Guy Incognito
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 11,216
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
You need to refrain from accusing him of being such immoral being in such a way.
I am only speaking the truth about the implications of his (and your) argument. If you find that your argument leads your to such immoral conclusions, perhaps you should reconsider your immoral positions rather than shooting the messenger.
The bus company was upholding a discriminatory law. Rosa was ignoring that law. How does Hobby Lobby ignoring a law they consider discriminatory and illegitimate make them similar to the law abiding bus company?The law was put into action by congress, and considered constitutional by the Supreme Court. Considered immoral by some yes, but not illegitimte.
The Hobby Lobby in this case is more similar to the bus company that segregated its seats rather than the actual citizens that are inconvienced.
As the supplier of the health insurance if required by law they should have to supply the morning after pill (which for the record isnt at all similar to an aborton in ethics or procedure), it is up to the individual citizen to decide if they wish to use it or not.
No, the constitutional issue here has not yet gotten before the Supreme Court.
No, it's Rosa Parks. The employees demanding abortion pills are the bus company.
I imagine you would have supported Jim Crow laws yourself. If not you are advocating a hypocritcal argument, because logically your argument entails support for apartheid or any other law infringing whatever else the government wants to infringe. So either you are advocating a disgusting viewpoint or a hypocritical viewpoint. Take your pick.
The bus company was upholding a discriminatory law. Rosa was ignoring that law. How does Hobby Lobby ignoring a law they consider discriminatory and illegitimate make them similar to the law abiding bus company?
Without the variable of the law and taken just from the view point of the individual and the company. Hobby Lobby's administrators don't have the right to set a moral precedent on medication over their whole company.
I am only speaking the truth about the implications of his (and your) argument. If you find that your argument leads your to such immoral conclusions, perhaps you should reconsider your immoral positions rather than shooting the messenger.
Oh, my bad. I didn't realize hobby lobby banned their employees from using Plan B. I thought they just refused to buy it for them.
Yes i do. My mother owns several things from Hobby lobby. Mostly China made products.
through their health plan they are banning their employees from using it. Would you like to pay that extra money for it when your health insurance should?
Aha, so you were exaggerating the facts after all. So they aren't banning Plan B, they just refuse to buy it for their employees.
One thing I'm confused about: Did the employment contract the employees signed promise them free pregnancy killer pills, or was that the government?
And how does this make hobby lobby like the law abiding bus company?
Oh, I didn't realize in the constitution it said that all citizens have a right to pregnancy killing pills being bought for them by their employers. You've ignored my question 3 times now: How is hobby lobby, who is breaking the law for something they consider discriminatory, similar to a bus company that followed the law to the tee.I made no such exageration. Hobby Lobby is with holding coverage medication whose employees have a right to.
You know if you put it you're way perhaps Hobby Lobby is worse for breaking the law.
Oh, I didn't realize in the constitution it said that all citizens have a right to pregnancy killing pills being bought for them by their employers. You've ignored my question 3 times now: How is hobby lobby, who is breaking the law for something they consider discriminatory, similar to a bus company that followed the law to the tee.
I made no such exageration. Hobby Lobby is with holding coverage medication whose employees have a right to.
Morning after pills prevents pregnancies it does not terminate them
How Does it Work? - Morning After Pill
I have answered your question each time just not in the way you'd prefer.
Hobby Lobby has inconvienced and infringed upon the rights of their employees (who are also viable parts of their company) similar to how the bus company inconvienced, but perhaps not at the time infirnged upon their patrons rights.
No, you don't have the right to force action on others simply because you need or desire their service.
The employees are not forcing them, what is forcing the is called the law. As determined by our congress and our supreme court this law is consitutional and needs to be followed appropriately.
To not fulfill the law is a crime.
And by no means is this a breach of Hobby Lobby's rights which makes no sense because the consensus of the entire company is not that of an anti-contraceptive state of mind.
I see, so you're arguing that it is a right because it was recently signed into law? If they made a law that everyone can bang your wife would you also consider it a right?
A right is something that applies to all citizens. This only applies to females that work for a company with more than 50 people. Tell me again how that's just like being black.
So when the government does it that changes something then?
It is obvious they don't care about that.
Do you think its right people can just go around forcing other people to do their bidding? If you were forced to do my bidding would you consider that a violation of your rights?
I agree. I think this is a larger test, a toe in the water if you will...think about it, the government is seeing how far they can go through force with an item easily affordable by the mass public. The only reason to push so hard is to set a precedent.
Are you an anarchist?
And because of that they have to pay over a million dollars everyday in a fine.
Hobby Lobby is not person it is a company. The individuals that Hobby Lobby is refusing to cover are the victims.
no not at all because that part is meaningless to the word hypocrisy
yes people are fighting for things to be covered but there would be no force by the government in one case and in the other there would be force
were minorities/women DEMANDING equal rights and and protections but at the same time hypocrites against others freedoms? of course not because that logic is broken and doent fit the definition of hypocrisy.
AGain like the other poster if you disagree by alll means shows us factual proof its hypocrisy.
no clue who Sandra Fuxalot but she is meaningless to the debate that the poster is factually inaccurate and illogical.
It is not the company's right to break the law. No one is above the law.
The law was put into action by congress, and considered constitutional by the Supreme Court. Considered immoral by some yes, but not illegitimte.
The Hobby Lobby in this case is more similar to the bus company that segregated its seats rather than the actual citizens that are inconvienced.
As the supplier of the health insurance if required by law they should have to supply the morning after pill (which for the record isnt at all similar to an aborton in ethics or procedure), it is up to the individual citizen to decide if they wish to use it or not.
Actually if you read the first sentence of this article it expresses how Hobby Lobby lost its appeal with the Supreme Court. How about that?
Hobby Lobby, defying health law, refuses to cover morning-after pill - latimes.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?