Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
Wasserman Schultz Visits Hobby Lobby Store — To Urge A Boycott
Page <<first <prev 10 of 19 next> last>>
Aug 25, 2014 10:18:57   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
silver wrote:
So you would rather have women have the resulting babies that probably end up on welfare or state aid rather then have birth control available for a couple of dollars? The denial of birth control by businesses that claim to be so religious that any of their female is truly disgusting, its shameful that female employees are not allowed to be covered with birth control. These people are hypocrites and just evil. If you think that any sane person will stop having sex you are a real nut. How about married women that dont want to have any more children or none at all, are they going to be forced to find help from other sources when men have no restrictions whatsoever? This is not an expensive thing to have birth control, oh yeah, you would rather see all those women have babies that they can't care for.
So you would rather have women have the resulting ... (show quote)



Why do you insist on beating a dead horse? First SCOTUS ruled that HHS infringed on the religious rights of the business owners, get over it. You don't care about these women, you only care about the oppression of religion and private property rights.

Secondly the courts ruled that HHS had to find other accommodation for these women, that it was up to the government to find a way to meet the public need identified in the HHS mandate. Well.... It does seem that HHS did just that. The government will pay for a rider on those policies where there is religious objection, the women will indeed have the same access to those drugs that any other women have so it does seem that the issue has been resolved without infringing on the 1st amendment rights of the Green family, but that is the crux of the issue for you Silver, you are not satisfied particularly because the Green's first amendment rights were preserved. You want the government to establish its supremacy over our constitutional rights, at least in matters with which you agree.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/how-the-white-house-is-changing-obamacare-to-comply-with-hobby-lobby-20140822

Reply
Aug 25, 2014 11:18:02   #
silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.
 
BigBear wrote:
Dude !!
Your mind is really warped (nothing to do with speed).
You liberals are the only ones claiming they won't have access to those things.
They can have anything they want as long as I am not paying for it.

If it isn't clear to you by now, just stop clicking the send button as I am now deaf to you.


So you would rather pay for babies on welfare then birth control that costs a couple of dollars? Talk about being uncaring.

Reply
Aug 25, 2014 11:19:12   #
silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.
 
Blurryeyed wrote:
Why do you insist on beating a dead horse? First SCOTUS ruled that HHS infringed on the religious rights of the business owners, get over it. You don't care about these women, you only care about the oppression of religion and private property rights.

Secondly the courts ruled that HHS had to find other accommodation for these women, that it was up to the government to find a way to meet the public need identified in the HHS mandate. Well.... It does seem that HHS did just that. The government will pay for a rider on those policies where there is religious objection, the women will indeed have the same access to those drugs that any other women have so it does seem that the issue has been resolved without infringing on the 1st amendment rights of the Green family, but that is the crux of the issue for you Silver, you are not satisfied particularly because the Green's first amendment rights were preserved. You want the government to establish its supremacy over our constitutional rights, at least in matters with which you agree.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/how-the-white-house-is-changing-obamacare-to-comply-with-hobby-lobby-20140822
Why do you insist on beating a dead horse? First ... (show quote)


First amendment rights forcing religion on employees? HA

Reply
 
 
Aug 25, 2014 11:29:08   #
rrforster12 Loc: Leesburg Florida
 
silver wrote:
So you would rather have women have the resulting babies that probably end up on welfare or state aid rather then have birth control available for a couple of dollars? The denial of birth control by businesses that claim to be so religious that any of their female is truly disgusting, its shameful that female employees are not allowed to be covered with birth control. These people are hypocrites and just evil. If you think that any sane person will stop having sex you are a real nut. How about married women that dont want to have any more children or none at all, are they going to be forced to find help from other sources when men have no restrictions whatsoever? This is not an expensive thing to have birth control, oh yeah, you would rather see all those women have babies that they can't care for.
So you would rather have women have the resulting ... (show quote)


The position taken by this responder is truly baffling. It is hard to believe that there is anyone left in the USA that does not know that the SCOTUS decision only pertained to 4 specific devices out of the 16 that are available for women to use, and BTW have the taxpayer or employer pay for. Why the public should be required to pay for them to begin with is a mystery, but that"s another thread for another day. It seems the lie about "depriving women of Birth Control" being put out by the Left is just more sophistry on their part as an attempt to dupe the sheeple that won't take the time to learn the truth, and that is shameful. As has been said on another occasion: "Do these people have no shame???"

Reply
Aug 25, 2014 11:45:02   #
cameraniac Loc: Huntingburg, Indiana
 
rrforster12 wrote:
The position taken by this responder is truly baffling. It is hard to believe that there is anyone left in the USA that does not know that the SCOTUS decision only pertained to 4 specific devices out of the 16 that are available for women to use, and BTW have the taxpayer or employer pay for. Why the public should be required to pay for them to begin with is a mystery, but that"s another thread for another day. It seems the lie about "depriving women of Birth Control" being put out by the Left is just more sophistry on their part as an attempt to dupe the sheeple that won't take the time to learn the truth, and that is shameful. As has been said on another occasion: "Do these people have no shame???"
The position taken by this responder is truly baff... (show quote)

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Reply
Aug 25, 2014 11:49:38   #
silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.
 
rrforster12 wrote:
The position taken by this responder is truly baffling. It is hard to believe that there is anyone left in the USA that does not know that the SCOTUS decision only pertained to 4 specific devices out of the 16 that are available for women to use, and BTW have the taxpayer or employer pay for. Why the public should be required to pay for them to begin with is a mystery, but that"s another thread for another day. It seems the lie about "depriving women of Birth Control" being put out by the Left is just more sophistry on their part as an attempt to dupe the sheeple that won't take the time to learn the truth, and that is shameful. As has been said on another occasion: "Do these people have no shame???"
The position taken by this responder is truly baff... (show quote)


None of this would be necessary if it weren't for people as the ones that feel that they have the right to impose religious beliefs on their employees and people that own restaurants that have discounts for people that pray. There is no lie here, just religious people forcing their beliefs on others.

Reply
Aug 25, 2014 12:53:25   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
silver wrote:
First amendment rights forcing religion on employees? HA


There is no "right" to birth control or "right" to anything else to be handed to you by the government, as we understand them, and as they are enshrined into our constitution our rights are natural rights endowed by the creator not by the state.... Now religious freedom has since the inception of our country has been understood as one of those rights, the gift that the state forces an employer to grant to their employees is not one of those rights endowed by the creator.... When the two come into conflict it is only reasonable that the rights enshrined in our constitution out weigh the contemporary political whims of our politicians.

Arguing with you Silver is sometimes more difficult than arguing with a rock....

Reply
 
 
Aug 25, 2014 13:16:15   #
silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.
 
Blurryeyed wrote:
There is no "right" to birth control or "right" to anything else to be handed to you by the government, as we understand them, and as they are enshrined into our constitution our rights are natural rights endowed by the creator not by the state.... Now religious freedom has since the inception of our country has been understood as one of those rights, the gift that the state forces an employer to grant to their employees is not one of those rights endowed by the creator.... When the two come into conflict it is only reasonable that the rights enshrined in our constitution out weigh the contemporary political whims of our politicians.

Arguing with you Silver is sometimes more difficult than arguing with a rock....
There is no "right" to birth control or ... (show quote)


If birth control is a part of health care universally then why does a religious entity have the right to deny female employees birth control? How about the freedom of those women to use their health coverage as they see fit.

Reply
Aug 25, 2014 13:40:18   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
silver wrote:
If birth control is a part of health care universally then why does a religious entity have the right to deny female employees birth control? How about the freedom of those women to use their health coverage as they see fit.


It has been provided for, but that remains unimportant to you. You are just pissing in your breakfast cereal because the government has to make arrangement other than forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for it.

There is no right to employer provided healthcare.... None, it has been legislated but that does not mean that it is a right, now when that legislation does bump up against constitutionally granted rights..... the government loses, at least for now because we all know that if the court ever swings to the left that our constitution will have little bearing on our governance.

Reply
Aug 25, 2014 14:44:58   #
TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails
 
silver wrote:
If birth control is a part of health care universally then why does a religious entity have the right to deny female employees birth control? How about the freedom of those women to use their health coverage as they see fit.


Just because they pass a law does not mean it is constitutional.

Reply
Aug 25, 2014 17:15:18   #
SteveR Loc: Michigan
 
silver wrote:
So you would rather have women have the resulting babies that probably end up on welfare or state aid rather then have birth control available for a couple of dollars? The denial of birth control by businesses that claim to be so religious that any of their female is truly disgusting, its shameful that female employees are not allowed to be covered with birth control. These people are hypocrites and just evil. If you think that any sane person will stop having sex you are a real nut. How about married women that dont want to have any more children or none at all, are they going to be forced to find help from other sources when men have no restrictions whatsoever? This is not an expensive thing to have birth control, oh yeah, you would rather see all those women have babies that they can't care for.
So you would rather have women have the resulting ... (show quote)


Silver....You don't even know what the SCOTUS ruling was about, from this reply.

Reply
 
 
Aug 25, 2014 23:58:42   #
magicray Loc: Tampa Bay, Florida
 
TrainNut wrote:
Woman should be in control of their bodies. But when there is another person involved that is different.


Using emergency contraceptive pills, called "morning after pills" or "day after pills", prevents pregnancy after sex. It does not cause an abortion. In fact, because emergency contraception helps women avoid getting pregnant when they are not ready or able to have children, it can reduce the need for abortion.

Emergency contraceptive pills work before pregnancy begins. According to leading medical authorities – such as the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists – pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg implants in the lining of a woman's uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after sperm fertilizes the egg, and the process is completed several days later. Emergency contraception will not work if a woman is already pregnant.

Reply
Aug 26, 2014 00:09:32   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
magicray wrote:
Using emergency contraceptive pills, called "morning after pills" or "day after pills", prevents pregnancy after sex. It does not cause an abortion. In fact, because emergency contraception helps women avoid getting pregnant when they are not ready or able to have children, it can reduce the need for abortion.

Emergency contraceptive pills work before pregnancy begins. According to leading medical authorities – such as the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists – pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg implants in the lining of a woman's uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after sperm fertilizes the egg, and the process is completed several days later. Emergency contraception will not work if a woman is already pregnant.
Using emergency contraceptive pills, called "... (show quote)


It all depends on when life begins, it prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. According to the religious beliefs of some life begins at fertilization. That is Hobby Lobby's objection, they provide the other 16 forms of birth control. HHS has already come up with a plan for accommodation so now I wonder if the discussion is not about the central government vs the constitution.

The whole thing makes little sense to me, a year ago women simply bought these drugs and it did not seem like it was such a big deal, certainly there were no cries of oppression as you are hearing today... So what is it really about?

Reply
Aug 26, 2014 00:15:24   #
TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails
 
Blurryeyed wrote:
It all depends on when life begins, it prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. According to the religious beliefs of some life begins at fertilization. That is Hobby Lobby's objection, they provide the other 16 forms of birth control. HHS has already come up with a plan for accommodation so now I wonder if the discussion is not about the central government vs the constitution.

The whole thing makes little sense to me, a year ago women simply bought these drugs and it did not seem like it was such a big deal, certainly there were no cries of oppression as you are hearing today... So what is it really about?
It all depends on when life begins, it prevents th... (show quote)


"So what is it really about?"

Control.

Reply
Aug 26, 2014 01:53:26   #
silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.
 
SteveR wrote:
Silver....You don't even know what the SCOTUS ruling was about, from this reply.


Nonsense.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 10 of 19 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.