Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lea`Brooks
    Offline

    Lea`Brooks Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,634
    Likes Received:
    1,729
    Location:
    Virginia, United States

    Hobby Lobby... Someone had to start this conversation

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Lea`Brooks, Jul 1, 2014.

    Everyone knows about the Hobby Lobby craze going on. They won the right to have its insurance not pay for four types of "birth control" (Plan B, Ella, and two types of IUDs) because they are "abortion inducing contraceptives" and are against the founder's religion.

    Now here's my thing... There are many, many companies who's insurance doesn't cover birth control, either because they don't consider it basic healthcare or they simply don't want to pay for it. My insurance doesn't cover MY birth control, so I'm used to it. MY problem is that they are pulling the "against my religion" card and winning, and I'll be damned if I think that shit should be legal.

    If it's against your religion, DONT DO IT, but don't tell others they can't do it either just because YOU don't want to. In my opinion, that's crossing a line that definitely shouldn't be allowed to be crossed. I didn't really have a problem with this ruling (as many companies don't pay for birth control) until my religious friends started proclaiming loudly that "this is a big win for religious freedom." Well could you take your religious freedom somewhere else? It's leaking on my uterus.

    So I started to speak up about it. I countered all of my friend's pro-Hobby Lobby posts, and now they are starting to say, "Well yeah, they don't pay for birth control... but they pay part time employees $9.50 an hour." Okay. Take away my rights but pay me well. That's a new one. (Btw, Hobby Lobby paid $9 an hour in 2012. When I started at Walmart in 2009, I was paid $9.25 an hour. That's twenty five cents more and three years earlier.. Doesn't seem like Hobby Lobby has much of a leg up anymore, does it?)

    I have an extremely Christian friend that I used to work with at Petco (even though she lives with her boyfriend and engages in premarital sex...) who is completely for this Hobby Lobby thing. She posted something about their higher pay rate on Facebook, so I countered with my Walmart stat. And I told her that I didn't believe an employer should have a right to tell its employees what they can or cannot do simply because it doesn't align with their beliefs. So she countered with...

    "By your logic, Petco shouldn't offer pet insurance then. It should be the same as other insurance programs, and most companies don't offer pet insurance. Hobby Lobby was founded and based on Christian values so it considers itself a Christian store. And because of that, they make rules based on their Christian values."

    .....Now, I couldn't help but laugh at that. Petco sells pets and pet products. It is only logical that they provide pet insurance for their employees. Hobby Lobby sells craft supplies, not religion. Now, if Hobby Lobby wanted to provide craft project insurance, I'd be all for that. Also, Petco is providing a service while Hobby Lobby is taking one away.

    Again, I wouldn't have a problem with insurance not paying for birth control, because my insurance has never covered my birth control. But when you go around proclaiming religious freedom over something you shouldn't be able to have religious control over, that's when I start getting pissed. A lot of companies are run by Christian or Jewish or some other kind of religious person, but they don't try to enforce their views on the people that work for them. In my opinion, it is completely unethical and shouldn't be legal. But what can you do? Argue about it, then move on.

    /rant

    (Sorry for possible grammatical or spelling errors. One should never write on an iPad.)
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  2. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    There was a longstanding issue of insurers covering Viagra and not birth control. It's a separate issue and if your current policy doesn't cover birth control it was a grandfathered in policy that will eventually change.

    The reason for including birth control is that experts determined certain preventative coverage saved money in the whole system and we need that to bring costs down.

    It's always been ignorant of insurance companies not to cover preventative medicine. I honestly don't know what they were thinking. But over the last decade more and more insurers had started to cover things like flu vaccinations they previously didn't cover.

    There has been lots of cost shifting going on in health care. If public health covered vaccines, insurers could decline to cover them. As more and more funds are cut from public health budgets, vaccines shifted to insurance coverage.

    If your policy excluded pregnancy and childbirth care, they didn't need to cover birth control. But now everyone must be covered including pregnant women. And birth control saves the collective dollar, everyone benefits from that coverage.
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  3. chicagoliz
    Offline

    chicagoliz Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,295
    Likes Received:
    815
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Why is it *only* contraception that is allowed to be excluded based on religion? Other cases have held that equal pay still had to be enforced, even though there were religious differences. And why does Justice Alito specifically say that things like transfusions are not exempt, even though it does not logically follow? And the overall holding indicates that there is no logical reason for differentiation.

    Their suggestion that the remedy is that birth control should be provided by the government is interesting. I'm assuming all the right wing religious nuts are all for that part of the opinion.

    If we just went to universal coverage, this wouldn't be an issue. But that would be, you know, socialist. And against Jesus or something.
     
    Simpson17866, jazzabel and Wreybies like this.
  4. Link the Writer
    Online

    Link the Writer Flipping Out For A Good Story. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    11,221
    Likes Received:
    4,227
    Location:
    Alabama, USA
    OK, so let me get this straight: A company who sell arts and crafts cares so much about birth control that they got a ruling from the SCOTUS that stated that they don't have to pay for birth control insurance? And their excuse is that allowing birth control goes against their religious beliefs?

    If so, then what in the actual crap? I usually like to see things from the other side's perspective, but not here. I don't really get why that's a valid excuse.
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  5. Lea`Brooks
    Offline

    Lea`Brooks Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,634
    Likes Received:
    1,729
    Location:
    Virginia, United States
    @Link the Writer that's exactly what's going on. I don't understand how it's a valid reason either. And it scares me. Because what's next? Not providing health care to homosexuals because their values are different from Christians? It's terrifying where this ruling could go. I actually thought our country was making progress, but this just took us back too many steps.
     
    jazzabel likes this.
  6. Wreybies
    Offline

    Wreybies The Ops Pops Operations Manager Staff Contest Administrator Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    18,901
    Likes Received:
    10,090
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    It's a huge sinkhole, the entire thing. My mom and I were talking about this last night. She was simply gobsmacked at the ruling and, as @chicagoliz pointed out, the inconsistency of the ruling and the "logic" that birthed it.

    And this bit, what a red herring! I'm like, yes, I agree, it should be provided by the government, but the reality of the matter is that it will never graduate from the subjunctive into the objective.

    [​IMG]
     
    Simpson17866 and jazzabel like this.
  7. stevesh
    Offline

    stevesh Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    646
    Location:
    Mid-Michigan USA
    The Affordable Care Act requires employers to provide birth control coverage for their employees. Such coverage was not required by law in the past. The Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby's religious objection to doing so for certain types of birth control (I'm seeing the word 'abortive', but I'm not sure that's really a word) was protected under the First Amendment, because Hobby Lobby is a closely-held corporation and the religious views of the (few) owners equate to those of the corporation.

    What Hobby Lobby sells has nothing to do with the matter, nor does the fact that they do business with China (current Huffington Post stalking horse). I hold no religious beliefs, and I applaud the Court for this decision.

    I have to say I have never understood what makes women's health so much more important than that of the rest of us. If you want the 'morning after' pill, buy it. The rest of us don't owe you birth control.
     
  8. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,347
    Likes Received:
    3,092
    By now I would have thought the government would not only be providing birth control, but enforcing it. Too many people :S
     
    jazzabel likes this.
  9. Lea`Brooks
    Offline

    Lea`Brooks Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,634
    Likes Received:
    1,729
    Location:
    Virginia, United States
    I don't believe anyone is saying that women's health is more important than men's health. But birth control pills are important to a woman's well-being (it does more than just prevent birth), and we should be able to have access to that without having to pay an arm and a leg to get it.
     
    KaTrian, Simpson17866 and jazzabel like this.
  10. Link the Writer
    Online

    Link the Writer Flipping Out For A Good Story. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    11,221
    Likes Received:
    4,227
    Location:
    Alabama, USA
    It becomes a problem when the government is making rules about what women can or can't do with their own bodies, and worse, backing it up with the religion excuse.

    Dumb example, but how would you feel if the government said that all men had to be circumcised rather than just leaving it up to the men themselves to decide?
     
    KaTrian, Simpson17866 and jazzabel like this.
  11. chicagoliz
    Offline

    chicagoliz Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,295
    Likes Received:
    815
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    It's a problem when a company starts going through various medical treatments and making decisions themselves about what they would like to cover and what they would not like to cover, based on what *they* think is an appropriate treatment for someone they don't even know.

    Birth control devices and pills are medical treatments. They should not be singled out for any special treatment. Corporations should not be in the business of dictating what medical treatments are acceptable and which are not. That should strictly be left to doctors/medical professionals and to the patients involved.
     
    KaTrian, Simpson17866 and jazzabel like this.
  12. chicagoliz
    Offline

    chicagoliz Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,295
    Likes Received:
    815
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Because the Right has made it an issue. You are right that women's health is no more important than men's health. However, there is no medical condition experienced by men wherein multitudes of people who do not know the patient declare an interest in how that medical condition is treated. You don't see a whole lot of controversy when women are seeking treatment for diabetes, high cholesterol, arthritis, or broken legs. But once the medical issue is even tangentially related to pregnancy, all of a sudden, a whole bunch of other people claim a stake and want to be involved.
     
  13. stevesh6
    Offline

    stevesh6 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not dumb, but irrelevant, since most circumcisions are done soon after birth, before the 'man' can object.
     
  14. stevesh6
    Offline

    stevesh6 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're conveniently ignoring the whole abortion aspect of this discussion. Hobby Lobby doesn't specifically object to birth control, only those methods which result in spontaneous abortion. Their religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception, whether that suits the political convenience of those on the Left or not.
     
  15. Ulramar
    Offline

    Ulramar Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    243
    Location:
    My own fantasy world, living the good life
    I'm all for religious tolerance, but this is crap. I don't care what's part or not a part of your religion, but you're putting other people at risk because it's not in the bible.

    I'm not a religious person so maybe I'm screwed, but this is insane. And the best argument I've seen them come up with is "Freedom of religion and you don't have to work there."

    And on circumcision, I don't really see any harm in it (well I mean sometimes). The way Jews do it (how it was done to me, for example) is sort of messed up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah But otherwise, if it's done in a sanitary environment for sanitary reasons, what's the harm in it?
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  16. Fullmetal Xeno
    Offline

    Fullmetal Xeno Protector of Literature Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    Kingdom of Austniad

    When a country is so focused on demolishing any stability that was there before, and have zero interest in preference and privacy, these things become painfully common. Not that it's right, but it's the reality of it all. Abraham Lincoln said that "A house divided cannot stand.", same goes for the country itself. Obama has only worsened this issue instead of improving it, which is where the Republicans criticize him. Not that the Republicans are perfect or anything, but they are right to an extent. From what I have interpreted he has made sure division has made a mark on America. He has allowed the racism and social division to continue for so long, that he has no feasible idea on how to approach it and improve it at the slightest. I know being President is not an easy job, there's no way I could do it, but he should be able to address it in the right manner to where things can run smoothly compared to what they're actually doing now. Obama should of told the Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby to let it go. He should of simply stated his stance on privacy and preference and maybe a suggestion on how to resolve the issue. Not everything is his fault, by far, but there are many ways Obama can boost his creditability among the American people and he isn't doing that. He isn't the first president to do this and unfortunately won't be the last. This strictly involving the corporate members of Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court itself, but this should not even be an issue among a federal republic with a constitution and freedom of speech and beliefs. To violate this for any reason, is rationally absurd for a free nation. That's where the smoke and mirrors comes into play. This is a rather reproaching issue for us Americans, due to the stagnant economy and sloppy foreign policy, we are rather stuck in an immoral state of mind. It's going to be hard getting out of this, but we need to do so. This whole debate is over a rather touchy subject, but this should not be such a heavy issue. Hobby Lobby has a full right to their beliefs-as the Supreme Court has for theirs.
     
  17. chicagoliz
    Offline

    chicagoliz Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,295
    Likes Received:
    815
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Abortion is also a medical procedure. So no, I'm not.
     
  18. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    But the parents can. I think your objection nitpik was a sidestep of the point..
     
  19. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    You do know that half that doesn't agree with you is just that, half. Or more when it comes to the matter of women's access to birth control.

    You left out the rights of women who work for Hobby Lobby, do they not have any rights to their beliefs?
     
  20. Fullmetal Xeno
    Offline

    Fullmetal Xeno Protector of Literature Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    Kingdom of Austniad
    Yes, in a matter of fact they do. Hobby Lobby should stay out of their rights to their bodies. Women should be just as respected as men. Same way for corporations and companies. Everyone has a right to their beliefs
     
  21. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Right, does life begin at fertilization or at implantation? I don't think that is as settled science as people on either side argue.

    But the point is not that Hobby Lobby has a right to their anti-abortion beliefs, the issue is can they impose those beliefs on others?

    Do they have the right to fire employees that have abortions? After all if they pay that woman's salary, that means they are paying for the abortion doesn't it? How does that differ from paying for health insurance?

    And can the government call Hobby Lobby on their dishonesty when they have no qualms investing in companies that manufacture the same products they don't want to provide for in employee health insurance? Mother Jones documented that they indeed invest in these same companies via pension funds. Why do pension fund payments not matter but health insurance payments do?

    My problem with these people is I find them to be dishonest. They want to make a statement of their political beliefs against what they see as government intrusion, not make a statement of their religious convictions which if they clearly held they wouldn't have pension funds invested in the manufacturers of these same products.

    And I've heard the excuse they pay a pension fund management company and it's too cumbersome to control what the investments are made in, but there are companies that will do that so it's another bogus excuse.

    Of course I've not yet mentioned their investments and purchases from China which is said to have the highest abortion rates in the world. It would seem their religious convictions stop where the bottom line starts to rise.
     
    Simpson17866 and Lea`Brooks like this.
  22. Ulramar
    Offline

    Ulramar Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    243
    Location:
    My own fantasy world, living the good life
    Not when their beliefs damage other people. And if that's not how it is, that's how it should be.
     
    Simpson17866 and Fullmetal Xeno like this.
  23. Fullmetal Xeno
    Offline

    Fullmetal Xeno Protector of Literature Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    Kingdom of Austniad
    I know what Hobby Lobby is doing is not right, but what I think is that they should keep it to themselves. They have a right to an opinion. But enforcing it.
     
  24. Ulramar
    Offline

    Ulramar Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    243
    Location:
    My own fantasy world, living the good life
    Wait, are they parading it around?
     
  25. Fullmetal Xeno
    Offline

    Fullmetal Xeno Protector of Literature Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    Kingdom of Austniad
    I mean NOT, sorry, my mistake.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page