RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/3/2014 8:17:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I didn't lie. Go read the fucking suit. You misrepresented the article. Nope. You lied. I even quoted that part of the article it quoted that proves it.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/3/2014 8:21:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I didn't lie. Go read the fucking suit. You misrepresented the article. Nope. You lied. I even quoted that part of the article it quoted that proves it. Did you not understand this? http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEV0_Jw7JTfGsAwEJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0aTRxYjk3BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ2NF8x

LookieNoNookie -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/3/2014 8:57:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I didn't lie. Go read the fucking suit. You misrepresented the article. Nope. You lied. I even quoted that part of the article it quoted that proves it. (He lied).

Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 3:58:35 AM)
thats why its mentioned 4 times in the original case files transcript ignoramus, he didnt lie....but that doesnt matter in the slightest does it. https://archive.org/stream/428343-hobby-lobby-vs-us-claim/428343-hobby-lobby-vs-us-claim_djvu.txt Page 3 of 46 8. The administrativě rule at issue in this case ("the Mandáte") runs roughshod over the Green family' s religious beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other Americans, by forcing them to provide health insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and devices, as well as related education and counseling. Page23of46 103. The Mandáte requires that Plaintiffs provide coverage or access to coverage for abortion-causing drugs and related education and counseling against their consciences in a manner that is contrary to law. Page25of46 118. The Mandáte forces Plaintiffs to provide insurance coverage or access to insurance coverage for education and counseling concerning abortion-causing drugs and devices that directly conflicts with their religious beliefs and teachings. Page 40 of 46 d. Issue a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Mandáte against Plaintiffs and other individuals and organizations that object on religious grounds to providing insurance coverage for abortion-causing drugs and devices, and related education and counseling; Apart from their fallacy that before implantation in the uterus....life is possible. their belief is not religious. The IUD and morning after pill shouldnt allow for implantation. the fact that ectopic pregnancies happen and can kill both the zygote/embryo and mother, makes a mockery of such beliefs, and they certainly are not based on any "biblical" religious text.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 4:07:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic thats why its mentioned 4 times in the original case files transcript ignoramus, he didnt lie....but that doesnt matter in the slightest does it. Yes, he did. This suit was brought by Hobby Lobby over 4 forms of contraception. Period. For Hobby Lobby, that's all this suit is about. It's not about all contraception options. Thus, it's not about education and counseling about all forms of contraception. As I further noted, unless they can get through the Dr.-Patient confidentiality issue, how are they to know what was discussed during a Dr. visit? Sorta makes their "win" a bit less meaningful, doesn't it? quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie (He lied). I know.

Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 4:10:06 AM)
read the fucking thing

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 5:28:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic read the fucking thing Where was I wrong?

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 11:49:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I already explained to you that the Court expanded the ruling beyond Hobby Lobby. What part of that don't you understand. Yet, you made a claim about what Hobby Lobby wanted, which wasn't part of their claim. Now read the post again and try reading all of it. quote: It has been pointed out to me that the Hobby Lobby complaint included not just paying for the physical contraceptives but also "related education and counseling" which means at this point if someone wants their doctor's visit to be paid for they cannot discuss their contraceptive use and options with their doctor at all if they work for one of these companies. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/20/_hobby_lobby_doesn_t_just_want_to_avoid_covering_contraception_it_wants.html? And yes, since the Supremes extended this to cover all contraceptive methods if a male employee of a Catholic owned company that has sued over this goes to the doctor and dares to discuss whether he is using condoms the office visit is technically not covered at all. Yet, Hobby Lobby's suit was only about 4 forms of birth control, not all 20. Hobby Lobby was accused of not wanting to pay for a Dr.'s visit where those 4 forms of birth control were discussed. Again, not all 20. The article and you both lied about it. quote: Also dumbass you best read this forums rules. I'll expect an apology and retraction. No retraction, but I am very sorry you're such a liar, Ken.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 12:00:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I already explained to you that the Court expanded the ruling beyond Hobby Lobby. What part of that don't you understand. Yet, you made a claim about what Hobby Lobby wanted, which wasn't part of their claim. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for a doctor's visit which includes discussion of those m4 methods and by the Courts extension that applies to all the other cases which does extend to all forms. Why is this so hard for you to understand? quote: Now read the post again and try reading all of it. quote: It has been pointed out to me that the Hobby Lobby complaint included not just paying for the physical contraceptives but also "related education and counseling" which means at this point if someone wants their doctor's visit to be paid for they cannot discuss their contraceptive use and options with their doctor at all if they work for one of these companies. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/20/_hobby_lobby_doesn_t_just_want_to_avoid_covering_contraception_it_wants.html? And yes, since the Supremes extended this to cover all contraceptive methods if a male employee of a Catholic owned company that has sued over this goes to the doctor and dares to discuss whether he is using condoms the office visit is technically not covered at all. Yet, Hobby Lobby's suit was only about 4 forms of birth control, not all 20. Hobby Lobby was accused of not wanting to pay for a Dr.'s visit where those 4 forms of birth control were discussed. Again, not all 20. The article and you both lied about it. Wrong again. Try reading my post slowly this time. Pay attention to the bolded section. [Moderator removed quote related to against guideline rules and would not be understood by others]

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 12:07:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I already explained to you that the Court expanded the ruling beyond Hobby Lobby. What part of that don't you understand. Yet, you made a claim about what Hobby Lobby wanted, which wasn't part of their claim. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for a doctor's visit which includes discussion of those m4 methods and by the Courts extension that applies to all the other cases which does extend to all forms. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Does it? Does it really mean that's what Hobby Lobby wants? Or, does it really just mean Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for doctor's visits that have to do with those 4 methods? There is your lie, Ken. quote: quote: quote: Now read the post again and try reading all of it. quote: It has been pointed out to me that the Hobby Lobby complaint included not just paying for the physical contraceptives but also "related education and counseling" which means at this point if someone wants their doctor's visit to be paid for they cannot discuss their contraceptive use and options with their doctor at all if they work for one of these companies. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/20/_hobby_lobby_doesn_t_just_want_to_avoid_covering_contraception_it_wants.html? And yes, since the Supremes extended this to cover all contraceptive methods if a male employee of a Catholic owned company that has sued over this goes to the doctor and dares to discuss whether he is using condoms the office visit is technically not covered at all. Yet, Hobby Lobby's suit was only about 4 forms of birth control, not all 20. Hobby Lobby was accused of not wanting to pay for a Dr.'s visit where those 4 forms of birth control were discussed. Again, not all 20. The article and you both lied about it. Wrong again. Try reading my post slowly this time. Pay attention to the bolded section. And, your lying again about what Hobby Lobby wants. Just like the article lied about what Hobby Lobby wants. [Moderator removed quote and response]

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 12:20:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Does it? Does it really mean that's what Hobby Lobby wants? Or, does it really just mean Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for doctor's visits that have to do with those 4 methods? There is your lie, Ken. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for "education and counseling" related to those 4 forms. Just like was said. And since the Court expanded the ruling to cover all forms of contraception that part does too. There is no lie. You are trying to add words that aren't in my post.

Moderator7 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 1:14:08 PM)
Locked for review. Mod7

Moderator7 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 1:37:06 PM)
This thread is unlocked after removing several post due to posting against guidelines and quoting. Please make sure to reread the guidelines and follow them when posting. Enjoy the discussion.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 2:00:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Does it? Does it really mean that's what Hobby Lobby wants? Or, does it really just mean Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for doctor's visits that have to do with those 4 methods? There is your lie, Ken. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for "education and counseling" related to those 4 forms. Just like was said. And since the Court expanded the ruling to cover all forms of contraception that part does too. There is no lie. You are trying to add words that aren't in my post. Lying again. I'm not adding any words. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for those 4 methods. They also don't want to pay for counseling and Dr. visits about those 4 methods. Yes, the SCOTUS expanded the ruling to cover other suits. But, that doesn't change Hobby Lobby's suit, does it? That doesn't change what their suit was about. You lied about Hobby Lobby. The Slate article lied about Hobby Lobby. Now, who's the dumbass?

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 3:16:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Does it? Does it really mean that's what Hobby Lobby wants? Or, does it really just mean Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for doctor's visits that have to do with those 4 methods? There is your lie, Ken. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for "education and counseling" related to those 4 forms. Just like was said. And since the Court expanded the ruling to cover all forms of contraception that part does too. There is no lie. You are trying to add words that aren't in my post. Lying again. I'm not adding any words. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for those 4 methods. They also don't want to pay for counseling and Dr. visits about those 4 methods. Yes, the SCOTUS expanded the ruling to cover other suits. But, that doesn't change Hobby Lobby's suit, does it? That doesn't change what their suit was about. You lied about Hobby Lobby. The Slate article lied about Hobby Lobby. Now, who's the dumbass? You. Read the article again. The Slate article is specifically about the 4 kinds. They do state that since gyn visits are never only about contraceptives it might have a chilling effect as doctors and patients don't want to get challenged on whether the visit can be covered by insurance. I then pointed out that the expansive ruling made by the Court covering all forms of contraception even effected men. You then lost your mind.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 4:31:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic thats why its mentioned 4 times in the original case files transcript ignoramus, he didnt lie....but that doesnt matter in the slightest does it. Yes, he did. This suit was brought by Hobby Lobby over 4 forms of contraception. Period. For Hobby Lobby, that's all this suit is about. It's not about all contraception options. Thus, it's not about education and counseling about all forms of contraception. As I further noted, unless they can get through the Dr.-Patient confidentiality issue, how are they to know what was discussed during a Dr. visit? Sorta makes their "win" a bit less meaningful, doesn't it? quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie (He lied). I know. (It's what he does).

BamaD -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/4/2014 5:38:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic thats why its mentioned 4 times in the original case files transcript ignoramus, he didnt lie....but that doesnt matter in the slightest does it. Yes, he did. This suit was brought by Hobby Lobby over 4 forms of contraception. Period. For Hobby Lobby, that's all this suit is about. It's not about all contraception options. Thus, it's not about education and counseling about all forms of contraception. As I further noted, unless they can get through the Dr.-Patient confidentiality issue, how are they to know what was discussed during a Dr. visit? Sorta makes their "win" a bit less meaningful, doesn't it? quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie (He lied). I know. (It's what he does). DS says that hobbie hut only wanted x Slate claims that the court expanded this to y Ken claims that this makes DS a liar, ad lucy says it means that ds can't read, do I have this right?

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/5/2014 6:02:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You. Read the article again. The Slate article is specifically about the 4 kinds. They do state that since gyn visits are never only about contraceptives it might have a chilling effect as doctors and patients don't want to get challenged on whether the visit can be covered by insurance. I then pointed out that the expansive ruling made by the Court covering all forms of contraception even effected men. You then lost your mind. You're the dumbass, Ken. Here's the Slate headline: "Hobby Lobby Wants to Stop Doctors From Talking to Its Employees About Contraception" Not really true, is it? And, they go on: quote: Arguments in front of the Supreme Court start next week in the Hobby Lobby case. Hobby Lobby is suing for a religious exemption from the Department of Health and Human Services mandate requiring that employer-provided health insurance cover contraception. Most of the coverage of the case has focused on Hobby Lobby's objection to the contraception itself and how, if the business prevails, its employees will have to pay out of pocket for things like birth control pills or IUDs. But, as Tara Culp-Ressler at ThinkProgress explained on Wednesday, Hobby Lobby and their co-plaintiff, Conestoga Wood Specialties, are also objecting to insurance plans covering "related education and counseling" for contraception. " Yet more lying. And, you're lying when you posted the article. Hobby Lobby wasn't preventing their employees from hearing about "contraception," but 4 forms of contraception, and none of those 4 were "birth control pills," at least not in the way that phrase is typically used. You know it. You knew it. You fucking lied. Now, you're holding your ass in your hands, trying to get your thumbs out of it while having both feet in your mouth. So, now, Ken, you can go tuck your lying sack of shit ass in the corner and think about reading for comprehension.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/5/2014 6:09:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD DS says that hobbie hut only wanted x Slate claims that the court expanded this to y Ken claims that this makes DS a liar, ad lucy says it means that ds can't read, do I have this right? No. I claimed Hobby Lobby wanted X. (truth) Slate (in an article linked to by Ken) claimed Hobby Lobby wanted Y. (a lie) Ken said the Supremes expanded their ruling to include Y. (truth) Ken claimed Hobby Lobby wanted Y. (a lie) I acknowledged Ken was correct that the Supremes expanded their ruling to Y, but Hobby Lobby only wanted X. (truth) Ken said since the ruling was expanded to Y, Hobby Lobby wanted Y. (a lie) Lucy just wanted to show her beautiful butt pic again in defense of the defenseless Ken. (this statement is completely true) Ken told me to read the article that he clearly either didn't read, or didn't comprehend. (another complete truth) I think that catches you up.

cloudboy -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/5/2014 6:19:41 AM)
Regardless of the sideshow, mark me down as agreeing with Ginsburg. In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. ---- The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage. ---- 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. What happens now if an organization opposes the use of antibiotics on religious grounds?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02