish you weren't serious.

    Posted via Droid Razr M on the Android Central App
    07-02-2014 11:36 AM
  21. A895's Avatar
    Who said it does? People of any faith are free to protect their religious freedom in this country. The conflict becomes when they feel their religious laws supersede local, state, and federal laws.
    Not true. So I care to practice Satanism I am protected under the Amendment just as well? Also, it's funny you say that when Hobby Lobby is doing exactly that, they think because they don't believe in something they think they should be exempt from the law.

    Posted via Droid Razr M on the Android Central App
    07-02-2014 11:37 AM
  22. toober's Avatar
    Lol. I wish you weren't serious.

    Posted via Droid Razr M on the Android Central App
    Sometimes, I do too.
    07-02-2014 11:38 AM
  23. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Rights under the ACA which is a law.
    Nowhere did I mention the Constitution
    Rights are set in place by the constitution, and laws have to respect those rights. Laws cannot create or remove rights. So when you talk rights, it's constitutionally based, even if you don't think it is.

    Now let's play hypotheticals. If you believe forcing another entity to pay for a certain drug is a right, then I can only assume you would either be consistent with your thinking and demand companies pay for other rights like guns, or you're being hypocritical and think it's ok to pick and choose which rights are to be obeyed. Which is it?
    07-02-2014 11:40 AM
  24. A895's Avatar
    Sometimes, I do too.
    I can't believe you said we don't need sex to service when sex is how humans survive. Birth control in particular helps us survive so no unplanned pregnancies or accident happen. If I am working for Hobby Lobby and I have a kid, I will have to take time off, have parental leave and be prepared for emergencies.

    Which in essence takes away from the company because they are out an employee. This van all go back to the company themselves is not doing everything it can to keep employees happy and prioritizing their personal religious beliefs over anything else.

    It disgusts me, we even let them get away with this.

    Posted via Droid Razr M on the Android Central App
    07-02-2014 11:42 AM
  25. pappy53's Avatar
    I can't believe you said we don't need sex to service when sex is how humans survive. Birth control in particular helps us survive so no unplanned pregnancies or accident happen. If I am working for Hobby Lobby and I have a kid, I will have to take time off, have parental leave and be prepared for emergencies.

    Which in essence takes away from the company because they are out an employee. This van all go back to the company themselves is not doing everything it can to keep employees happy and prioritizing their personal religious beliefs over anything else.

    It disgusts me, we even let them get away with this.

    Posted via Droid Razr M on the Android Central App
    If you are working for Hobby Lobby, and have a kid, it means you are not taking advantage of the 16 contraceptives that they do provide.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Scott7217 likes this.
    07-02-2014 11:48 AM
484 ... 45678 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Cases for the OnePlus One?
    By rkleung in forum OnePlus One
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 09-02-2014, 05:52 PM
  2. anyone think Razr M Battery Case will be too late?
    By antonywan in forum Droid RAZR M
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-01-2014, 01:17 AM
  3. Best Nexus 7 cases?
    By RaginCajun2OI8 in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2013)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-24-2014, 10:53 AM
  4. HTC One M8 Cases and Screen Protectors
    By Wildo6882 in forum Marketplace Archive
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-06-2014, 01:51 PM
  5. Samsung keyboard autocorrect random case errors
    By mdye in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-29-2014, 11:35 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD