Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby

[RidgeHunter]

Yes. I joke about women. But I do not take it out of my marriage. I know that is a novel concept for some, but it is possible to admire women from afar and remain loyal to your wife.

You've implied you've had sex before you were married, and have made comments condoning single people having sex. Why the moral sexuality high horse now?

Funny how the only ones bitching about this decision are the free schit society. Do you also feel like QT owes you a free coffee if you buy a donut?

Yet again with this ********. I'm one of many bitching about it that has never gotten, and would never accept, "free ****". The insurance employees get will likely never matter to me as I will likely never be a full-time employee. I've explained my dissent several times, and it's continually been ignored, save for a "that's a little bit nicer" from Doc Creepy.

At least you've had a business. I got the biggest laughs out of guys who tell me to "run a business and see how I feel" when they themselves have never owned so much as a lemonade stand.

 

[hairtrigger44]

So how many times is this the Supreme court has state Obama has overstepped his bounds?

1, recess appointments
2, this
?

 

[SoonerP226]

Why do they still provide *any* BC? You and Jeff have made it clear this is about Hobby Lobby not being forced to pay for the bad decisions of sluts, right? Sluts should pay for the other 16 forms as well.

Because it's not about Birth Control, regardless of what you hear in the media, it's about being forced to pay for something that the owners of Hobby Lobby find to be morally objectionable. They see those specific forms of birth control, not birth control in general, as tantamount to abortion, which they find to be morally objectionable.

They don't want to spend their money to support something that they oppose. It's really a very simple concept, and I cannot understand why so few people are willing to understand it.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

You've implied you've had sex before you were married, and have made comments condoning single people having sex. Why the moral sexuality high horse now?



Yet again with this ********. I'm one of many bitching about it that has never gotten, and would never accept, "free ****". The insurance employees get will likely never matter to me as I will likely never be a full-time employee. I've explained my dissent several times, and it's continually been ignored, save for a "that's a little bit nicer" from Doc Creepy.

At least you've had a business. I got the biggest laughs out of guys who tell me to "run a business and see how I feel" when they themselves have never owned so much as a lemonade stand.

Yep, I'm guilty of being a skank chasing skanks and I knew then that what I was doing was immoral, I just didn't care. There is no morality high horse, if a chick wants to slut around that's fine by me, but she needs to accept responsibilities for her decisions. If she works for a company with strong religious beliefs she may want to change hobbies or jobs. It's not her employers responsibility to fix the mistakes she makes on her own time.

The bottom line is that corporations do have rights. The owners should have a say in what benefits are offered. If you don't like Hobby Lobby's stance on this issue, build a better mouse trap and put them out of business.

 

[donner]

If a chick wants to slut around that's fine by me, but she needs to accept responsibilities for her decisions. If she works for a company with strong religious beliefs she may want to change hobbies or jobs. It's not her employers responsibility to fix the mistakes she makes on her own time.

With your quote about, lets go back to my earlier question. How does this position impact a person's right to access meds for STDs, AIDS, or even prenatal care? Surely some of the people who need meds for AIDS or other STDs got them by doing something immoral by HL standards.

Also, if a woman wants to 'slut around' as you put it, why should the company cover any of her pregnancy costs. I mean we seem to be using a company's moral position to equate to exactly what coverage a person is allowed, so why stop at the morning after pill for a bad decision? Clearly HL should be able to only cover the costs of those who get pregnant while married, right? I mean that is the moral thing and to do anything else seems like it'd be rewarding her irresponsible decision, right?

I'm also curious why then should a company like HL offer to cover someone's viagra? Surely not everyone who uses that coverage is married or using it in a 'moral' way. So should HL be able to get reports from a doctor about who is and isn't using that coverage so that it can approve or disapprove of the 'moral' use?

Finally, would this moral framework allow companies to refuse to cover any benefits for homosexual employees?

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

With your quote about, lets go back to my earlier question. How does this position impact a person's right to access meds for STDs, AIDS, or even prenatal care? Surely some of the people who need meds for AIDS or other STDs got them by doing something immoral by HL standards.

Also, if a woman wants to 'slut around' as you put it, why should the company cover any of her pregnancy costs. I mean we seem to be using a company's moral position to equate to exactly what coverage a person is allowed, so why stop at the morning after pill for a bad decision? Clearly HL should be able to only cover the costs of those who get pregnant while married, right? I mean that is the moral thing and to do anything else seems like it'd be rewarding her irresponsible decision, right?

I'm also curious why then should a company like HL offer to cover someone's viagra? Surely not everyone who uses that coverage is married or using it in a 'moral' way. So should HL be able to get reports from a doctor about who is and isn't using that coverage so that it can approve or disapprove of the 'moral' use?

Finally, would this moral framework allow companies to refuse to cover any benefits for homosexual employees?

Actually, yes. The employer should be allowed to design the insurance plan they offer. If the employees do not like the offered plan they CAN opt out of the plan and purchase coverage that suits their needs....or they can CHOOSE to not work for an employer that offers a crappy plan.

 

[donner]

Actually, yes. The employer should be allowed to design the insurance plan they offer. If the employees do not like the offered plan they CAN opt out of the plan and purchase coverage that suits their needs....or they can CHOOSE to not work for an employer that offers a crappy plan.

So an employer should be able to create rules that says something like "we'll cover antibiotics, but only for infections that aren't of a sexual nature or were contracted by otherwise immoral activities"?

Also that these coverages apply to only those people who are heterosexual because being a homosexual is immoral and therefore we will not be cover anything, even for things like sinus infections?

I'm also curious how an employer would know if a woman got pregnant by her husband or someone else. I mean if they aren't going to cover immoral behaviors then surely they'd have a right to determine paternity before agreeing to covering the pregnancy, right?

 

[TedKennedy]

So an employer should be able to create rules that says something like "we'll cover antibiotics, but only for infections that aren't of a sexual nature or were contracted by otherwise immoral activities"?

Also that these coverages apply to only those people who are heterosexual because being a homosexual is immoral and therefore we will not be cover anything, even for things like sinus infections?

I'm also curious how an employer would know if a woman got pregnant by her husband or someone else. I mean if they aren't going to cover immoral behaviors then surely they'd have a right to determine paternity before agreeing to covering the pregnancy, right?

Yes - the employer should be able to create the rules, period. Don't like the rules, see your shop steward, or seek employment elsewhere. No one is forcing you to stay. No one.

 

[donner]

Oh, and should an employer have any legal recourse against an employee they have found to have acted immorally? Could they sue for fraud if it was discovered that an employee was actually gay while still being covered by the employers insurance? Or that someone used the health plan to cover treatment for an STD without declaring it?

I mean these people did violate the employer's religious beliefs with their immoral lifestyles. Surely there should be some recourse for the employer to recoup the costs or otherwise assuage its guilt for having been party to such lifestyles.

 

[donner]

Yes - the employer should be able to create the rules, period. Don't like the rules, see your shop steward, or seek employment elsewhere. No one is forcing you to stay. No one.

by that logic couldn't one say "if you don't like the government's rules for running a business, don't open one" (or in this case, close one)?

Also, you're saying you'd be totally fine with having to go into human resources and explain to HR why you needed treatment for a UTI so that they could determine if they'd cover the costs of treatment?