Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

originally posted by: Jason88

In my state the unemployment rate is 4%

a reply to: Dfairlite

Again your world - I love it. Please share!

My bad, it's not 4%. It's 3.8% www.google.com... te&gs_l=serp.3..0i67j0l2j0i22i30l7.6706.7218.0.7385.5.5.0.0.0.0.138.476.3j2.5.0.chm_loc%2Chmss2%3Dfalse%2Chms2min%3D10%2Chms2max%3D10%2Chmtb%3D120%2Ch mta%3D1440%2Chmrde%3D0-0%2Chmde%3D1-0%2Chmmpp1%3D1-0%2Chmmpp2%3D1-0%2Chmffs%3D10000...0...1.1.48.serp..0.5.470.5TDKeH_-KgA

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: paleorchid13
a reply to: Dfairlite

Have you heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
I hate to go all scholastic on ya ..but sex is a biological need ..no matter how dirty you religious folk wanna paint it.
It's like eating, or sleeping ......sooner or later you'll be dreaming about a love partner or sex .

No, it's not a "biological need". Maslow dealt with psychology, not biology. You will die without food or sleep - you will not die from lack of sex.

You're wrong.
Sorry , that was rude. Let's play a little scenario out instead?

a reply to: Dfairlite

Funny you should mention this, the company I work for is sponsoring a few teams in different sports in our states' corporate games. The guy sitting next to me wanted to participate in the target shooting event. When he signed up, this is the email he received: "Unfortunately, due to company policy, we will not be participating in any events that involve guns."

Hmm. I wonder if that decision has more to do with liability insurance than politics. At any rate, it wasn't about religion or religious objection.

double post

originally posted by: paleorchid13
a reply to: SourGrapes

IUD's are the MOST effective ...long term birth control methods. They have an accuracy rate of about 99.9%. I had an employee who was battling cancer and chemo ..she was married. Am I so bold as to tell her not to have sex in her marriage and it's against my religion for her to use birth control?

Who are we to judge and decide what's right for everyone else ? People really need to mind their own business.

You say, "I had an employee...". I take it that you are an employer, or management. Well, who am I to judge you and decide what is right for your employees? Should that not be YOUR decision? Since, logically, I could choose to be your employee. We are still in a country that allows us to work where and for whom we want, correct?

originally posted by: paleorchid13
a reply to: nenothtu

Look, if it were up to me I'd hand out birth control like it was it's own holiday ..I'd put it in the water supply. I've seen too many woman have kids because they think it will keep a man there ...or they're just delusional. A person I know ..her 16 and 14 year old daughters got pregnant on purpose ....It's like a bad episode of 16 and pregnant.

So, that is their problem not yours not mine but their own so butt out.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I'm glad you feel good about *your* situation, and things are working out with corporate lunches and new ventures. I mean that. Not being sarcastic.

I think you're lacking from a bit of empathy since lots of regular people do the right things in the US, and it still doesn't work out well. They need safety nets. They need help. (The bloodsuckers will always be there, it's a known cost loss, plus they do crappy jobs most folks would rather skip).

The law really has nothing to do with BC and everything to do with companies now able to discriminate based on fancy beliefs. I worry about women - since loads of religions have issues with them in that's just not an American law-based value.

originally posted by: paleorchid13
a reply to: nenothtu

Look, if it were up to me I'd hand out birth control like it was it's own holiday ..I'd put it in the water supply. I've seen too many woman have kids because they think it will keep a man there ...or they're just delusional. A person I know ..her 16 and 14 year old daughters got pregnant on purpose ....It's like a bad episode of 16 and pregnant.

So hand it out like it's it's own holiday - nothing is preventing you but you... it IS up to you - just get out there and go for it!

A note of caution, however - birth control is not a cure for stupid. Education cures ignorance, but I'm not sure there even IS a cure for stupid yet. Those women will likely find other ways to mess up their worlds, but give 'em that birth control so they can move on and find 'em!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

Funny you should mention this, the company I work for is sponsoring a few teams in different sports in our states' corporate games. The guy sitting next to me wanted to participate in the target shooting event. When he signed up, this is the email he received: "Unfortunately, due to company policy, we will not be participating in any events that involve guns."

Hmm. I wonder if that decision has more to do with liability insurance than politics. At any rate, it wasn't about religion or religious objection.

The company policy they were referring to was one that said that they don't tolerate any violence (He inquired about the policy it was violating). That's quite an interpretation, target shooting for sport is violent? The only reason they didn't pull the religious card is because they don't have to. Just like it wasn't a problem to limit birth control choices for employees of HL pre-ACA.

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: Dfairlite

I'm glad you feel good about *your* situation, and things are working out with corporate lunches and new ventures. I mean that. Not being sarcastic.

I think you're lacking from a bit of empathy since lots of regular people do the right things in the US, and it still doesn't work out well. They need safety nets. They need help. (The bloodsuckers will always be there, it's a known cost loss, plus they do crappy jobs most folks would rather skip).

The law really has nothing to do with BC and everything to do with companies now able to discriminate based on fancy beliefs. I worry about women - since loads of religions have issues with them in that's just not an American law-based value.

I understand where you're coming from. I just don't think this will spiral out of control like you think it will. That's where we differ. I believe the justices were very careful in their wording and where they applied the exception.

originally posted by: paleorchid13

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: paleorchid13
a reply to: Dfairlite

Have you heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
I hate to go all scholastic on ya ..but sex is a biological need ..no matter how dirty you religious folk wanna paint it.
It's like eating, or sleeping ......sooner or later you'll be dreaming about a love partner or sex .

No, it's not a "biological need". Maslow dealt with psychology, not biology. You will die without food or sleep - you will not die from lack of sex.

You're wrong.
Sorry , that was rude. Let's play a little scenario out instead?

???

Wrong? How do you think I'm wrong?

Do you believe that going without food or sleep will not kill you, or that going without sex WILL kill you?

Just how am I "wrong"? please elaborate, and show me my "wrongness", back up your statement rather than just stating it as if it were fact.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Actually, little known factiod, Hobby Lobby's insurance WAS offering all those pesky methods of birth control before the ACA, but they never bothered about it until the ACA mandated it. Then they removed those options.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Fair play. Understand, I hope I'm wrong. Take care.

a reply to: SourGrapes

What people do on my time is task oriented ..I don't give a sh** what people do on their time. None of my business ! The only reason I would take an interest in someones sex life is if I was interested in them that way, or they tell me..and good grief do people tell me things I don't wanna hear.

Let's think about this. Before today, the government forced an employer to offer employees certain health care, regardless of the employers beliefs. Before the ACA, the government did not force them to and it was up to employers to decide what coverage they would offer (they were free to exercise their beliefs). All that the justices have done today is return the contraception mandate back to pre-ACA standards. It's not that big of a deal.

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: Dfairlite

Fair play. Understand, I hope I'm wrong. Take care.

I hope so too

Take care!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

Actually, little know factiod, Hobby Lobby's insurance WAS offering all those pesky methods of birth control before the ACA, but they never bothered about it until the ACA mandated it. Then they removed those options.

I did not know that, so thank you for the information. However, the principle of the matter remains the same, regardless of one employers flip/flop on the issue.

What`s the big deal?All the crying over a couple of birth control methods that is against the religious beliefs of the Hobby Lobby owners and yet Muslims are exempt from ACA and it`s mandates altogether.

But you guys see what they did here, right?

Their, Hobby Lobby's, religions beliefs trump the law. Therefore, if any private company doesn't like a law they can just claim it was against their religious beliefs. We've had this debate before, regarding homosexuality and Christians.

That's a slippery slope, right? Doesn't this pave the way for Sharia Law? Doesn't this ruling strengthen the case and set a precedent that any religion can use to skirt any law they want. What about Islam? We're not worried about that?

And why is it okay for Hobby Lobby to pay for Viagra and penis pumps? This whole thing stinks.

a reply to: amazing

Viagra and penis pumps don't terminate a pregnancy. Thus, they don't violate HL' religious beliefs.

Big difference...

Des