Has the church put out a similar list on assault weapons?

:ohbrother:

 

1. "Assault weapons" have nothing to do with this.

2. The fact that you use the term "assault weapons" proves you do nothing but parrot uneducated leftist lies.

:ohbrother:

 

1. "Assault weapons" have nothing to do with this.

2. The fact that you use the term "assault weapons" proves you do nothing but parrot uneducated leftist lies.

If a company can pick and choose birth control methods, then one would assume another entity could pick and choose which weaponry is allowed and which isn't in its jurisdiction. I was just making this comparison to show the logical folly of the Hobby Lobby decision and how the argument could be turned against the right.

 

But wait a minute, some say. Aren't my guns protected by law? Yes.

 

But so is abortion.

If a company can pick and choose birth control methods, then one would assume another entity could pick and choose which weaponry is allowed and which isn't in its jurisdiction. I was just making this comparison to show the logical folly of the Hobby Lobby decision and how the argument could be turned against the right.

 

But wait a minute, some say. Aren't my guns protected by law? Yes.

 

But so is abortion.

 

Okay, so you've got the military and the police...but which other employers are forced by the government to supply their employees with guns? I'd really like to know, because I might consider getting a job there.

If a company can pick and choose birth control methods, then one would assume another entity could pick and choose which weaponry is allowed and which isn't in its jurisdiction. I was just making this comparison to show the logical folly of the Hobby Lobby decision and how the argument could be turned against the right.

 

But wait a minute, some say. Aren't my guns protected by law? Yes.

 

But so is abortion.

 

Private companies should never be forced to provide any type of health coverage. That is what the free market is for. If you do not want to provide it, then you run the risk of losing the top candidates for your job vacancies. Obama passing more measures to ensure big Government was rightly struck down here. That is my problem with everyone railing against this decision. People are not forced to work at Hobby Lobby. Business owner should not have their decisions dictated where the subject is an elective decision for business to business.

Private companies should never be forced to provide any type of health coverage. That is what the free market is for. If you do not want to provide it, then you run the risk of losing the top candidates for your job vacancies. Obama passing more measures to ensure big Government was rightly struck down here. That is my problem with everyone railing against this decision. People are not forced to work at Hobby Lobby. Business owner should not have their decisions dictated where the subject is an elective decision for business to business.

 

100% agree.

 

To add to that I thought Ron Paul made an outstanding point last night. What is lost in the conversation about peoples "rights" is that we are turning peoples wants and needs into rights. How often is the question asked who's rights must we violate to fulfill this supposed rights. You never hear someone on the left who calls for government spending and rights talking about who's rights they must violate to have these programs put in place. We totatlly ignore the businesses right to pick and choose what programs businesses or small business owners want to provide. It is very sad that we have come to a point where we confuse rights with wants and needs.

Okay, so you've got the military and the police...but which other employers are forced by the government to supply their employees with guns? I'd really like to know, because I might consider getting a job there.

I used the word "entity" as opposed to business in order to expand the scope. A few years ago didn't some towns require all residents to possess a firearm? In any event, some stores -- Target and Walmart for instance -- are struggling with firearm policy in their stores, and no doubt someone at their corporate offices already has proposed a list of which weapons would be acceptable and which weapons wouldn't. But doing so might infuriate the Second Amendment crowd.

I used the word "entity" as opposed to business in order to expand the scope. A few years ago didn't some towns require all residents to possess a firearm? In any event, some stores -- Target and Walmart for instance -- are struggling with firearm policy in their stores, and no doubt someone at their corporate offices already has proposed a list of which weapons would be acceptable and which weapons wouldn't. But doing so might infuriate the Second Amendment crowd.

Which weapons would not be a consideration, they either ban all or none...which is their choice as a private business. Even though I disagree with banning them from those stores it is their decision to make.

If a company can pick and choose birth control methods, then one would assume another entity could pick and choose which weaponry is allowed and which isn't in its jurisdiction. I was just making this comparison to show the logical folly of the Hobby Lobby decision and how the argument could be turned against the right.

 

But wait a minute, some say. Aren't my guns protected by law? Yes.

But so is abortion.

 

You have lost me on your point , you really aren't comparing similar situations. What employer provides guns?

 

But to the bolded I must of missed the part in the constitution that said your right to abortion shall not be infringed.

I used the word "entity" as opposed to business in order to expand the scope. A few years ago didn't some towns require all residents to possess a firearm? In any event, some stores -- Target and Walmart for instance -- are struggling with firearm policy in their stores, and no doubt someone at their corporate offices already has proposed a list of which weapons would be acceptable and which weapons wouldn't. But doing so might infuriate the Second Amendment crowd.

 

....but the scope is not expanded in this Supreme Court decision. It is very, VERY specific. Give me an argument that is apples to apples AND holds water.

You have lost me on your point , you really aren't comparing similar situations. What employer provides guns?

 

But to the bolded I must of missed the part in the constitution that said your right to abortion shall not be infringed.

(A) Abortion is legal. (B) So is owning a gun. High court this week further loosened the mortar of (A). Whatever happens to (A) can also happen to (B). That's my point.

 

Much could change with the replacement of one Supreme Court justice.

(A) Abortion is legal. (B) So is owning a gun. High court this week further loosened the mortar of (A). Whatever happens to (A) can also happen to (B). That's my point.

 

Much could change with the replacement of one Supreme Court justice.

 

But your not comparing apples to apples. The courts didn't restrict any individual from purchasing contraceptives. They just said certain ones you have to buy on your own. Which I don't see how any reasonable minded person can be that angry about.

 

Should I be angry because my employer doesn't buy my gun and ammo for me?

Private companies should never be forced to provide any type of health coverage. That is what the free market is for. If you do not want to provide it, then you run the risk of losing the top candidates for your job vacancies. Obama passing more measures to ensure big Government was rightly struck down here. That is my problem with everyone railing against this decision. People are not forced to work at Hobby Lobby. Business owner should not have their decisions dictated where the subject is an elective decision for business to business.

It's also important to view the Hobby Lobby decision based on 50 individual state laws (or lack of) regarding health insurance vis-a-vis contraception.

 

At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

 

An additional two states—Michigan and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion.

 

Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans.

 

Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia.

 

Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.

It's also important to view the Hobby Lobby decision based on 50 individual state laws (or lack of) regarding health insurance vis-a-vis contraception.

 

At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

 

An additional two states—Michigan and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion.

 

Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans.

 

Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia.

 

Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.

 

When Obama decided to get the Federal government into the Health Insurance business state laws became less valid. Like any other law Federal law trumps state law. I'm a huge believer in state right and is why I didn't like Obamacare to begin with because of the blanket law for 50 states. But Obama went that route and stripped states of a lot of their power. Without Obamacare those laws would still matter now they don't.

(A) Abortion is legal. (B) So is owning a gun. High court this week further loosened the mortar of (A). Whatever happens to (A) can also happen to (B). That's my point.

 

Much could change with the replacement of one Supreme Court justice.

 

We finally found something we agree on, Ginsberg needs to go!

But your not comparing apples to apples. The courts didn't restrict any individual from purchasing contraceptives. They just said certain ones you have to buy on your own. Which I don't see how any reasonable minded person can be that angry about.

 

Should I be angry because my employer doesn't buy my gun and ammo for me?

I'm looking at this issue in broader terms. Once the high court starts chipping away at legalities, then other legalities also become at risk. And the same logic that chips away at the mortar of legality A also can be used to chip away at the mortar of legality B.

 

In this case, Hobby Lobby gets a religious exemption. Perhaps a few years down the road a city like Newtown, Conn., wins a moral exemption to ban all firearms within its city limits.