Apostolic Friends Forum
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)
-   Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   The Hobby Lobby Decision (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=46524)

ILG 07-22-2014 03:07 PM
The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Well, this is kind of old news now. However, my daughter has been reading a lot of liberal stuff on the Hobby Lobby decision and around the dinner table it has come up a number of times. My husband and I agree with the decision made and she and my son apparently do not. I feel we have explained it all already but on her birthday list she said she wants: A coherent and logically consistent legal argument explaining the Hobby Lobby decision (from the conservative viewpoint). I told her before I am not a lawyer and don't know all the legal ins and outs but apparently that's not good enough. So, I'm a little overwhelmed at the request. Anything here to help me out would be appreciated! Thanks!

n david 07-22-2014 03:11 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Paging Pressing On!!!

:lol

ILG 07-22-2014 03:11 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by n david (Post 1326669)
Paging Pressing On!!!

:lol
Indeed!!

BrotherEastman 07-22-2014 03:24 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326664)
Well, this is kind of old news now. However, my daughter has been reading a lot of liberal stuff on the Hobby Lobby decision and around the dinner table it has come up a number of times. My husband and I agree with the decision made and she and my son apparently do not. I feel we have explained it all already but on her birthday list she said she wants: A coherent and logically consistent legal argument explaining the Hobby Lobby decision (from the conservative viewpoint). I told her before I am not a lawyer and don't know all the legal ins and outs but apparently that's not good enough. So, I'm a little overwhelmed at the request. Anything here to help me out would be appreciated! Thanks!
uuuummmm, How old are your kids?

KeptByTheWord 07-22-2014 03:27 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Ya, we'll wait on Pressing-On to interpret the mumble-jumble, lol!

From what I can understand, Hobby Lobby will still be providing 19 forms of birth control for women, but they will not provide the birth control that includes the morning-after pill. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that has been my understanding so far...

aegsm76 07-22-2014 03:39 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
If we knew of the reason that she does not agree with the decision, it might help.

Pressing-On 07-22-2014 03:45 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord (Post 1326683)
Ya, we'll wait on Pressing-On to interpret the mumble-jumble, lol!

From what I can understand, Hobby Lobby will still be providing 19 forms of birth control for women, but they will not provide the birth control that includes the morning-after pill. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that has been my understanding so far...
You are right, it will provide all forms of birth control, but will not support abortifacients. Their belief is that after conception, it is considered murder. Normal birth control prevents conception. Abortifacients are used "after" conception.

In a nutshell, we are a nation founded on the history of fleeing religious oppression. It is our legacy. Our Founding Fathers placed "Freedom of Religion", under the Bill of Rights, as our FIRST protection BEFORE Freedom of Speech and BEFORE Freedom of the Press.

We must be able to worship God within the dictates of our conscience. We cannot allow that to be taken away. If that is taken away, anything can be taken away.

There is nothing else to add to the argument. It is cut and dried.

Pressing-On 07-22-2014 04:22 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326664)
Well, this is kind of old news now. However, my daughter has been reading a lot of liberal stuff on the Hobby Lobby decision and around the dinner table it has come up a number of times. My husband and I agree with the decision made and she and my son apparently do not. I feel we have explained it all already but on her birthday list she said she wants: A coherent and logically consistent legal argument explaining the Hobby Lobby decision (from the conservative viewpoint). I told her before I am not a lawyer and don't know all the legal ins and outs but apparently that's not good enough. So, I'm a little overwhelmed at the request. Anything here to help me out would be appreciated! Thanks!
Okay, ILG. If she wants to be really legal. LOL!
Quote:
The real issue is not whether corporations of any type can ever claim protection under RFRA — sometimes they can. The issue is whether for-profit corporations can ever have enough of a religious purpose to claim that protection.

Hobby Lobby is a socially responsible corporation, judged by the deep religious beliefs of its owners. The court decisively rejects the notion that the sole purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make money for its shareholders. This fits perfectly with the expansive view of corporate purpose that liberal proponents of social responsibility usually advocate — except, apparently, when talking about this case.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-bad-old-days/
:thumbsup:thumbsup

Ferd 07-22-2014 04:30 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
HL does in fact provide coverage for birth control. They sought relief from the court to not be forced against their conscience to provide medical care that could/would cause the end of a life.



Here is the basis of the court finding.
1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (RFRA)

The law was passed unanimous in the House of Reps. It passed the senate 97-3 and was signed by Bill Clinton into law.(2 dems 1 rep voted no)

The law seeks to clarify situations where Congress passes a law that while not intended to be a burden to the free exercise of religion, in fact becomes such.
The law establishes 2 basic principles that must be applied to see a law stand when there is a challenge.
First there must be a compelling interest for the government to proceed with the law.
Second the law must seek the “least restrictive” way to apply the rule.

The court found that the mandate was “not the least restrictive" method of implementing the government's interest.”


That really is the legal argument.

At the end of the day, the owners of HL have a deeply held and historically consistent belief system. Then that belief system was challenged, not by a federal law, but by a mandate handed down by the Department of Human Services.
In American politics and Juris prudence, no person has been compelled to provide an abortion when they have a religious aversion to it. Even our taxes have been held back from supporting abortions.

The case was not about contraception. HL provides 16 of the 20 FDA approved methods. It was about forcing these people to do something we historically do not do. And the court actually came down on the side of precedent.

The court stated quite clearly that the government did not provide a clear and compelling reason for the government to proceed with the mandate in the face of the RFRA.

The fact is, in the beginning the administration attempted to force this mandate even on religious institutions. But because of backlash, and a clear indication that they would lose a First Amendment challenge, they backed off and carved out an exception for religious institutions. Then they proceeded with force to compel private businesses to comply with a mandate (not a federal law but a regulation determined by the HUD secretary) they knew they would lose if it was done to an individual/ religious group.

What those on the left fail to recognize is this is not an attempt by the government to protect people or to continue to provide the kind of protections that have been in place, rather this is an attempt to change the course of American political precedent. THEY are the ones that must provide the compelling reason for the act.

This is brand new territory and they have not provided a cogent legal argument that stands against established law.

ILG 07-22-2014 04:38 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherEastman (Post 1326680)
uuuummmm, How old are your kids?
Mid to late 20's. Why?

ILG 07-22-2014 04:40 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326694)
You are right, it will provide all forms of birth control, but will not support abortifacients. Their belief is that after conception, it is considered murder. Normal birth control prevents conception. Abortifacients are used "after" conception.

In a nutshell, we are a nation founded on the history of fleeing religious oppression. It is our legacy. Our Founding Fathers placed "Freedom of Religion", under the Bill of Rights, as our FIRST protection BEFORE Freedom of Speech and BEFORE Freedom of the Press.

We must be able to worship God within the dictates of our conscience. We cannot allow that to be taken away. If that is taken away, anything can be taken away.

There is nothing else to add to the argument. It is cut and dried.
Agreed. But that's not good enough. ;)

ILG 07-22-2014 04:49 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326715)
Okay, ILG. If she wants to be really legal. LOL!


:thumbsup:thumbsup
I am going to print this out. Thanks PO.

Pressing-On 07-22-2014 04:57 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326722)
Agreed. But that's not good enough. ;)
Right. And it is starkly scary that the 10 Amendments to our US Constitution are not good enough anymore, huh?

Pressing-On 07-22-2014 05:04 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd (Post 1326719)
HL does in fact provide coverage for birth control. They sought relief from the court to not be forced against their conscience to provide medical care that could/would cause the end of a life.



Here is the basis of the court finding.
1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (RFRA)

The law was passed unanimous in the House of Reps. It passed the senate 97-3 and was signed by Bill Clinton into law.(2 dems 1 rep voted no)

The law seeks to clarify situations where Congress passes a law that while not intended to be a burden to the free exercise of religion, in fact becomes such.
The law establishes 2 basic principles that must be applied to see a law stand when there is a challenge.
First there must be a compelling interest for the government to proceed with the law.
Second the law must seek the “least restrictive” way to apply the rule.

The court found that the mandate was “not the least restrictive" method of implementing the government's interest.”


That really is the legal argument.

At the end of the day, the owners of HL have a deeply held and historically consistent belief system. Then that belief system was challenged, not by a federal law, but by a mandate handed down by the Department of Human Services.
In American politics and Juris prudence, no person has been compelled to provide an abortion when they have a religious aversion to it. Even our taxes have been held back from supporting abortions.

The case was not about contraception. HL provides 16 of the 20 FDA approved methods. It was about forcing these people to do something we historically do not do. And the court actually came down on the side of precedent.

The court stated quite clearly that the government did not provide a clear and compelling reason for the government to proceed with the mandate in the face of the RFRA.

The fact is, in the beginning the administration attempted to force this mandate even on religious institutions. But because of backlash, and a clear indication that they would lose a First Amendment challenge, they backed off and carved out an exception for religious institutions. Then they proceeded with force to compel private businesses to comply with a mandate (not a federal law but a regulation determined by the HUD secretary) they knew they would lose if it was done to an individual/ religious group.

What those on the left fail to recognize is this is not an attempt by the government to protect people or to continue to provide the kind of protections that have been in place, rather this is an attempt to change the course of American political precedent. THEY are the ones that must provide the compelling reason for the act.

This is brand new territory and they have not provided a cogent legal argument that stands against established law.
This is a great piece on RFRA.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS
Federal legislation

Background:

During the 1960's and 1970's, a series of decisions by the US Supreme Court supported individuals' religious freedom by limiting the authority of governments to pass restrictive legislation. Two important examples were Sherbert v. Verner in 1963 and Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972.

During the late 1980's, the US Supreme Court's philosophy shifted in the direction of allowing governments to restrict religious freedom, as long as the limitations applied equally to all faiths. The US Supreme Court decision of Employment Division v. Smith in 1990 was a key decision in this area. The court ruled that native religious use of peyote (a hallucinogenic drug) is not a constitutionally protected religious right. Some native religious traditions had been using peyote in their religious rituals for millennia.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rfra1.htm

ILG 07-22-2014 06:08 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd (Post 1326719)
HL does in fact provide coverage for birth control. They sought relief from the court to not be forced against their conscience to provide medical care that could/would cause the end of a life.



Here is the basis of the court finding.
1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (RFRA)

The law was passed unanimous in the House of Reps. It passed the senate 97-3 and was signed by Bill Clinton into law.(2 dems 1 rep voted no)

The law seeks to clarify situations where Congress passes a law that while not intended to be a burden to the free exercise of religion, in fact becomes such.
The law establishes 2 basic principles that must be applied to see a law stand when there is a challenge.
First there must be a compelling interest for the government to proceed with the law.
Second the law must seek the “least restrictive” way to apply the rule.

The court found that the mandate was “not the least restrictive" method of implementing the government's interest.”


That really is the legal argument.

At the end of the day, the owners of HL have a deeply held and historically consistent belief system. Then that belief system was challenged, not by a federal law, but by a mandate handed down by the Department of Human Services.
In American politics and Juris prudence, no person has been compelled to provide an abortion when they have a religious aversion to it. Even our taxes have been held back from supporting abortions.

The case was not about contraception. HL provides 16 of the 20 FDA approved methods. It was about forcing these people to do something we historically do not do. And the court actually came down on the side of precedent.

The court stated quite clearly that the government did not provide a clear and compelling reason for the government to proceed with the mandate in the face of the RFRA.

The fact is, in the beginning the administration attempted to force this mandate even on religious institutions. But because of backlash, and a clear indication that they would lose a First Amendment challenge, they backed off and carved out an exception for religious institutions. Then they proceeded with force to compel private businesses to comply with a mandate (not a federal law but a regulation determined by the HUD secretary) they knew they would lose if it was done to an individual/ religious group.

What those on the left fail to recognize is this is not an attempt by the government to protect people or to continue to provide the kind of protections that have been in place, rather this is an attempt to change the course of American political precedent. THEY are the ones that must provide the compelling reason for the act.

This is brand new territory and they have not provided a cogent legal argument that stands against established law.
Thanks Ferd. Doing lots of reading and bookmarking here.

Pressing-On 07-23-2014 09:25 AM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
ILG,
I think it is interesting that the Catholic Bishops were the earliest to proclaim that early contraception pills were combined with the issue of abortion and because "contraception" was a lifestyle choice, insurance companies shouldn't be required to pay for it.

However, 10 years later, Viagra was rapidly approved and covered by insurance, opening the door to have contraception also covered by insurance.

To our 1st Amendment rights, the article I posted earlier quotes:

Quote:
Twenty years ago it would have been inconceivable that a Christian or Jewish organization that opposed gay marriage might be treated as racist in the public square. Today? It’s just not clear.

“In Massachusetts I’d be very worried,” Stern says finally. The churches themselves might have a First Amendment defense if a state government or state courts tried to withdraw their exemption, he says, but “the parachurch institutions are very much at risk and may be put out of business because of the licensing issues, or for these other reasons–it’s very unclear. None of us nonprofits can function without [state] tax exemption. As a practical matter, any large charity needs that real estate tax exemption.”

He blames religious conservatives for adopting the wrong political strategy on gay issues. “Live and let live,” he tells me, is the only thing around the world that works. But I ask him point blank what he would say to people who dismiss the threat to free exercise of religion as evangelical hysteria. “It’s not hysteria, this is very real,” he tells me, “Boston Catholic Charities shows that.”
It also mentions the Becket Fund, who litigated the ACA lawsuit. It's interesting how the Fund has always focused on cases involving all religions, but now finds itself focusing on more political and religious right cases.

Kristina Arriaga, the firm’s executive director, has this to say, although referencing the current ACA results:

“We find there has been an aggressive push from the government to become the sole arbiter of morality, which is not good for the country. Regrettably, religious liberty work has augmented exponentially.”

So, there we are with these two lawsuits - our 1st Amendment rights are being abridged, producing a fight in the courts.

Again, in the article I posted, I agree with this point - "The war could be averted if the left were to do as Stern suggested the right should have done when it held the high ground: adopt a live and let live attitude, consonant with pluralist democracy. The left can’t and won’t do that, because Error Has No Rights."

ILG 07-23-2014 11:08 AM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326837)
ILG,
I think it is interesting that the Catholic Bishops were the earliest to proclaim that early contraception pills were combined with the issue of abortion and because "contraception" was a lifestyle choice, insurance companies shouldn't be required to pay for it.

However, 10 years later, Viagra was rapidly approved and covered by insurance, opening the door to have contraception also covered by insurance.

To our 1st Amendment rights, the article I posted earlier quotes:



It also mentions the Becket Fund, who litigated the ACA lawsuit. It's interesting how the Fund has always focused on cases involving all religions, but now finds itself focusing on more political and religious right cases.

Kristina Arriaga, the firm’s executive director, has this to say, although referencing the current ACA results:

“We find there has been an aggressive push from the government to become the sole arbiter of morality, which is not good for the country. Regrettably, religious liberty work has augmented exponentially.”

So, there we are with these two lawsuits - our 1st Amendment rights are being abridged, producing a fight in the courts.

Again, in the article I posted, I agree with this point - "The war could be averted if the left were to do as Stern suggested the right should have done when it held the high ground: adopt a live and let live attitude, consonant with pluralist democracy. The left can’t and won’t do that, because Error Has No Rights."
In reading the things you and Ferd sent me, it seems that the conservative vs liberal standpoint somewhat boils down to personal responsibility vs you owe me. Conservatives generally feel that we are all personally responsible for ourselves and if we want contraception or abortions then we should have to pay for it. The libs feel that you owe me everything I want if I work for you. You are the big, bad corporation who has all the money and power and I am the little peon who works for peanuts and needs contraception so you owe it to me.

ILG 07-23-2014 11:15 AM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Okay so does anyone want to post some good counterpoints to these?

Quote:
The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg's Dissent on the Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision
—Dana Liebelson on Mon. June 30, 2014 11:32 AM PDT

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Charlie Neuman/ZUMA
On Monday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a blistering dissent to the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that the government can't require certain employers to provide insurance coverage for methods of birth control and emergency contraception that conflict with their religious beliefs. Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, "in a decision of startling breadth," would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

Here are seven more key quotes from Ginsburg's dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

Pressing-On 07-23-2014 11:24 AM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326869)
In reading the things you and Ferd sent me, it seems that the conservative vs liberal standpoint somewhat boils down to personal responsibility vs you owe me. Conservatives generally feel that we are all personally responsible for ourselves and if we want contraception or abortions then we should have to pay for it. The libs feel that you owe me everything I want if I work for you. You are the big, bad corporation who has all the money and power and I am the little peon who works for peanuts and needs contraception so you owe it to me.
Right, and that is taught in our colleges by liberal professors. Well, it used to be in college. Now it is getting stronger in the public school system.

It gets into a Marxist theology. Marxist feminism claims that a woman's oppression by men and sexism is more a fundamental problem rooted in capitalism. They feel we must move away from capitalism into socialism.

Basically, it is what you said, personal responsibility that liberals don't want. They want a classless society.

Pressing-On 07-23-2014 11:31 AM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326872)
Okay so does anyone want to post some good counterpoints to these?
I don't have a lot of time, but generally people choose their employment/employer by the benefits offered.

In my area, people love Hobby Lobby, because they pay above minimum wage, and are closed on Sundays. They also like the nature of what the company is built upon - religious values.

If you don't like the healthcare benefits, find another place to seek employment. That's all there is to it, Ginsburg.

All of her other "scare tactics" are simply to keep pressure on religious freedom.

ILG 07-23-2014 11:34 AM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326873)
Right, and that is taught in our colleges by liberal professors. Well, it used to be in college. Now it is getting stronger in the public school system.

It gets into a Marxist theology. Marxist feminism claims that a woman's oppression by men and sexism is more a fundamental problem rooted in capitalism. They feel we must move away from capitalism into socialism.

Basically, it is what you said, personal responsibility that liberals don't want. They want a classless society.
I live in Wisconsin. You know this whole Scott Walker thing? The educators etc have thought nothing of getting pensions and double dipping ( retiring and collecting and going back to work at the same time) for years while guess who pays for it? Their neighbors who are self-employed...farmers and business owners. All the while patting themselves on the back for "demanding good pay". This pay is not coming from the big corps or anything. It comes off the backs of their brothers and sisters. So, when Scott walker came in and leveled the playing field, I never saw such a big fit in my life.

ILG 07-23-2014 11:56 AM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326875)
I don't have a lot of time, but generally people choose their employment/employer by the benefits offered.

In my area, people love Hobby Lobby, because they pay above minimum wage, and are closed on Sundays. They also like the nature of what the company is built upon - religious values.

If you don't like the healthcare benefits, find another place to seek employment. That's all there is to it, Ginsburg.

All of her other "scare tactics" are simply to keep pressure on religious freedom.
Here are some of my thoughts:

Quote:
"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
They may be being denied coverage, but they are not being denied contraception. Hobby Lobby is simply not being required to pay for it. (Which in my opinion, you get what you get when you sign up for a job. Take it or leave it.) In addition, Hobby Lobby is providing lots of contraceptive coverage, just not abortions and stuff that causes abortions in their opinion.

Quote:
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
So this means that business owners have no rights? I think not. As a business owner, I would not want someone forcing me to pay for an abortion.

Quote:
"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
Although that is true, why should an employer be required to give someone any insurance coverage period?

Quote:
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
So what? Condoms are a lot cheaper. Teach abstinence or frugality. If you have sex 12 times a month, I just looked online and you can get a box of 12 at dollar general for $6.00. Problem solved and you get to be "safe" to boot!

Quote:
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
If they do, they should be upfront at hiring so people know. I don't see this as a "huge" issue.

Quote:
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
And so it could. But otherwise you are forcing business owners to pay for abortions or whatever. There are two sides to this story not one.

Pressing-On 07-23-2014 12:12 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326886)
Here are some of my thoughts:



They may be being denied coverage, but they are not being denied contraception. Hobby Lobby is simply not being required to pay for it. (Which in my opinion, you get what you get when you sign up for a job. Take it or leave it.) In addition, Hobby Lobby is providing lots of contraceptive coverage, just not abortions and stuff that causes abortions in their opinion.



So this means that business owners have no rights? I think not. As a business owner, I would not want someone forcing me to pay for an abortion.



Although that is true, why should an employer be required to give someone any insurance coverage period?



So what? Condoms are a lot cheaper. Teach abstinence or frugality. If you have sex 12 times a month, I just looked online and you can get a box of 12 at dollar general for $6.00. Problem solved and you get to be "safe" to boot!



If they do, they should be upfront at hiring so people know. I don't see this as a "huge" issue.



And so it could. But otherwise you are forcing business owners to pay for abortions or whatever. There are two sides to this story not one.
Perfect! :thumbsup

Pressing-On 07-23-2014 12:13 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326877)
I live in Wisconsin. You know this whole Scott Walker thing? The educators etc have thought nothing of getting pensions and double dipping ( retiring and collecting and going back to work at the same time) for years while guess who pays for it? Their neighbors who are self-employed...farmers and business owners. All the while patting themselves on the back for "demanding good pay". This pay is not coming from the big corps or anything. It comes off the backs of their brothers and sisters. So, when Scott walker came in and leveled the playing field, I never saw such a big fit in my life.
Yes, I watched a lot of the footage. I thought they might try to murder Walker. LOL! I laugh, but seriously, I didn't know what they were capable of.

ILG 07-23-2014 12:16 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326891)
Yes, I watched a lot of the footage. I thought they might try to murder Walker. LOL! I laugh, but seriously, I didn't know what they were capable of.
I worked at the library then and we had protesters out front and angry callers.

Pressing-On 07-23-2014 12:23 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326893)
I worked at the library then and we had protesters out front and angry callers.
That was a scary protest, to say the least.

ILG 07-23-2014 12:31 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326895)
That was a scary protest, to say the least.
Most of my co-workers were against Scott Walker. That was interesting. ;) I just told them with a smile I agreed with what he did. Then, I got the deer in the headlights look and a change of subject. :) Nobody wanted to know why too much.

Pressing-On 07-23-2014 12:36 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326901)
Most of my co-workers were against Scott Walker. That was interesting. ;) I just told them with a smile I agreed with what he did. Then, I got the deer in the headlights look and a change of subject. :) Nobody wanted to know why too much.
It's very annoying to discuss issues with people who side with a view without doing the homework. I know that you, personally, would not engage in a discussion you had not, beforehand, studied out. But, that is not the case in this country for many people who do more harm than good to our Republic.

ILG 07-23-2014 12:49 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326905)
It's very annoying to discuss issues with people who side with a view without doing the homework. I know that you, personally, would not engage in a discussion you had not, beforehand, studied out. But, that is not the case in this country for many people who do more harm than good to our Republic.
Yes, thanks. This thing with my kids really irritates me. ;) I told them they are at the age when they wrestle with stuff like that but I have a pretty good overview and don't want to argue every little point. But, for her birthday, I am going to do the extra homework for my daughter. Sigh. Add into that the fact that in my mind she should certainly not be a liberal! :girlytantrum Anyway, I am trying to be thankful for the opportunity and that she asked my 2 cents.

Pressing-On 07-23-2014 12:54 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326909)
Yes, thanks. This thing with my kids really irritates me. ;) I told them they are at the age when they wrestle with stuff like that but I have a pretty good overview and don't want to argue every little point. But, for her birthday, I am going to do the extra homework for my daughter. Sigh. Add into that the fact that in my mind she should certainly not be a liberal! :girlytantrum Anyway, I am trying to be thankful for the opportunity and that she asked my 2 cents.
I think most of our children have more liberal thoughts than we do. :heeheehee

ILG 07-23-2014 12:54 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326910)
I think most of our children have more liberal thoughts than we do. :heeheehee
I think that is natural but :girlytantrum.

Pressing-On 07-23-2014 12:55 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326911)
I think that is natural but :girlytantrum.
Yes, my daughter has great faith in God, but her thoughts are a lot more liberal than mine. :girlytantrum

ILG 07-23-2014 01:01 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326912)
Yes, my daughter has great faith in God, but her thoughts are a lot more liberal than mine. :girlytantrum
My daughter is agnostic. So is my son. But when you consider what we went through, I toyed with agnosticism for a bit too. I think trauma does that to a person. I can deal with agnosticism. But I can't deal with a liberal. LOL!

Pressing-On 07-23-2014 01:11 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326913)
My daughter is agnostic. So is my son. But when you consider what we went through, I toyed with agnosticism for a bit too. I think trauma does that to a person. I can deal with agnosticism. But I can't deal with a liberal. LOL!
Hmmm, I'll have to think about that one. :heeheehee

ILG 07-23-2014 01:32 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326915)
Hmmm, I'll have to think about that one. :heeheehee
Well, having veered over that way, I understand how someone can question if there is a God or not ( different than atheism where you say I KNOW there is no God). But liberal thought processes seem just messed up to my way of thinking and open the door for a lot of self justification if allowed to take root.

Pressing-On 07-23-2014 01:55 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326920)
Well, having veered over that way, I understand how someone can question if there is a God or not ( different than atheism where you say I KNOW there is no God). But liberal thought processes seem just messed up to my way of thinking and open the door for a lot of self justification if allowed to take root.
I really don't see the difference between the two, but I still need to think about it. Having never questioned there being a God, I don't know what that feels like.

We are such flawed people, I can't blame that on God. Mainly, because I've been in enough prayer meetings, had many of my own, to know that when your heart lines up (humbled) toward God, we are very good people toward each other. Too bad we don't live in a perpetual state of prayer.

The worst experience in the world is to bump heads with a Christian full of hateful pride. It's actually like meeting a murder, IMO. Just my observation. :heeheehee

I remember Nona Freeman saying that she walked into a church and was astonished by what she felt. She said, "God! What is this?!" He responded, "Perfect unity". How interesting, at her age, and everywhere she has gone to teach and preach, she didn't feel that very often.

I try to read my Bible through every year. Some years I only read the NT. Last year I read both OT and NT. For the first time on reading the OT, I kept thinking, "Good grief people! Get your act together!". It was never God's fault these people were selfish and stupid.

ILG 07-23-2014 02:00 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326926)
I really don't see the difference between the two, but I still need to think about it. Having never questioned there being a God, I don't know what that feels like.

We are such flawed people, I can't blame that on God. Mainly, because I've been in enough prayer meetings, had many of my own, to know that when your heart lines up (humbled) toward God, we are very good people toward each other. Too bad we don't live in a perpetual state of prayer.

The worst experience in the world is to bump heads with a Christian full of hateful pride. It's actually like meeting a murder, IMO. Just my observation. :heeheehee

I remember Nona Freeman saying that she walked into a church and was astonished by what she felt. She said, "God! What is this?!" He responded, "Perfect unity". How interesting, at her age, and everywhere she has gone to teach and preach, she didn't feel that very often.

I try to read my Bible through every year. Some years I only read the NT. Last year I read both OT and NT. For the first time on reading the OT, I kept thinking, "Good grief people! Get your act together!". It was never God's fault these people were selfish and stupid.
Alright well, I better get back on the Hobby Horse. LOL! :heeheehee

Pressing-On 07-23-2014 02:06 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG (Post 1326929)
Alright well, I better get back on the Hobby Horse. LOL! :heeheehee
Me too! I have five pieces of furniture to finish in two weeks. Lots of detail. I've been working on them between posts.

KeptByTheWord 07-23-2014 10:13 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
I've enjoyed reading through your discussion ILG and PO... good luck with your birthday discussion with your daughter about the birth control hobby horse ILG :) I hope it goes well, and that your daughter can understand it more clearly.

I have a friend who raised her children very conservatively. They both went off to university, a Christian university at that, and came home staunch liberals/democrats. Apparently this is because professors demand you see things their way, and if you don't conform, you don't grade well, and they eventually persist until it is very hard to know what you believe. My friend was heartbroken when she realized both her children, raised in a loving, God-fearing, conservative home who went off to a "christian" university, both came out with liberal views.

KeptByTheWord 07-23-2014 10:14 PM
Re: The Hobby Lobby Decision
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1326931)
Me too! I have five pieces of furniture to finish in two weeks. Lots of detail. I've been working on them between posts.
Wow - that's a lot of furniture to be finishing! I don't have the patience to do much of it. I know your work is amazing, I've seen the pictures of furniture that you've painted that you've posted.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:21 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.