All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama: Worst President Ever?
7/4/2014 3:20 PM
I didn't think it possible for Canada to become any dumber.

I was wrong.
7/4/2014 3:25 PM
7/4/2014 3:27 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/4/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/4/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 9:30:00 PM (view original):
And insurance premiums aren't birth control subsidies.
Sure they are.

If I'm paying premiums to an insurance company, and that insurance company is providing birth control to it's clients, then my premiums are subsidizing it.

Where do you think the money to pay the drug companies for the birth control is coming from?
If you're paying money to someone, and that person uses some of that money to pay for birth control, that violates your rights?
So now an insurance company is a person?

I thought it might be an "entity specifically formed to legally separate it from shareholders".

Has something changed since last night in your definition of businesses?

I'm assuming that there are people that work at insurance companies, right?

And you didn't answer the question.
7/4/2014 3:54 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/4/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/4/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/4/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 9:30:00 PM (view original):
And insurance premiums aren't birth control subsidies.
Sure they are.

If I'm paying premiums to an insurance company, and that insurance company is providing birth control to it's clients, then my premiums are subsidizing it.

Where do you think the money to pay the drug companies for the birth control is coming from?
If you're paying money to someone, and that person uses some of that money to pay for birth control, that violates your rights?
So now an insurance company is a person?

I thought it might be an "entity specifically formed to legally separate it from shareholders".

Has something changed since last night in your definition of businesses?

I'm assuming that there are people that work at insurance companies, right?

And you didn't answer the question.
I'm assuming there are people who work at Hobby Lobby, too.  Right?

I didn't answer your question because it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

So, to summarize your position: some companies (like Hobby Lobby) aren't people, so they have no right to religious freedom.  But other companies (like insurance companies) are people, so it's no different if they purchase birth control for their insured individuals with premiums paid from their business clients, than if the individuals bought it themselves with wages paid by their employers.

In other words: businesses may or may not be people, depending on how conveniently it fits your argument.

Good job.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
7/5/2014 9:05 AM
This is good for Wheaton College and all other similar institutions with similar objections.

What's the problem?
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
7/5/2014 10:53 AM
Well, OK then.

Good luck and best wishes with your desired suppression of religious freedom.
7/5/2014 11:10 AM
As best I can tell, this ruling still has nothing to do with discriminatory hiring practices.   Just another "We don't want to supply birth control as it's against our religious beliefs."
7/5/2014 11:21 AM
Here's the funny thing about discussions such as this one.

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees a number of freedoms . . . . freedom of the exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. freedom for peaceful assembly, etc.  We celebrate our freedoms, and we honor those people in the military who have fought (and died) to protect our freedoms on every national holiday.

Yet there are a number of people who feel that it's OK to pick and choose which freedoms actually should be upheld, and which should be disregarded.  A lot of people here in these forums don't like religion, or they don't like people who wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves for everybody to see.  So, in their minds, it's perfectly OK to cast that portion of the First Amendment to the curb because they don't agree with it.

I don't think that's what the founding fathers intended.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
7/5/2014 12:46 PM
Let people live their lives... That's freedom. Smaller federal govt, less federal taxes. Why the heck is the federal govt even getting involved in birth control, health insurance, gun control, Solyndra, etc. Its so annoying.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
7/5/2014 1:02 PM (edited)
What or who is more oppressed? 

Those who are pressed to do something against their will under existing law or those who are free under the law to pursue a goal?
of 299
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama: Worst President Ever?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.