Hobby Lobby & Supreme Court Decision

  • Thread starter DeletedUser8396
  • Start date

DeletedUser

Guest
I agreed with you up until your last paragraph. Do you realize hat what you are saying is literally the same situations the Jews were in in WWII under the nazi regime? Jewish people were denied access to regular shop simply because they were Jewish. I agree that businesses shouldn't be forced to provide certain services/benefits to their employees, but I do not think that they should be able to deny customers their business based on ethnicity/race/age/anything other than behaviour.

yes I realize all of that, but I don't think it's the government's place to force me to not be a bigot or a jerk, as long as I'm not actually doing something to those people who -in this hypothetical scenario- I hate. I realize that sounds crazy, but I hardly care, but it just goes back to the issue of what are rights, you may have a different view of personal rights than I do, I believe that a lot of things are not personal rights including but not limited to service, insurance etc. All humans (in a perfect world) should have those things, but a government should not force those things on people. It's not that I want idiots to be denying black people service, or not allowing white males in for that matter, I just don't want the government to say that they can't. I think that in this current humanistic climate anyone doing something like that would lose all their business which would mean you are not accidentally supporting a closet racist, race apologist, anti purple hair person. If you can't agree with me just see where I'm coming from cuz tbh idc if you agree you live to far away to ever be my president :p
 

DeletedUser

Guest
skully... are your talking about?

We have our courts over here and you have yours over there. I'm not exactly sure how you people don't recognize that.... I thought we been through this
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This whole thing is way off topic. I am a United States of American. Let me explain. The overreach of our government has reached individual business owners. Hobby Lobby views life as starting from conception; ie Plan B pills are murdering people. I know it's hard for people to understand across the pond but we actually don't like the government telling us what to do. There is more I could say but I would be rambling and well.... frankly I haven't read the whole thread.

Huh? (Welcome back by the way)
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
yes I realize all of that, but I don't think it's the government's place to force me to not be a bigot or a jerk,
in many ways, that is exactly what the govt is there for.
as long as I'm not actually doing something to those people who -in this hypothetical scenario- I hate. I realize that sounds crazy, but I hardly care, but it just goes back to the issue of what are rights, you may have a different view of personal rights than I do, I believe that a lot of things are not personal rights including but not limited to service, insurance etc. All humans (in a perfect world) should have those things, but a government should not force those things on people. It's not that I want idiots to be denying black people service,
do you not have a law that specifically requires service establishments such as restaurants and hotels to provide equal service to all races, even if the owner or company board's christianity-based religious beliefs lead them to think that whites are better and blacks are dirty, or worse?
I just don't want the government to say that they can't.
but they do. You already have a huge raft of such laws, just exactly to stop people from being being jerks and showing off their bigottedness in public where the harm it can do is so visible. You still have the freedom to be a biggotted jerk in private ofc, but not in the workplace.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
in many ways, that is exactly what the govt is there for. do you not have a law that specifically requires service establishments such as restaurants and hotels to provide equal service to all races, even if the owner or company board's christianity-based religious beliefs lead them to think that whites are better and blacks are dirty, or worse? but they do. You already have a huge raft of such laws, just exactly to stop people from being being jerks and showing off their bigottedness in public where the harm it can do is so visible. You still have the freedom to be a biggotted jerk in private ofc, but not in the workplace.

1. yes sadly many people see the government as a parent, when all it should be is the sword and shield.

2. yes we have those laws... again, I'm saying we shouldn't have those laws.

3. you should have the freedom to be a jerk anywhere as long as you don't physically harm someone.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Huh? (Welcome back by the way)

Heya Shadis. Nice to see some friendly faces around here still. I'm not sure I was making too much sense last night as I had had a few so let me try again. The contraceptive that Hobby Lobby has rejected is the "Plan B" pill. It is a contraceptive that can be used iirc up to 24 hours after intercourse to kill the fertilized embryo. This is actually, in their mind, murder if you hold the religious belief that life begins at conception. Fun fact, so do modern Buddhists but the morality of abortion is still divided.

Ok so that being said, there are oher forms of contraceptive offered with the "contraceptive mandate" under the ACA that Hobby Lobby had no objection to. So in this one instance it appears, religious freedom won the day.

in many ways, that is exactly what the govt is there for. do you not have a law that specifically requires service establishments such as restaurants and hotels to provide equal service to all races, even if the owner or company board's christianity-based religious beliefs lead them to think that whites are better and blacks are dirty, or worse? but they do. You already have a huge raft of such laws, just exactly to stop people from being being jerks and showing off their bigottedness in public where the harm it can do is so visible. You still have the freedom to be a biggotted jerk in private ofc, but not in the workplace.

There are laws to prevent racial discrimination as well many other kinds of discrimination at the work place. Yes... yes there are.
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
1. ........ the government ....., when all it should be is the sword and shield.
Could you explain what you mean by that?

I see one of government's important roles to be a sword and shield for the people against biggots and jerks, as well as fraudsters, scammers, and other criminals and pests.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Could you explain what you mean by that?

I see one of government's important roles to be a sword and shield for the people against biggots and jerks, as well as fraudsters, scammers, and other criminals and pests.

You want the government to protect us from the government??? :heh:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Could you explain what you mean by that?

I see one of government's important roles to be a sword and shield for the people against fraudsters, scammers, and other criminals .

that's it, take off the other things you listed and we'd agree.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Also since we are talking about rights I believe you should have the right to have your fetus professionally killed. It doesn't matter how we feel about it there will always be people under certain circumstances that really want to do it. Wether it be with knitting needles or coat hangars.

I also believe a privately owned company should retain the right to object to government mandated contraceptive insurance coverage for such things as plan B pills. Here is why: you are free to work wherever you want. No one forces anyone to work here in this great nation of ours.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Also since we are talking about rights I believe you should have the right to have your fetus professionally killed.

I disagree, as in my opinion that's having the right to commit murder.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well that's where you and I will have to disagree. We do agree it's murder but in this great nation of ours their are several mitigating factors to murder that will range from ensuring you will get the death penalty, you get off scotfree, or you have to pay a fifty dollar fine in the form of a readily available over the counter pill to make a night of indiscretion disappear.

Edit: it's actually behind the counter. I think you have to be 18 to buy it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser5819

Guest
Not sure I agree with the being free to work where you want, as for many, options can be very limited.

I do however agree with all that stuff about murder options. There are many ways to get away with killing someone (which you may or may not term as "murder"), and several of them involve legal opt-outs for religious beliefs.

Kids tend to get the down side of the religious opt-outs, as they don't get to make their own decisions on whether they live or die, nor do they have the right to be given information on medical options and pros and cons at all, let alone based on the most up-to-date scientific evidence. These things make killing them easy. For instance by contracting an easily curable or preventable disease and preventing medical treatment.

It would be quite amusing how these laws are used both to kill and to create children, if both were not so tragic.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yeah that sounds like an argument. Until you consider the fact that this is about the Plan B Pill. Not condoms
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
Huh?

Going to guess that this is the response to the point you didn't make:

According to medical science (in contrast to some religious leaders) the morning after pill is contraception, not abortion.
There are ofc some religious leaders that forbid contraception, but unless I am mistaken, that is not Hobby Lobby's stance on this. (EDIT: presumably though this ruling would give the right to e.g. companies owned/run by Roman Catholics to avoid the cost of providing the contraceptive element of their legal duty.)

If that wasn't the answer to the point you intended to convey then please be clearer about the point by making it.

Genuine question, as idk the answer, but isn't the separation of church and state (religion and state) some sort of basic tenet of USAiness?

And another, isn't freedom from the constraints of other people's religions one of the precious freedoms that USAians go on about?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I don't care how some random team of "medical scientists," define contraceptives but I assumed you were talking about condoms yes. My point was they are two different things and apparently the Supreme Court has to a point agreed as well.

Your concern about Catholics refusing to foot the bill for condoms is a valid one if you don't believe in the separation of church and state and believe the government has the right to tell businesses however religiously inclined how to run their business. However the decision reached in this case is narrowly worded just to avoid such a thing. It is viewed that the 2000 dollar fine per employee for dropping the contraceptive mandate is not the least restrictive way for an employer to provide contraceptives because less restrictive means are afforded under the Religious Freedom Reformation Act to nonprofit corporations.

Our first amendment states the freedom of religious practice.

I think your conception of seperation of church and state is misconstrued in this case due to the fact that the afca is in fact a direct violation of the first amendment. Also, this whole seperation of church and state does not appear anywhere in our constitution. In fact freedom of religion is. This nation was founded under Christian principles I'm sorry to tell you.
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
OK, well, I wasn't talking about "some random team of "medical scientists". I wrote "medical science" which is what I meant. Similarly whatever you were thinking about condoms was random and not from anything I wrote.

Your concern about Catholics refusing to foot the bill for condoms is a valid one if you don't believe in the separation of church and state and believe the government has the right to tell businesses however religiously inclined how to run their business.
This sentence is completely contrary.

However the decision reached in this case is narrowly worded just to avoid such a thing.
Could you link to that wording please, and quote it, as it doesn't come through in the originally linked article.

It is viewed that the 2000 dollar fine per employee for dropping the contraceptive mandate is not the least restrictive way for an employer to provide contraceptives because less restrictive means are afforded under the Religious Freedom Reformation Act to nonprofit corporations.
That sentence is convoluted to the extent of being barely comprehensible. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit entity is it not?

This nation was founded under Christian principles I'm sorry to tell you.
No need to be sorry about that. I think you would be hard pressed to find a nation that was not founded on some religion's principles, since most were founded long enough ago that scientific knowledge was only for the few, to the extent it even existed. The masses could be easily controlled by whatever gods the powerful cared to invoke, however cruel or ludicrous stories of their demands might be.

Happily most developed nations have, erm, evolved since then.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I suppose you must think you are eh master of debate. I admit I have no formal training but I see what you are doing. I will grant your wish and elucidate one more time when I get the chance but until you bring something to the table that has actual merit I'm going to have to decline to argue with you. It's clear you are either playing the devils advocate or you really feel strongly that the government should run every facet of your business.
 
Top