Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/3/2014 8:17:27 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 141
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/3/2014 8:21:57 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 142
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/3/2014 8:57:15 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
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).

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 143
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 3:58:35 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 144
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 4:07:54 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 145
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 4:10:06 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		read the fucking thing


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 146
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 5:28:09 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
read the fucking thing


Where was I wrong?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 147
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 11:49:47 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 148
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 12:00:58 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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]

< Message edited by Moderator7 -- 7/4/2014 1:20:33 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 149
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 12:07:19 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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]


< Message edited by Moderator7 -- 7/4/2014 1:22:38 PM >

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 150
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 12:20:23 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 151
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 1:14:08 PM   
Moderator7


Posts: 346
Status: offline 		Locked for review.

Mod7

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 152
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 1:37:06 PM   
Moderator7


Posts: 346
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Moderator7)
Profile   Post #: 153
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 2:00:45 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 154
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 3:16:24 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 155
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 4:31:49 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
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).

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 156
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/4/2014 5:38:33 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 157
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/5/2014 6:02:50 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 158
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/5/2014 6:09:00 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 159
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/5/2014 6:19:41 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		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?




< Message edited by cloudboy -- 7/5/2014 6:28:53 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 160
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141