Back
to top
Why should Hobby lobby pay for contraception for their female employees [US]
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Democrats in Congress, taking aim at the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Hobby Lobby decision limiting contraception coverage.
Feminist and Democrats are trying to force HL to include contraception that induce abortions once a woman is pregnant, hobby lobby object due to religious however they still offer up contraceptive methods that prevent fertilisation.
Now I personally believe a business should not have to incur costs to contraception for women. They should pay for their leisure themselves, it would be like men requesting free condoms.
Should men and menopausal women pay for contraception for women in their prime through their productivity. Is this just? Should they say goodbye to the chance of increased benefits/pay, because some women want to ride the dink carousel without the risk of pregnancy.
Feminist and Democrats are trying to force HL to include contraception that induce abortions once a woman is pregnant, hobby lobby object due to religious however they still offer up contraceptive methods that prevent fertilisation.
Now I personally believe a business should not have to incur costs to contraception for women. They should pay for their leisure themselves, it would be like men requesting free condoms.
Should men and menopausal women pay for contraception for women in their prime through their productivity. Is this just? Should they say goodbye to the chance of increased benefits/pay, because some women want to ride the dink carousel without the risk of pregnancy.
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by ROONEY-9-MUTD)
Democrats in Congress, taking aim at the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Hobby Lobby decision limiting contraception coverage.
Feminist and Democrats are trying to force HL to include contraception that induce abortions once a woman is pregnant, hobby lobby object due to religious however they still offer up contraceptive methods that prevent fertilisation.
Now I personally believe a business should not have to incur costs to contraception for women. They should pay for their leisure themselves, it would be like men requesting free condoms.
Should men and menopausal women pay for contraception for women in their prime through their productivity. Is this just? Should they say goodbye to the chance of increased benefits/pay, because some women want to ride the dink carousel without the risk of pregnancy.
Democrats in Congress, taking aim at the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Hobby Lobby decision limiting contraception coverage.
Feminist and Democrats are trying to force HL to include contraception that induce abortions once a woman is pregnant, hobby lobby object due to religious however they still offer up contraceptive methods that prevent fertilisation.
Now I personally believe a business should not have to incur costs to contraception for women. They should pay for their leisure themselves, it would be like men requesting free condoms.
Should men and menopausal women pay for contraception for women in their prime through their productivity. Is this just? Should they say goodbye to the chance of increased benefits/pay, because some women want to ride the dink carousel without the risk of pregnancy.
1
reply
Report
#3
they shouldn't, it's such an arbitrary and unnecessary demand
it's like they expect the world from their employers
employers shouldn't ever be expected to pay for things like this, or have things forced into contracts
it's like they expect the world from their employers
employers shouldn't ever be expected to pay for things like this, or have things forced into contracts
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by MattBerry96)
What the Supreme Court has ruled is that Hobby Lobby and other corporations have religious freedoms, which they clearly don't. Hobby Lobby now does not have to provide contraception on religious grounds. That is why the case is a problem. It is the state promoting a religion. That is completely unconstitutional. If a corporation owned by a Muslim wanted to run a company based on Islam I can guarantee you that conservatives in the U.S would explode, even though the SC ruled that they could.
What the Supreme Court has ruled is that Hobby Lobby and other corporations have religious freedoms, which they clearly don't. Hobby Lobby now does not have to provide contraception on religious grounds. That is why the case is a problem. It is the state promoting a religion. That is completely unconstitutional. If a corporation owned by a Muslim wanted to run a company based on Islam I can guarantee you that conservatives in the U.S would explode, even though the SC ruled that they could.
Any talk that doesn't focus on the religious aspect of it doesn't understand the core issue.
0
reply
Report
#5
I find it amazing that these women are whining when they have a choice of 18 different methods, yet men stll only have 1.
0
reply
(Original post by caravaggio2)
I find it amazing that these women are whining when they have a choice of 18 different methods, yet men stll only have 1.
I find it amazing that these women are whining when they have a choice of 18 different methods, yet men stll only have 1.
I think there was a male pill on the horizon, but the feminist were against it thus reserving womens monopoly on procreation.
0
reply
(Original post by MattBerry96)
What the Supreme Court has ruled is that Hobby Lobby and other corporations have religious freedoms, which they clearly don't. Hobby Lobby now does not have to provide contraception on religious grounds. That is why the case is a problem. It is the state promoting a religion. That is completely unconstitutional. If a corporation owned by a Muslim wanted to run a company based on Islam I can guarantee you that conservatives in the U.S would explode, even though the SC ruled that they could.
What the Supreme Court has ruled is that Hobby Lobby and other corporations have religious freedoms, which they clearly don't. Hobby Lobby now does not have to provide contraception on religious grounds. That is why the case is a problem. It is the state promoting a religion. That is completely unconstitutional. If a corporation owned by a Muslim wanted to run a company based on Islam I can guarantee you that conservatives in the U.S would explode, even though the SC ruled that they could.
Note: The company has offered all other forms of contraception, just not the plan B pill which stop the progress of a fertilized egg.
The women could just buy the pill themselves, but they want their employers to cover the cost for their sexual negligence. Last time I looked it was not unconstitutional for an organisation not to pay a women for the tools she needed in order for her to have recreational sex.
This is health insurance right, should contraceptives be offered to women, when her health is not at risk,
1
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by ROONEY-9-MUTD)
I don't see it as a promotion of religion. The company owner is just exercising his first amendment rights to practice his religion.
Note: The company has offered all other forms of contraception, just not the plan B pill which stop to progress of a fertilized egg.
The women could just buy the pill themselves, but they want their employers to cover the cost for their sexual negligence. Last time I looked it was not unconstitutional for an organisation not to pay a women for the tools she needed in order for her to have recreational sex.
This is health insurance right, should contraceptives be offered to women, when her health is not at risk,
I don't see it as a promotion of religion. The company owner is just exercising his first amendment rights to practice his religion.
Note: The company has offered all other forms of contraception, just not the plan B pill which stop to progress of a fertilized egg.
The women could just buy the pill themselves, but they want their employers to cover the cost for their sexual negligence. Last time I looked it was not unconstitutional for an organisation not to pay a women for the tools she needed in order for her to have recreational sex.
This is health insurance right, should contraceptives be offered to women, when her health is not at risk,
The problem I have in regards to Hobby Lobby restricting access to birth control is that now employers are directly involved in women's sex life. Whether what the women are doing is negligent or not doesn't matter, employers should not be that involved.
Also, if the owners of Hobby Lobby have such sincere religious beliefs against birth control and abortion, why then have they invested in companies that produce the birth control drugs
0
reply
(Original post by MattBerry96)
The company is promoting its religion though, it's saying we don't think birth control is correct or moral so therefore we are not going to cover it. It sets a dangerous precedent however, a orthodox Jew who practices their religion seriously could tell employees not to use electricity or use a car on the Shabbat, or they could own an energy company that provides power to hospitals, local people, local shops. That would be ok though as it's their religious belief. The ruling effectively allows companies to get out of any laws (minus tax laws) that don't fit their religious beliefs. That is the big problem with the case, not so much the fact that women are not offered contraception.
The problem I have in regards to Hobby Lobby restricting access to birth control is that now employers are directly involved in women's sex life. Whether what the women are doing is negligent or not doesn't matter, employers should not be that involved.
Also, if the owners of Hobby Lobby have such sincere religious beliefs against birth control and abortion, why then have they invested in companies that produce the birth control drugs
The company is promoting its religion though, it's saying we don't think birth control is correct or moral so therefore we are not going to cover it. It sets a dangerous precedent however, a orthodox Jew who practices their religion seriously could tell employees not to use electricity or use a car on the Shabbat, or they could own an energy company that provides power to hospitals, local people, local shops. That would be ok though as it's their religious belief. The ruling effectively allows companies to get out of any laws (minus tax laws) that don't fit their religious beliefs. That is the big problem with the case, not so much the fact that women are not offered contraception.
The problem I have in regards to Hobby Lobby restricting access to birth control is that now employers are directly involved in women's sex life. Whether what the women are doing is negligent or not doesn't matter, employers should not be that involved.
Also, if the owners of Hobby Lobby have such sincere religious beliefs against birth control and abortion, why then have they invested in companies that produce the birth control drugs
More like the company is directly involved in a women's sex life which wrong. What they do for their leisure is their problem. Men who work for the organisation should not pay for such things through their productivity.
If a man requested free condoms he would get laughed out the office.
Note: The organisation still offers 8+ other forms of contraception which does not involve the termination of a fertilised egg. America is a Christian nation, the judgement was made within reason.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by ROONEY-9-MUTD)
More like the company is directly involved in a women's sex life which wrong. What they do for their leisure is their problem. Men who work for the organisation should not pay for such things through their productivity.
If a man requested free condoms he would get laughed out the office.
Note: The organisation still offers 8+ other forms of contraception which does not involve the termination of a fertilised egg. America is a Christian nation, the judgement was made within reason.
More like the company is directly involved in a women's sex life which wrong. What they do for their leisure is their problem. Men who work for the organisation should not pay for such things through their productivity.
If a man requested free condoms he would get laughed out the office.
Note: The organisation still offers 8+ other forms of contraception which does not involve the termination of a fertilised egg. America is a Christian nation, the judgement was made within reason.
The Establishment Cause states that there should be no established religion in the U.S, sadly the Supreme Court and Congress don't seem to give much thought to the Constitution anymore.
0
reply
(Original post by MattBerry96)
So only the male employees pay for the birth control?? You can make that argument for anything in the Affordable Care Act mandate. If someone thinks blood transfusions are not worth paying for, this ruling allows that corporation to not provide coverage for blood transfusions.
The Establishment Cause states that there should be no established religion in the U.S, sadly the Supreme Court and Congress don't seem to give much thought to the Constitution anymore.
So only the male employees pay for the birth control?? You can make that argument for anything in the Affordable Care Act mandate. If someone thinks blood transfusions are not worth paying for, this ruling allows that corporation to not provide coverage for blood transfusions.
The Establishment Cause states that there should be no established religion in the U.S, sadly the Supreme Court and Congress don't seem to give much thought to the Constitution anymore.
0
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by MattBerry96)
a orthodox Jew who practices their religion seriously could tell employees not to use electricity or use a car on the Shabbat, or they could own an energy company that provides power to hospitals, local people, local shops. That would be ok though as it's their religious belief.
a orthodox Jew who practices their religion seriously could tell employees not to use electricity or use a car on the Shabbat, or they could own an energy company that provides power to hospitals, local people, local shops. That would be ok though as it's their religious belief.
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by Greenlaner)
They would go out of business pretty fast. Who on Earth is going to buy electricity from a company who shuts it off every Sunday?
They would go out of business pretty fast. Who on Earth is going to buy electricity from a company who shuts it off every Sunday?
0
reply
(Original post by MattBerry96)
Most probably no one but the point was that now companies can effectively do what they want based on the owners religion and it's all ok
Most probably no one but the point was that now companies can effectively do what they want based on the owners religion and it's all ok
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by ROONEY-9-MUTD)
There is difference between paid service/product being taken away / unfair [female] workers benefits being taken away.
There is difference between paid service/product being taken away / unfair [female] workers benefits being taken away.
The examples may have been different but the ruling now sets a precedent companies can opt out of any laws they want to because they violate their religious beliefs.
0
reply
Report
#16
Why should female employees get free contraception, effectively paid for by other workers?
0
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by OMGWTFBBQ)
Why should female employees get free contraception, effectively paid for by other workers?
Why should female employees get free contraception, effectively paid for by other workers?
0
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by MattBerry96)
Why should any employees get any health care/insurance from employers as is stated in law in that case??
Why should any employees get any health care/insurance from employers as is stated in law in that case??
0
reply
Report
#19
(Original post by MattBerry96)
What the Supreme Court has ruled is that Hobby Lobby and other corporations have religious freedoms, which they clearly don't. Hobby Lobby now does not have to provide contraception on religious grounds. That is why the case is a problem. It is the state promoting a religion. That is completely unconstitutional. If a corporation owned by a Muslim wanted to run a company based on Islam I can guarantee you that conservatives in the U.S would explode, even though the SC ruled that they could.
What the Supreme Court has ruled is that Hobby Lobby and other corporations have religious freedoms, which they clearly don't. Hobby Lobby now does not have to provide contraception on religious grounds. That is why the case is a problem. It is the state promoting a religion. That is completely unconstitutional. If a corporation owned by a Muslim wanted to run a company based on Islam I can guarantee you that conservatives in the U.S would explode, even though the SC ruled that they could.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
