1. #2181
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Overlook whatever half-understood and wrongly applied ideas you want or don't want. Fact remains, if the outcome that you desire is coverage be provided, that is 100% within the immediate and discretionary power of HHS, so obviously that even the Supreme Court pointed it out. Anyone says otherwise is ignorant or lying.
    How the hell is "someone else can fix it so let's ignore the sexism" even remotely valid?

  2. #2182
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    How is your understanding of contract and/or administrative law coming? Still none? Sorry to hear it.
    About the same as yours. You've changed your stance over the last 100 pages at least four times. You've been proven wrong numerous times and still hide behind these fictional "papers" which other posters have called you out on. Do you even know what you're arguing for or against anymore?

  3. #2183
    Banned Orlong's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Class 1,000,000 Clean Room
    Posts
    13,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    So I should be able to support myself without getting a job then? Because in our society, you get a job, or you end up on welfare. Seems to me, a job is as much a necessity for life as shelter and clothing. Because you can't get shelter and clothing without one, unless you're on welfare, which in conservative terms is taking from "other people's things."
    Its only a job if you work for someone else. Like I said earlier, you can work for yourself or be a hunter gatherer in the wilderness of Montana

  4. #2184
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    Its only a job if you work for someone else. Like I said earlier, you can work for yourself or be a hunter gatherer in the wilderness of Montana
    Yeah I'm going to go make a living as a perpetual trespasser and poacher.

  5. #2185
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    How the hell is "someone else can fix it so let's ignore the sexism" even remotely valid?
    How is any of this "sexism" other than in the most window-licking myopic sense? How is it sexist for an employer, male *or* female, to be excused from violating their own beliefs to buy something for someone else just because the recipient is a woman? It's not, obviously, other than to fools and demagogues.

    You are just demonstrating my point -- that if you don't think the HHS fixing this immediately so the coverage is assured is the answer, all your outrage on behalf of the female employees is just BS posturing and what you're really mad about is being denied the chance to "stick it" to for-profit businesses and religious people in a two-fer.

  6. #2186
    Quote Originally Posted by Naxere View Post
    It's ignorant on your part to assume they all decided "Hey, this doesn't affect me in the least, let's rule against the ladies" rather than interpret the law as they see it. Do you honestly believe that if they were conservative women, they would've ruled against Hobby Lobby? That's the basis of your argument?
    It's not my assumption, but it IS a reality of human nature. Do I think that's the sole reason that 5 men who are unaffected by the ruling came to their conclusion? No. But I'm not stupid enough, or partisan enough, to believe that it isn't a factor.

    And yes, considering the only conservative woman to have had the honor of sitting on the SCOTUS bench gave us the Roe v. Wade majority, I'm comfortable with the argument you're so desperately trying to attribute to me.
    Last edited by NYC17; 2014-07-02 at 05:01 PM.

  7. #2187
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    How is any of this "sexism" other than in the most window-licking myopic sense?
    Treating women's health differently based on beliefs isn't self-evident?

  8. #2188
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    Its only because the 3 women in the SCOTUS are far left wing feminist extremists appointed by Democrat presidents (Ginsberg by Clinton, Mayor and Kagan by Obama). If there were 3 reasonable salt of the earth women on the court like Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, and Donna Carr, They wouldve sided with the majority as their decision would be based on the constitution instead of a political decision to "protect their own" regardless of what the constitution says. In fact Ginsberg in her dissent all but admitted that she thought the mandate was unconstitutional but didnt vote that way because voting unconstitutional would have an adverse affect on other laws. Their job has one purpose. Look at the facts in the case presented to them and decide constitutional or not. It isnt to decide whats best for a certain group of people or whether the decision will nullify other laws or require new laws regardless of what the constitution says
    "Salt of the Earth women"...

    That's all.

  9. #2189
    TIL, third parties deciding what a woman can swallow or stick up her hoo-ha is totally acceptable. Or something?
    "You six-piece Chicken McNobody."
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH816 View Post
    You are a legend thats why.

  10. #2190
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    29,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Nostop it View Post
    So the answers yes then, you feel you have a right to other people's stuff? And yes you need a job but on that point why do you guys make it so hard for people to get one? A company is already paying $14 minimum wage and 16 contraceptives, why make it harder by forcing them to provide 4 more?
    So getting a job I can live off of is "taking other people's stuff."

    And getting on welfare is also "taking other people's stuff."

    Brilliant! I can't win!
    Putin khuliyo

  11. #2191
    Quote Originally Posted by Slaskra View Post
    Claiming knowledge of another person's thinking processes based on your own biases and interpretation of outcomes is the epitome of ignorance.
    Yea, it's really not the "epitome of ignorance". It's also not a claim I made.

    But you should keep trying to contribute. You'll get there someday.

  12. #2192
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    So getting a job I can live off of is "taking other people's stuff."

    And getting on welfare is also "taking other people's stuff."

    Brilliant! I can't win!
    Stop taking people's stuff.
    "You six-piece Chicken McNobody."
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH816 View Post
    You are a legend thats why.

  13. #2193
    Quote Originally Posted by Interception View Post
    About the same as yours. You've changed your stance over the last 100 pages at least four times. You've been proven wrong numerous times and still hide behind these fictional "papers" which other posters have called you out on. Do you even know what you're arguing for or against anymore?
    You're equating the legal discretion of HHS to issue a new regulation with a party to a contract making a change that they could only legally make if the other party had consented to their ability to make it, and you're trying to tell me about the law?

    It might look like I'm changing because your understanding of the differences between thinks like regulatory authority and contractual rights is so wretchedly tissue thin you think they operate under the same principles, I suppose. Unless you think HHS had no legal authority to issue either the contraception mandate, the religious non-profit accommodation, or both, you can't possibly think it's dirty pool if HHS were to sidestep Burwell by issuing another accommodation (i.e. a similar mandate that insurers provide non-cost-adjusted coverage to make up for the employers with a religious exemption not providing it). So which is it, Interception, was HHS "changing the rules in the middle of the game" unlawfully by issuing the contraception mandate in the first place? By exempting religious non-profits? Either, both?

  14. #2194
    I would just like to know how the family that owns Hobby Lobby is being denied the right to practice their religion by offering Plan B insurance coverage to their employees?

  15. #2195
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    29,063
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    I would just like to know how the family that owns Hobby Lobby is being denied the right to practice their religion by offering Plan B insurance coverage to their employees?
    Because Plan B is an abortificiant* . . . oh wait, no it's not.

    *fuck that word, I'm not looking up its spelling anymore. Fuck it. Looked it up at least three times, still can't remember how to spell it.
    Putin khuliyo

  16. #2196
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    So getting a job I can live off of is "taking other people's stuff."

    And getting on welfare is also "taking other people's stuff."

    Brilliant! I can't win!
    If you're forcing me to hire you it is. Which was your statement not mine, making a job a right. If you don't know what you're arguing for I can't win.

  17. #2197
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    Because Plan B is an abortificiant* . . . oh wait, no it's not.

    *fuck that word, I'm not looking up its spelling anymore. Fuck it. Looked it up at least three times, still can't remember how to spell it.
    So what? They are not getting the "abortion" their employee is. Again, this does nothing to stop them from practicing their religion.

  18. #2198
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    How is any of this "sexism" other than in the most window-licking myopic sense? How is it sexist for an employer, male *or* female, to be excused from violating their own beliefs to buy something for someone else just because the recipient is a woman? It's not, obviously, other than to fools and demagogues.

    You are just demonstrating my point -- that if you don't think the HHS fixing this immediately so the coverage is assured is the answer, all your outrage on behalf of the female employees is just BS posturing and what you're really mad about is being denied the chance to "stick it" to for-profit businesses and religious people in a two-fer.
    Religious people should not be allowed to deny people something because it goes against their beliefs. I argue that denying something because it goes against your personal beliefs is in direct contradiction to God. That God gave man free will to make his own choices good or bad. The bad choices were not removed or taken away even in the Garden of Eden God allowed the Apple tree to stand. By allowing it to stand he allowed the choice for Adam and Even to eat from it, so even God knows that choice is a good thing. By demanding that we remove choice we are stating that we know better then the God that allowed us to have free will in the first place.

    Okay that is the end of my angry religious rant.

  19. #2199
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,898
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    So what? They are not getting the "abortion" their employee is. Again, this does nothing to stop them from practicing their religion.
    Yes.

    That's exactly why this case was about a corporation's right to make religious choices that negatively affect its workforce, regardless of the faiths or lack thereof of those employees.

    Free exercise of religion means you should be able to choose, for yourself, on religious grounds. This is why adult Jehovah's Witnesses can make informed choices to refuse blood transfusions, even if doing so costs them their lives. That's their free exercise of religion. They are not free to make the same choice for their children, let alone anyone else. That isn't "free exercise", any more; that's inflicting your religion on another.

    And before anyone says this is an unfair comparison because blood transfusions are a bigger deal than 4 types of birth control; my issue is not the specifics of this case, it's the precedent that it sets and the rationale used to justify it.
    Last edited by Endus; 2014-07-02 at 05:09 PM.


  20. #2200
    Quote Originally Posted by NYC17 View Post
    Yea, it's really not the "epitome of ignorance". It's also not a claim I made.
    So were you arguing that the sex of the justices in the majority was relevant to the outcome of the case, or not?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •