|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
07-02-2014, 08:59 AM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
I think you're so biased that you can't see that doing so would require them to violate their religious principles. They're not preventing women from accessing the contraceptive method of their choice. They're simply saying that if any of their employees want access to any of the 4 out of a possible 20 options, that the company won't pay for it. That's not "shoving anything down anyone's throat". That's living by a set of principles that are inspired by their religious beliefs.
|
The insurance pays for it for heavens sake. I am sure Care First Blue Cross who covers me privately will pay for those little blue pills. Frankly I strongly believe they should be outlawed simply because I believe ED is just Heaven's way of keeping the gene pool cleaner but I don't campaign in front of their HQ about it.
We all pay auto insurance although we all know that our rates are what they are because some people are allowed to drive cars yet should not even be allowed a tricycle.
Same deal with homeowners insurance, fire insurance so what the hell ever happened to separation of church and state. So keep your religion, enjoy it and all that goes with it but keep it out of government. If I wanted to live in a theocracy I could move to Iran.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
07-02-2014, 09:02 AM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
Do you really think that the number of women effected by the narrow decision is significant? IMHO most women are smart enough to understand the decision and skip the political meanderings by the democrat's to rev up their base.
|
Well now that the camel's nose is in the tent we will just have to wait and see, won't we?
After all it only affects a few women and women are not anyone whose rights we should consider.
We really need to do universal healthcare and all of this crap would be moot. Instead ACA simply continues the diseasecare we currently have in place.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Last edited by merrylander; 07-02-2014 at 09:08 AM.
|
07-02-2014, 09:18 AM
|
|
Persona non grata
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 12,654
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
Do you really think that the number of women effected by the narrow decision is significant? IMHO most women are smart enough to understand the decision and skip the political meanderings by the democrat's to rev up their base.
|
Do you really think the number of gunowners affected by an assault weapon ban would be significant?
IMHO the only civilians that would want to own an assault rifle are pea brained knuckle dragging psychopaths like the Yayhoo in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkavwuWE5eQ
Seriously Dude, at the very mention of any kind of proposed gun control, no matter how minor and unobtrusive it may be, you right wingers start screaming your tits off about how Obama is going to take away your guns. As long as you are doing that kind of shit, you don't get to use the old "it's not a big deal" argument.
__________________
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Last edited by Tom Joad; 07-02-2014 at 09:39 AM.
|
07-02-2014, 09:31 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 3,261
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander
Please, the Preamble says "We the people" but the Roberts court has granted more rights to corporations than we the people enjoy. The owners of a limited corporation cannot be held responsible for the acts of a corporation, so the shareholders take the hit. You and I are held responsible for our action, not some third party. There are other examples of some on the court not following Article III "and shall hold their offices upon good behavior" what the Roberts court has been doing does not constitute 'good behavior' by any stretch of the imagination. Raising corporations to be above individuals is criminal.
|
No they didn't. Once again the democrats and their minions expanded the scope of the Citizen United decision to bolster their divisive politics via their so-called "war on corporations." The concept of corporate personhood goes back to the early 1800s. Moreover, that wasn't even the issue wrt Citizen United. The only thing BCRA did: "The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited." A corporation ought have an input into elections as ought unions or other associative groups. Note that all the other parts of McCain-Feingold remained including campaign contributions, limits on foreign contributions, etc.
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/res...ed-v-fec-2010/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...ion_Commission
__________________
Dear Optimist: Unless life gives you water and sugar too, your lemonade will suck.
|
07-02-2014, 09:35 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: San Diego via Vermilion Ohio and Points Between
Posts: 11,538
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
Do you really think that the number of women effected by the narrow decision is significant? IMHO most women are smart enough to understand the decision and skip the political meanderings by the democrat's to rev up their base.
|
You are sort of ignorant about demographics and the role single women play in running households. Birth control access is an important economic consideration for career women.
__________________
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
|
07-02-2014, 09:40 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 3,261
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Joad
Do you really think the number of gunowners affected by an assault weapon ban would be significant?
IMHO the only civilians that would want to own an assault rifle are pea brained knuckle dragging psychopaths like the Yayhoo in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkavwuWE5eQ
|
Non sequitur. There isn't a readily available remedy for an assault weapons ban like there is here for the proscribed methods of birth control.
__________________
Dear Optimist: Unless life gives you water and sugar too, your lemonade will suck.
|
07-02-2014, 09:45 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 3,261
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by icenine
You are sort of ignorant about demographics and the role single women play in running households. Birth control access is an important economic consideration for career women.
|
No I'm not. I think women are capable of making their own decisions and don't need the god-damn state telling them they're weak and need help. Speaking of which: Do you think democrats prefer single women households or married households given the demographics over the last, say, 50 years?
__________________
Dear Optimist: Unless life gives you water and sugar too, your lemonade will suck.
|
07-02-2014, 09:50 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Open Border
Posts: 5,126
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
No I'm not. I think women are capable of making their own decisions and don't need the god-damn state telling them they're weak and need help. Speaking of which: Do you think democrats prefer single women households or married households given the demographics over the last, say, 50 years?
|
Dude, what's up with you? Democrat women are too damn ugly to need birth control.
|
07-02-2014, 09:56 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander
The insurance pays for it for heavens sake. I am sure Care First Blue Cross who covers me privately will pay for those little blue pills.
|
Do you understand the difference between a self insured plan like the one in place at Hobby Lobby, and a fully insured group or individual plan that you're describing. Your statement suggests that you don't, and the fact that Hobby Lobby has a self-insured plan was a key element in their lawsuit.
|
07-02-2014, 10:04 AM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
Ike, at least you're honest
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
I'm about as anti-religious as they come; however, the narrow decision sought to resolve a fundamental conflict and did just that. The progressive caused problem can easily be remedied without walking on the religious liberty of the people, owners, of a closely held corporation. The assinine uproar by the left aptly demonstrates their utter lack of veracity wrt to the conflicting constitutional issue that their legislation caused. This case isn't the end of the world and is not a so-called attack on women's rights. The blatant misrepresentation of the decision is maliciously being used to gin up more division by what has now become the dividing party.
|
Thank you.
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:23 AM.
|