Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

First off, get your facts straight guys.  The company which is basically family owned, and not publically traded, balked at the ACA requirement to provide 4 of the 20 mandated medications on the BC formulary.  These four drugs, a version of RU-486 and certain type of IUD, were classified as post conception methods of birth control.  The other 16 medications were and are being covered. The company's premise was that these four mandated drugs violated their religious beliefs and being a closely held company they should have the right to not provide these. The other drugs on the formulary are all methods of birth control and the company at no time tried to deny those rights to their females employees.

If you knew anything other than what the liberal media told you, or what Rachel Madcow said, you would know that this company is one of the best in the country to work for.  Their in house minimum wage is 93% higher than the government requirement ($14), and employees are given off every Sunday whether they chose to go to church or not. The SCOTUS basically saw this for what it was.  The reps from the government admitted in the breif that it would make it easier down the road to allow or force companies to pay for abortions if this was allowed to stand.  The main dissenter on the SCOTUS, "Darth Vader" Ginsberg is throwing a hissy because she did not get her way, but the court's findings allowed both parties to be covered. Women's Rights groups get their BC, which was being provided in any case, and the Greens get to keep their hands clean.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, and need to listen to something other than the fat bloated cow on MSNBC.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

can someone explain how it's against their religion to provide the BC products to their employees, but not against their religion to invest, heavily, in the same companies?

Crash, do you know every single day what companies are listed in your portfolio if you have mutual funds?  I certainly don't. I hate Pepsi, but found out the last time I got my mutual funds report that I own shares in the comapny. If you invest in mutual finds you have very little control over your investments. Of course i would expect a business genius like yourself to know that fact, but of course you are only going by your knee jerk reaction to something reported by the HUff-n-Puff Post or that you heard on MSNBC.

 

http://erlc.com/article/feds-a...-in-hobby-lobby-case

After Verrilli said there is no current law requiring for-profits "to provide abortions," Chief Justice John Roberts cited the current case.

"Isn't that what we are talking about in terms of their religious beliefs? One of the religious beliefs is that they have to pay for these four methods of contraception that they believe provide abortions," Roberts told Verrilli. "I thought that's what we had before us."

Verrilli admitted it was the belief of the business owners but said federal and state law did not support a belief that the methods constitute abortion.

The regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to implement the 2010 health care law requires coverage of federally approved contraceptives, including the IUD intrauterine device and such drugs as the morning-after pill Plan B. Both the IUD and morning-after pill possess post-fertilization mechanisms that can cause abortions by preventing implantation of tiny embryos. The rule also covers "ella" which -- in a fashion similar to the abortion drug RU 486 -- can act even after implantation to end the life of the child.

While some conscientious objectors to the HHS rule oppose underwriting all contraceptives, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood protest paying only for abortion-causing drugs.

Roberts, Kennedy and associate justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer seemed suspicious of Verrilli's arguments, but justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly challenged Paul Clement, who represented the businesses.

 

Last edited by teyates
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

The Hobby Lobby decision has shocked even the tbaggers . They are wondering...what-t-hell are we gonna do next that is more stupid than this.

 

I hope Hobby Lobby has every one of your asses in their church by next Sunday. lol

 

why I was already a member. whatchu talkin bout? I don't know you.

You truly are an idiot. Like Mr. Yates stated, Hobby Lobby provided 16 of the 20 types of birth control available. The four they refused are abortion pills. They wouldn't support the killing of a human fetus.

My problem with this is, Hobby Lobby doesn't feel like the ACA should require them to accept those four birth control methods as part of their employees health care package, yet they are just fine with dictating to their employees what health care options will be available to them. If it's wrong for the ACA to decide the employees health care options, what the **** gives Hobby Lobby the right to decide ? Hobby Lobby, as a company, already sets work hours, rate of pay and other things that any company should have control over. To tell an employee what kind of healthcare they can recieve is IMO over reach, just as many of you think ACA is a government over reach.

 

Originally Posted by OldMan:

My problem with this is, Hobby Lobby doesn't feel like the ACA should require them to accept those four birth control methods as part of their employees health care package, yet they are just fine with dictating to their employees what health care options will be available to them. If it's wrong for the ACA to decide the employees health care options, what the **** gives Hobby Lobby the right to decide ? Hobby Lobby, as a company, already sets work hours, rate of pay and other things that any company should have control over. To tell an employee what kind of healthcare they can recieve is IMO over reach, just as many of you think ACA is a government over reach.

 

So OldMan, you are OK with the government deciding what is best for you? Because that is what the ACA did. They picked 20 medications that all insurances have to provide access to.  Four of those meds are proven to be primarily used for post conception birth control, which is elective termination no matter how you determine it. If you and your family owned a company and the government decided that you had to put up posters in your business in support of  something you did not support, what would you do?
They are not telling their employees how to treat themselves, they are saying they will provide birth control access,, and they cover pregnancy, but they do not want to pay for termination of pregnancy, and there should be no mandate that requires someone, and that includes you and I, to actively participate in the termination of human life if you believe it to be inhumane to do so. Where does it stop? The government should not be funding abortion activities as a form of brith control. In the case of rape, incest, or malformation, there should be allowances, but about 95% of all abortions are not those types. Fund abortion now, next week it can be geriactricide or putting down those with a low IQ.  It is a slippery slope.

 

Last edited by teyates

jt,

The drug "ella" is a drug simlar to the drug RU-486, the morning after pill. Its primary functional derivative is a hormone that prevent implantation, or disrupts implantation, or a fertilzed ova. On that basis alone, if you believe in life at conception, or fertilization, the drug is akin to an abortive drug. Ask yourself why the government picked this drug to add to the formulary. There are 16 other contraceptives in the formulary which provide for pre-conception disruption, yet a few "experts" decide to add this drug in there as well.  Does it make it easier then to put the controversial OTC RU-486 on the next mandate? Then does this extend to up-to-20 week abortion in the next? The case here was about the individual's right to not have to fund something they fundamentally believe to be wrong. If you were forced to fund something like that which you believed to be wrong would you not balk from it? As a liberal progressive most would believe that they do not want their rights trampled upon, yet in this case they would advoacte the trampling of one group by another, when the solution kept both groups whole. When its your rights on the chopping block, who is gonna stand up for you?

BTW, jt, regular birth control pills are either a 28 day regime, or a subcutaneous implant that releases a hormone akin to the 28 day course. A single dose drug like this is always suspect.

 

Last edited by teyates

1130, Companies become responsible for many parts of employees lives.  Safety in the workplace immediately comes to mind. A fair wage and working conditions such as the required number of hours an employee has to work are responsibilities of the employer. Healthcare insurance furnished by an employer is considered a part of the wage of an employee and if promised at the time of employment is a responsibility.

 

This decision by the Supreme Court in favor of Hobby Lobby opens up never before privileges to companies to negate any responsibilities including any of the above mentioned. As Justice Ginsberg stated “This decision opens up a minefield”  

 

Precedence has been set for a company, solely on the basis of religious beliefs, to deny anything to an employee.

 

Hobby Lobby was described as “a closely held company” but precedence is that it is a company with religious privalidges. Any company can argue based on this decision it is closely held with religious privalidges.

 

A company could legally ,based on this decision, discriminate on the basis of your marital status.  

 

Yes this is a mind field and the Supremes have set you right out in the middle of it.

 

If you are not satisfied with the possibility of working for a company run by a person like we see every day on the TD Religion Forum, too bad, it’s too late.

And remember this case was not brought on by the employees, who are happy to not only work for a company that pays $14 an hour, closes on Sunday, and uses a a well honored and supported method of employee training and communication.  The last time I checked in this country one still has the right to work for whom they choose. No one forces you to do so. The distractors here would have you believe that HL is running a forced labor camp trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant, and that is simply not the case.  The company employs thousands, and uses most of their profits to turn back into ministries and personal pursuits such as a new Bible museum in Washington.  They live modestly, all the while paying their employees well, and providing a good workplace, yet here we are demonizing them for something that every company should strive to do.

A few points:

* The SCOTUS ruling was a narrow one applying only to companies mainly owned by a few family members (stated in the majority opinion).

* Hobby Lobby had no problem paying for 16 of 20 birth control methods approved by the government. The other four are abortificants, which the owners considered against their religion.  There is no copay on the 16.

* Most of the other four are inexpensive, not all. As Hobby Lobby pays at least twice the minimum wage, shouldn't be a hardship.

* It was a HHS regulation, not a part of the Obamacare law that SCOTUS ruled against.

 

only the Supremes have the authority to define what is a "closely held company"

 

the next task for the Supremes is to define a "family friendly company". It is likely to be TARGET. Because it is a "family friendly".  The company claims,one cannot strut around in the store carrying guns in the open carry mode.

 

I'm sure it can be argued to be "closely held" and a religious "not to carry" preference by some stock holder.

 

I doubt seriously if each member in the HOBBY LOBBY fam was polled or grilled as to the real mental state regarding birth control.

Last edited by Quaildog
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

 

I doubt seriously if each member in the HOBBY LOBBY fam was polled or grilled as to the real mental state regarding birth control.

....wanna bet on that? The Green family is pretty close knit. The primary stock holders are the husband and wife, and then their kids own stocks as well.  The younger Green, son of the founder, also has another company I think named Martel, which is a religious book dispensary or something similar.  His daughter, who is good friends with my son, is involved with the Bible Museum which is being constructed in Washington.  According to what was published in the court documents, they all were in agreement, and as part of being the stockholder signed agreemens to uphold their biblical principles. I do know they recently traveled to Rome and were greeted with audience at the Vatican. They actually walk their talk unlike alot of Christians.

 

Last edited by teyates

Nope, not dropping names, just pointing out the fact that as usual you don't have a clue to what you are talking about, and are using a knee drop reaction to dismiss something that probably is ultimately in your favor. Please tell me in your mind how this court ruling has diminshed any women's rights, and how thesr uling now allows someone to deny a necessary coverage, that  has no viable alternative.

I feel quite confident, now that we will have to live with this decision, that there are tens-of-thousands like myself inventing some reason to use it to an advantage.

 

I cannot imagine the most inept barrister losing any case presented to a venire struck from the local religious fare using precedence due to this Supreme decision. To allow any action by any company, based on a religious belief, not necessarily common to all citizens, must be the instruction to the jury by any judge.

 

Again t, you make no sense. Women have lost access to abortion drugs, prego or not, through company insurance at Hobby Lobby due to accident, rape or from recreational sex.

 

Abortion is legal in America is it not.

 

Personally I'm apposed to abortion with exceptions but the law allows it dummy, no matter what I think.

 

Even given your certificate of acquaintance with owners of Hobby Lobby you still make NO sense.


Ah, so you admit that this was not about providing birth control but providing abortion?  Is that not your premise?  If so then you shoot yourself in the foot right there, because the ruling is defintely more firm, and NO ONE has to be forced to provide access to abortion.  The ACA was never a mandate to provide for such.  Yes, abortion is available, but the law says that you should not have to fund it if you are opposed to it.

Because people like QD want it both ways.  They want people who are opposed to something to have to fund it, unless it violates THEIR ideals. QD, the recent findings say that if there is an alternative, you don't have to fund it. Read the ******* documents. If there is an alternative such as the other 16 drugs, a person's religious stances must be accounted for. They did not deny the woman access to these drugs, they just told their employers that they personally did not have to pay for them because of the nature of the drug.  There were other alternatives.

like I said the Supremes have defined a "close held company". can a company with 6 qualify?

 

what about a company owned by two persons with religious convictions.

 

the decision just doesn't make sense.

 

anyone who thinks the decision was not political has their head in the sand.

 

its time to impeach the judges who without good conscience voted in favor of the Hobby Lobby case. 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

 

 

the decision just doesn't make sense.

 

It makes no sense to you because you are looking at it thru the Liberal glasses which stipulate that everything you want should either be paid for by the government or mandated to be paid by someone else thru the government.  Pull those off for a second and realize that these people had rights as well.  This is a "small" company that employs thousands.  They could easily have taken their money, dissolved the company and said they had enough.  Then there would have been thousands of really good paying jobs gone.

 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

next question: should Hobby Lobby be allowed the write off healthcare expense.

 

will the resident bookkeeper please come forth.


Haha....you just don't get it do you....Yes, they will to the tune of millions of dollars.  Just like every other comapny and individual out there.

 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

only the Supremes have the authority to define what is a "closely held company"

 

the next task for the Supremes is to define a "family friendly company". It is likely to be TARGET. Because it is a "family friendly".  The company claims,one cannot strut around in the store carrying guns in the open carry mode.


Wrong again, Target will still follow state and local laws.  Nothing has changed other than Target is now pandering to both sides:

 

As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit “open carry” should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will alsorespectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

 

 

 

Last edited by Mr. Hooberbloob

Is THIS a "closely-held" company?

 

http://www.privco.com/private-...cargill-incorporated

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill_family

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Cargill_Inc.aspx

 

"Meanwhile, and amid false rumors that Cargill would finally go public, the issue of company ownership was at least temporarily settled through the implementation of an employee stock ownership plan in 1992. Family members were given the opportunity to cash in as much as 30 percent of their ownership stake in Cargill. It turned out that only 17 percent was sold, for a total of $730 million, funded through borrowing. About 20,000 Cargill employees in the United States were eligible to receive the resulting stock, ending a long history of ownership exclusively by Cargills and MacMillans."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12...ck-to-employees.html

 

"The giant agricultural conglomerate Cargill Inc. said today that its directors had approved selling up to 30 percent of the company to its employees, but made clear that the company would remain privately held."

 

So what IS "closely-held"?

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

Hoob you will find out.  If a “family friendly company” sees fit to challenge with special privileges you just might have to gnaw your leg off in this trap..

 

There is now precedence for special privilidges.


Nope, the unions have already set that precedent.  Looks like you'll be hobbling around from here on out.

Last edited by Mr. Hooberbloob

Hobby Lobby employees can still purchase the 4 drugs not available on the company plan, they'll just have to pay out of pocket.  Considering most never meet the deductible, it will have very little impact.

 

If you are so promiscuous that you require a weekly supply of abortion pills, not being able to afford such drugs will be the least of your worries.  Most likely you'll be more concerned with aquiring antibiotics and antivirals.

Hoob,

You are correct.  The IUD which the ACA was advocating is available at the HD for around $50. Like I said previously the left will continue to drag up doom and gloom scenarios that have no merit to the case, when the court saw this for what it was, and that was an administration who was trying to force this type of treatment into the mainstream and force a company who was Christian based to foot the bill.  Churches and other groups had already been dismissed from the mandate.  This company is not publically traded and privately owned according to NYSE.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×