Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
Court decision on Hobby Lobby case
Page <<first <prev 46 of 50 next> last>>
Jul 3, 2014 22:06:15   #
letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.
 
Why should insurance cover birth control, should insurance also provide condoms and spermicides. This country has gone straight to hell when it comes to personal responsibility.

Reply
Jul 3, 2014 22:06:53   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
bygeorge wrote:
Don't tread on me,my religion,my freedom,and freedom from religion,or my freedom of choice as per. directed by you.


What??? :shock: :shock: :shock:

I guess that this is some sort of disapproval, is this the logic and reason that you bring to an argument? I see you think that I must be crazy off the wall insane.... I would remind you that the Supremes handed down this ruling not me, it is also the same group of Supremes that was more than creative in allowing the ACA to stand in the first place...

You comment shows frustration and emotion at not being able to make an informed argument against the ruling.

Reply
Jul 3, 2014 22:12:32   #
marblclear Loc: Sacramento CA
 
Croce wrote:
Blurry, I can remember when you had a head on your shoulders, lately however, it appears to have been relocated. You are mixing business and religion. I happen to disagree, as 4 of the justices did, with the decision. I stand by my statement: The employees did not seek employment with HL because they wanted pastoral guidance. They should not have to be concerned about their employers religious preferences. I think the decision was terribly erroneous and should never have been accepted as an issue of RFRA. Is the court going forward and moving toward sympathy for a theocracy? In favor of what religion? Who in hell knows. In my opinion if they could sit and come up with something as cockamayme as this ruling, nothing is beyond the realm of imagination.
Blurry, I can remember when you had a head on your... (show quote)


Couldn't agree more. Let's take away their choice of guns and see how they like it.

Reply
 
 
Jul 3, 2014 22:19:50   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
marblclear wrote:
Couldn't agree more. Let's take away their choice of guns and see how they like it.


Whatever... Again so stupid, the court ruled that the women get the contraceptives, all 20 FDA approved methods Hobby Lobby will pay for all but the 4 methods in question. HHS has to provide an alternative method to deliver these drugs... So what is your real complaint?

Reply
Jul 3, 2014 22:21:37   #
SteveR Loc: Michigan
 
Croce wrote:
Blurry, I can remember when you had a head on your shoulders, lately however, it appears to have been relocated. You are mixing business and religion. I happen to disagree, as 4 of the justices did, with the decision. I stand by my statement: The employees did not seek employment with HL because they wanted pastoral guidance. They should not have to be concerned about their employers religious preferences. I think the decision was terribly erroneous and should never have been accepted as an issue of RFRA. Is the court going forward and moving toward sympathy for a theocracy? In favor of what religion? Who in hell knows. In my opinion if they could sit and come up with something as cockamayme as this ruling, nothing is beyond the realm of imagination.
Blurry, I can remember when you had a head on your... (show quote)


Croce....You're off your game.

Reply
Jul 3, 2014 22:23:41   #
SteveR Loc: Michigan
 
letmedance wrote:
Why should insurance cover birth control, should insurance also provide condoms and spermicides. This country has gone straight to hell when it comes to personal responsibility.


That's just it, lmd, under the ACA, they are covered.

Personal responsibility? Not under Obamma and the Democrats and Socialism.

Reply
Jul 3, 2014 22:29:44   #
PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North
 
marblclear wrote:
Couldn't agree more. Let's take away their choice of guns and see how they like it.


No one's choice has been taken from them in this case.

Reply
 
 
Jul 3, 2014 22:35:24   #
SwedeUSA2
 
Blurryeyed wrote:
Whatever... Again so stupid, the court ruled that the women get the contraceptives, all 20 FDA approved methods Hobby Lobby will pay for all but the 4 methods in question. HHS has to provide an alternative method to deliver these drugs... So what is your real complaint?


Blurryeyed, I enjoy, most of the time, reading your posts and respect your positions most times but why do you have to lower yourself to this level: name calling, denigrating people with differing/opposing opinions from yours?
It reminds me of the Law School saying: When argument is weak raise the voice. You are 'raising' your voice in vain, there's no need for it most of the time

Reply
Jul 3, 2014 22:53:32   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
SwedeUSA2 wrote:
Blurryeyed, I enjoy, most of the time, reading your posts and respect your positions most times but why do you have to lower yourself to this level: name calling, denigrating people with differing/opposing opinions from yours?
It reminds me of the Law School saying: When argument is weak raise the voice. You are 'raising' your voice in vain, there's no need for it most of the time


Really, did you not notice that a few posts back this same person called me an asshole? I did not respond in the same manner, I do not see where my argument has been weak at all, I feel that I am one of a very few people on this thread that are arguing the actual merits of the ruling. It seems very clear to me that most here are making an emotional argument and have very few facts at their disposal regarding the actual decision and what the court actually ruled.

I would welcome an informed argument from the other side instead of constantly having to swat away statements that are completely baseless yet made with an air of authority, and that has been the bulk of the statements made by the other side on this thread. Few here have read the decision and that is quite apparent in the arguments that are being made.

Reply
Jul 3, 2014 23:12:45   #
SwedeUSA2
 
Blurryeyed wrote:
Really, did you not notice that a few posts back this same person called me an asshole? I did not respond in the same manner, I do not see where my argument has been weak at all, I feel that I am one of a very few people on this thread that are arguing the actual merits of the ruling. It seems very clear to me that most here are making an emotional argument and have very few facts at their disposal regarding the actual decision and what the court actually ruled.

I would welcome an informed argument from the other side instead of constantly having to swat away statements that are completely baseless yet made with an air of authority, and that has been the bulk of the statements made by the other side on this thread. Few here have read the decision and that is quite apparent in the arguments that are being made.
Really, did you not notice that a few posts back t... (show quote)


I agree with you. You just misunderstood my words. They were not directed at you personally but just as a general comment about the level of civility on this site, which I don't think you've reached. The low level that is!

Reply
Jul 3, 2014 23:41:54   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
SwedeUSA2 wrote:
I agree with you. You just misunderstood my words. They were not directed at you personally but just as a general comment about the level of civility on this site, which I don't think you've reached. The low level that is!


I can't help what others say and honestly I too slip down there for whatever reason, but it is not a regular course of my discussions here but admittedly I can be course and at times crude. Generally when responding to either a poster or a particular comment that brings that out in me. It is not how I prefer to have discussions, I would rather have a challenging conversation than a mudfest. People who are constantly name calling are generally not taken seriously and often their posts are overlooked and not read by many people here. It would be nice if they would figure that out and bring up the level of their conversations so that their opinions are more widely read.

Reply
 
 
Jul 4, 2014 02:12:40   #
marblclear Loc: Sacramento CA
 
PrairieSeasons wrote:
No one's choice has been taken from them in this case.


Ah, excuse me, yes they have.

Reply
Jul 4, 2014 03:35:52   #
Hoot72 Loc: Lexington, KY
 
marblclear wrote:
Ah, excuse me, yes they have.



Please elaborate. What choice has been taken away?

Reply
Jul 4, 2014 06:46:34   #
Dun1 Loc: Atlanta, GA
 
I am not a lawyer, and I did not sleep at the Holiday Inn Express last night, as I understand the reason for the suit was Hobby Lobby's biggest reason against the inclusion of the so called "Morning After Pill". Many Hobby Lobby employees use contraceptives that are covered.

Reply
Jul 4, 2014 08:19:27   #
PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North
 
marblclear wrote:
Ah, excuse me, yes they have.


And which choice has been taken from anyone?

Reply
Page <<first <prev 46 of 50 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.