Liberal Forum

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:35 pm » wrote: Google it like the rest of us do or not. Your choice. Not a huge block of my argument here, to be honest.

So if you believe they didn't base their case on religious grounds, what is your opinion of why they objected to it?



Obligated to do so, why? If it had not been implemented yet, what prevented them from disputing the entire premise, rather than just an aspect of it?

Are you having difficulty answering my question without twisting yourself in knots, goof?

ACA made birth control mandatory with no co-pay on any health insurance policy sold after August 2012.....

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:35 pm » wrote: Google it like the rest of us do or not. Your choice. Not a huge block of my argument here, to be honest.

You made the claim. I'm not surprised that you refuse to support it though.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:35 pm » wrote: So if you believe they didn't base their case on religious grounds, what is your opinion of why they objected to it?

They DID base it on religious grounds but they did NOT argue 1st Amendment infringement. As I already explained, and linked for proof, they based their argument on the 1993 Democrat Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:35 pm » wrote:Obligated to do so, why? If it had not been implemented yet, what prevented them from disputing the entire premise, rather than just an aspect of it?

It had been implemented. Had it not, they would not have had standing to sue.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:35 pm » wrote:Are you having difficulty answering my question without twisting yourself in knots, goof?

Of course not. I'm having too much fun kicking your *** and correcting your blatant misstatements.

Str8tEdge » 22 Jul 2014 5:41 pm » wrote:ACA made birth control mandatory with no co-pay on any health insurance policy sold after August 2012.....

It's a never ending source of amusement and amazement that these idiots that support Obamacare, don't even know what it did.

Str8tEdge » 22 Jul 2014 5:41 pm » wrote: ACA made birth control mandatory with no co-pay on any health insurance policy sold after August 2012.....

Sorry golfboy. Didn't mean to play with your food.

Str8tEdge » 22 Jul 2014 5:41 pm » wrote: ACA made birth control mandatory with no co-pay on any health insurance policy sold after August 2012.....

Birth control is mandatory?

Yippee!

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:56 pm » wrote: Birth control is mandatory?

Yippee!

Yes, it's a real boon on single male policies.

golfboy » 22 Jul 2014 5:47 pm » wrote: You made the claim. I'm not surprised that you refuse to support it though.
They DID base it on religious grounds but they did NOT argue 1st Amendment infringement. As I already explained, and linked for proof, they based their argument on the 1993 Democrat Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
It had been implemented. Had it not, they would not have had standing to sue.
Of course not. I'm having too much fun kicking your *** and correcting your blatant misstatements.

If the employer mandate to provide employees health coverage is not yet in force, how are they mandated to cover abortifacients?

Str8tEdge » 22 Jul 2014 6:01 pm » wrote: Yes, it's a real boon on single male policies.

Those poor quiverfulls.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 6:02 pm » wrote: Those poor quiverfulls.

Nothing like being FORCED to pay for something you'll never use. Only in the world of progressive liberalism.

Str8tEdge » 22 Jul 2014 6:05 pm » wrote: Nothing like being FORCED to pay for something you'll never use. Only in the world of progressive liberalism.

Quiverfulls are a burden on the healthcare industry. 15 children in 10 years - cradle to grave coverage. I feel sorry for those who are forced to pay higher premiums to support their God inspired procreative habits!

Birth control pales in comparison.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 6:18 pm » wrote: Quiverfulls are a burden on the healthcare industry. 15 children in 10 years - cradle to grave coverage. I feel sorry for those who are forced to pay higher premiums to support their God inspired procreative habits!

Birth control pales in comparison.

And just like the thread on water..... If someone doesn't hand you your drinkable water for free, you are hereby released from ANY responsibility to provide your needs for yourself.

Hey, what next retard???? Should we supply an RN with each child bearing woman to make sure they take their birth control daily at the right time?

If a woman can't figure out that going to the clinic for free birth control is cheaper than raising a child(children) on her own, then all women should be sterilized at child bearing age.


WHY are women SO IRRESPONSIBLE?

Str8tEdge » 22 Jul 2014 6:23 pm » wrote: And just like the thread on water..... If someone doesn't hand you your drinkable water for free, you are hereby released from ANY responsibility to provide your needs for yourself.

Hey, what next retard???? Should we supply an RN with each child bearing woman to make sure they take their birth control daily at the right time?

If a woman can't figure out that going to the clinic for free birth control is cheaper than raising a child(children) on her own, then all women should be sterilized at child bearing age.

WHY are women SO IRRESPONSIBLE?

In Quiverfull families, Jesus and the husband dictate the terms. The woman has little to no say in the matter. Birth control is out of the question. So is saying "NO"

Would you prefer to pay for this families lifestyle? (Hobby Lobby would) or the lifestyle that prevents the cost of pregnancies, deliveries, pediatricians, etc?

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 6:27 pm » wrote: In Quiverfull families, Jesus and the husband dictate the terms. The woman has little to no say in the matter. Birth control is out of the question. So is saying "NO"

Would you prefer to pay for this families lifestyle? (Hobby Lobby would) or the lifestyle that prevents the cost of pregnancies, deliveries, pediatricians, etc?

Since you came up with the argument on your own, I'll let you argue with yourself, fight club.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:10 pm » wrote:
Yet Hobby Lobby challenged it on a religious objection to covering abortifacients, despite the fact that they were not yet under any coverage obligation at all.

From my perspective, if they were going to object to an aspect of it that had not yet been implemented, why couldn't they have objected to the whole of it?

But if they provided it of there own free will, they would have had to comply with the rules under the ACA

Cedarswamp » 22 Jul 2014 6:39 pm » wrote: But if they provided it of there own free will, they would have had to comply with the rules under the ACA

WHY is it such a chore to connect the dots for progressives? Did they not get ample connect the dot playtime as children? Progressive daddy's too busy fondling them?

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:22 pm » wrote:
if the case had been presented in opposition to mandatory employer coverage instead of corporate religious rights.

I'm not **** you really, they couldn't argue against the employer mandate until it's implemented, that was part of the original SC ruling on the ACA.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 6:01 pm » wrote:
If the employer mandate to provide employees health coverage is not yet in force, how are they mandated to cover abortifacients?

It's part of the "acceptable plans" that every policy must comply with.

Cedarswamp » 22 Jul 2014 6:39 pm » wrote: But if they provided it of there own free will, they would have had to comply with the rules under the ACA

The problem with an employer mandate. Suddenly, all those providing it voluntarily are lost among those who are mandated to provide it. There doesn't appear to be any legal distinction between the two.

Before ACA, companies had the right to battle coverage items out with insurance companies. Now, they have to battle it out with the government. What's wrong with this picture?

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:04 pm » wrote:Then why wasn't THAT issue brought before the Supreme Court? This was a decision ruled on for its 1st amendment merits, not on the merits of commerce.

If you don't understand the difference, just say so.

Hey moonbat, why didn't you address this point? You and Ginsberg are stupidly wrong.

No one was preventing women from buying birth control. No women's rights were being violated.

The issue was over whether individuals running small corporations could be coerced into buying something for employees, that grossly violated their religious beliefs.

RichClem » 22 Jul 2014 6:53 pm » wrote: Hey moonbat, why didn't you address this point? You and Ginsberg are stupidly wrong.

No one was preventing women from buying birth control. No women's rights were being violated.

The issue was over whether individuals running small corporations could be coerced into buying something for employees, that grossly violated their religious beliefs.

Come on..... In progressive lala land, not buying something for a progressive IS violating their rights. See the thread on Detroit water bills for example.