Jenksismyhero

Be prepared for the government and future employees to run the company for you. Their opinions matter more than yours. I'm told that's the way businesses should work.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 05:15 PM) This is the problem. Somehow you think that another person taking contraception has anything to do with their religion. Its like saying that no one in my office can use their paycheck to buy bacon cheeseburgers because its not kosher. Its extreme nonsense. But since it fits your worldview, youll support it to the bitter end. Nothing like a good earth is the center of the universe debate. You're dong the exact same thing on the opposite end of the argument, yet because it's your view, it's right. Welcome to the world of opinion. I hate when you argue like this. You're better/smarter than that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:57 PM) Allowing special exemptions for one religion's beliefs is a pretty damn clear violation of the Establishment Clause. Not if it's doing so to promote the Free Exercise Clause. Nor does the RFRA really favor one religion over another. It's been applied to a lot of religions other than Christianity.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:37 PM) It's allowing Christian religious beliefs to be used to circumvent laws the rest of us have to follow. But that's still not the "government" holding that position. The government isn't undertaking the same practice and mandating that everyone else follow it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:32 PM) Which is why today the Obama admin received a request citing this decision from privately-held military contractors requesting that they be allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians in hiring. Because less christianity if all the gays are unemployed. Again, how is that bringing it INTO government? You think the government's position will be the same?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:31 PM) U guys are the ones who have said that the people who lose their coverage should just quit. I said that's an option, yes.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:17 PM) You dont have a right to not pay for things because your money may incidentally go to something that is against your religion. The employer is not paying directly. They are paying a premium to an insurance company. It is the insurance company who then pays for the procedure. There is no direct link. This is entirely to bolster Christianity in the govt. Otherwise I could validly not pay a portion of my taxes and claim "War is against my religion." Actually, you now do! The 2nd bolded is laughable. how is this bringing more Christianity INTO government? It's removing government from Christianity if anything.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:08 PM) 1) Once again what this means is that if a Dr prescribes something, you are okay with the person not being given medical treatment, because someone else in a company has a religious belief that is in conflict. 2) They can exercise their religion. They dont have to use birth control. They dont have to do anything. But the argument is failed when you try and apply it to indirect money spending. For example, my taxes may go to people who do things that are against my religion. Can I not pay taxes now? The answer is obviously no, because its a horrendous argument that is being applied by the majority religion. 3) Once again, no one is being forced to do anything. Their money is possibly being indirectly spent. Its not about providing birth control, its about whether or not you believe that a company has the right to overrule a dr. Simply put, your answer is yes. Its fine, but its as backwards as the Earth revolving arond the sun. 4) They arent being forced to believe it, but they are being forced to live under someone elses beliefs. No different than if you were not allowed to eat a bacon cheeseburger because its not kosher. And this has everything to do with religion over science. Otherwise there would be no argument. If a dr prescribes something for a medical purpose, someone elses religious belief should not interfere with your ability to get it. The only people who will ever argue against this are going to be people in the religious majority that the law is favoring. You may never be able to see it, but they couldnt see it when they imprisoned Galileo either. 1) Yep, when there's a relatively inexpensive alternative for them. 2) Paying for taxes =/= paying an employee benefit via insurance coverage 3) How is being mandated to provide (pay for) an insurance plan that covers contraception not being forced to pay for something they don't want to pay for? You guys are seriously being ridiculous on that point. If federal law was passed that said you had to offer pork products along with beef products and a Muslim said no that's against my religion, you're telling me that's not him being forced to act against his beliefs because, hey, people might not buy pork even though he has to offer it? GMAB. 4) An employer-employee relationship isn't an equal relationship though, so who gives a s***? The employee can go somewhere else if they don't like it. I can eat a non-kosher bacon cheeseburger somewhere else if someone won't serve it to me because of their religious beliefs. You guys act like these employees are prison inmates with no alternatives. The science/religion argument is nonsense. Just because a doctor prescribes something doesn't make it law that trumps all other laws and rights. You completely devalue religious thought or exercise, so of course you see it that way. Freedom of religion in this country is not only freedom FROM religion, it's freedom to practice your religion. It's freedom, in many cases, from the government introducing on your exercise of religion. That's what's happening here, whether you think that's silly or scientifically dumb or whatever.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:06 PM) 1) They could have either sold the business or shut it down, but they are already very wealthy and would live quite comfortably. 2) I can see now that I wasn't clear there. No, having to close or sell a business wouldn't be less substantial. What's way, way less substantial is the "burden" they actually faced in this case, which was paying an insurance company on behalf of their employees for insurance for those employees which might include some things that they personally object to. Giving up on your constitutionally protected and federal law protected right to religious beliefs, for any amount of money, is highly burdensome. Where, as here, the alternative is for employees to obtain relatively inexpensive care on their own, I don't think it trumps those rights.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:59 PM) So what? It doesn't actually force them to change their religious beliefs. Quakers aren't exempt from taxation just because a substantial portion of our money goes to the DoD. Also, again, they already support those things financially by providing matching funds to their 401k plan that invests in the companies that make those things. The employees choose whether or not to invest in those plans just as they choose whether or not to utilize contraceptives, so they are functionally identical scenarios. It's not about changing beliefs, it's about forcing people to act in opposition to their beliefs. Again with the changing of beliefs - that's completely irrelevant here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:59 PM) So what? It doesn't actually force them to change their religious beliefs. Quakers aren't exempt from taxation just because a substantial portion of our money goes to the DoD. Also, again, they already support those things financially by providing matching funds to their 401k plan that invests in the companies that make those things. The employees choose whether or not to invest in those plans just as they choose whether or not to utilize contraceptives, so they are functionally identical scenarios. Not at all. The employer still has to pay the premium on the plan that includes contraception. They still have to provide it whether or not it ever gets used.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:57 PM) The Greens have an alternative of closing up shop if they don't like the law (or at least that's they way it should be). This ruling will deprive people of access to health care they would otherwise have received. That's a hell of a lot more of a substantial burden than anything the Greens faced. Closing a business and losing a livelihood is less substantial than having to obtain contraception on your own? Really? You're going to stand behind that argument?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:56 PM) Interestingly enough, the Greens aren't FORCED to BELIEVE in the moral correctness of abortions or contraceptives by being required to pay for an insurance plan, either. This has nothing to do with beliefs (again, a moronic argument started by Balta). It's about being forced to perform an action that's against your beliefs, in this case supporting something financially.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:48 PM) Nobody forces the owners of Hobby Lobby to believe in abortion (or what they think causes abortion) by requiring them to offer a health insurance plan as part of their employee compensation that includes contraceptives. The law doesn't force them to believe that abortions are NOT caused by contraception, but it does force them to support something financially that they don't agree with based on their religious beliefs.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:44 PM) ...is this some kind of a burn? Either way, I'm pretty sure that, because her employer offers a plan that complies with the mandatory minimums plus special "eww icky" exemptions, she would not be entitled to any subsidies. Your solution of buying an exchange plan would be no cheaper than paying $1000+ for an IUD out of pocket. No, it wasn't. And ok? So what? She has an alternative, go utilize it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:41 PM) Jenks, 1) Im not sure you understand the ruling. Hobby Lobby does not have to provide the following, regardless of Dr's advice: Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”) Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”) Copper Intra-Uterine Device IUD with progestin Ill just take the first one I found: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-in...rth-control/iud You need to see a health care provider to get an IUD. Your health care provider can help you decide if an IUD is right for you. You can find a health care provider who can help you with getting an IUD at your local Planned Parenthood health center or at other clinics. The IUD is the most inexpensive long-term and reversible form of birth control you can get. Unlike other forms of birth control, the IUD only costs money in the beginning. The cost for the medical exam, the IUD, the insertion of the IUD, and follow-up visits to your health care provider can range from $500 to $1,000. That cost pays for protection that can last from 5 to 12 years, depending on which IUD you choose. In general, hormonal IUDs costs more than the ParaGard. Planned Parenthood works to make health care accessible and affordable. Some health centers are able to charge according to income. Most accept health insurance. If you qualify, Medicaid or other state programs may lower your health care costs. Call your local Planned Parenthood health center to get specific information on costs. Where is that free? 2) Separation of church and state is more important than free market. I dont care if Hobby Lobby doesnt have to provide the above, as long as you agree its okay if Jehova's Witness dont want to provide for transfusions, etc etc. 3) No youll defend your belief system. If this was a non-christian religion it would never have been allowed. Yes they are. They are forcing employees to not receive certain treatments because of their faith. But I get it, your just defending your team, its the same old religion > science that has been going on for the last 1500 years. 1) I never said it was free, i said they could go to planned parenthood where they charge based on income. If they can't afford it, it's provided to most people. 2) I love that separation of church and state only applies the one direction but not the other. What's the point of saying you have the freedom to exercise your religion if you can't exercise your religion? 3) I'm not exactly the most devote Christian out there. I haven't been to church in years. I'm MUCH more accepting of other religions and more than happy to point out the problems with Christianity, moreso than 90% of Christians out there, but this really comes down to government interference vs. personal freedom. I dislike nearly all laws that force you to do things you don't want to do. You should have a very compelling reason to do that to people. Providing birth control is not a compelling enough reason when other alternatives exist. 4) No, they're still not being FORCED to BELIEVE something they don't want to believe. They may be inconvenienced by this, they may have to get a new job or pay for their own birth control, they are not being FORCED to BELIEVE that contraception = abortion. This has nothing to do with a science over religion argument.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 02:55 PM) Religious freedoms mean that people have the right to believe or not believe. I dont force my beliefs on believers, why should they get to force their beliefs on me? That seems fair. Jesus, I missed this. Balta 2.0. No one is forcing these employees to believe anything.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) I'm guessing you don't understand how the exchange plan subsidies would work under that scenario. Probably not as well as you, that's true.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 02:59 PM) If they cant afford it, they are 100% being stopped. Its entirely the same idea. If this is allowable, a business run by Jehova's Witness should also be allowed not to pay for blood transfusions through insurance. But like I said, as long as its your religion/position that is winning, you really seem to not care about the consequence. Go to planned parenthood. If you can't afford it, they'll let you have it. It's really not difficult. 90% of 18 year old females in college do it. As to your second point, maybe they should? You're Mr. Free Market capitalist, why are you backing legislation that forces employers to do something they don't want to do? And while Christianity is my religion, and I do believe that abortion is wrong, i'm not sure I go to the level of contraception=abortion like these guys. But i'll defend their right to run their business as they see fit.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 02:58 PM) You act like dropping a grand on anything is feasible for your average Hobby Lobby employee So drop the employer plan you don't want and sign up for Obamacare. Problem solved.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 01:59 PM) Hayward's not a $14 million/year player. I think I understand why an exec said Butler could get the max now. If Hayward can get a max, I don't see why Jimmy Butler can't. Hayward averaged 16, 5 and 5 last year on a s***ty team. Butler averaged 13, 5 and 2 without 2 of the Bulls' best offensive players. I'd give more money to Hayward too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 02:09 PM) That is an accurate description of the owners of Hobby Lobby's complaint. Well, that's probably true, but they have better, longer-standing law on their side. You guys are acting like some right that we've had for 200 years is suddenly being taken away.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 02:38 PM) Really so if a Dr prescribes me 1 of the 4 birth control that hobby lobby objects to, hobby lobby has to pay for it? Its all fun and games when your religion is the one that is preferred. (edit) No its alarming that the govt would give a thumbs up to any religion. No, it's inaccurate because no one is stopping them from getting the contraception they want. They might be making it more difficult, but they're not "stopping" them.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 01:25 PM) Likewise, some of the stuff being taken away isn't inexpensive. People that can't handle normal birth control due to side effects often need IUDs, which are a four-figure cost when factoring in the "labor" cost of getting them put in. Someone I know was lucky enough to find a "last resort" charity that covers the cost of things like this. Funny: http://plannedparenthood.tumblr.com/post/2...oes-an-iud-cost I'm sorry, you guys are really grasping at straws here to make this a much bigger deal than it is.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 01:21 PM) Look Balta, its okay for someone to stop you from getting medical treatment because their religion says its bad. I am sure that no one in this thread would have a problem if a company owned by Jehova's Witnesses refused to pay for any procedure that involved blood transfusions. Completely reasonable. Completely inaccurate.