It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Destinyone

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: thesaneone



Maybe this will make people more responsible when they want to knock boots.



Good luck with that. There have been unwanted pregnancies since time began, and there will be unwanted pregnancies right up until time ends.


I think people opposed to this ruling, better get off their hiney's and first figure out what to do about the 100's of thousands of girls and women popping out litters of babies by multiple baby daddies to collect welfare every month. They don't use BC on purpose.

When they have that problem solved, they'll have a better base to argue from.

Des

Got this a little bit backwards don't you? Shouldn't it be how are we going to help support all these kids because some biblethumper wants to save few bucks. But then again seeing how you are telling these people to go to planned parenthood (which our tax dollars helps to support their operations) you support the nanny state don't you? Oh and I love how you imply that women who wants BC sleep with multiple men so are all women that use BC whores?
edit on 30-6-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: seabag





I think I might pack up the family and do some shopping at Hobby Lobby


Me too, they play religious music too!

"gasp"



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone

And I think all those married men might want to sit down and contemplate how they would feel if their wife decided she had enough kiddies and didn't want more and cut off that special perk of marriage! There was a thread started awhile back on ATS asking for people's opinion on this and you'd be surprised to learn that many would not tolerate their spouse refusing them sex for an extended period of time!



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: windword

No it doesn't. It limits who can be exempt from mandates.


No, it expands who can be exempt from mandates.


Fair enough!


That was easy!



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Buster, sometimes your arguments are logical and make sense. This one doesn't fall into that category. You are just trying to spin in a non-direction

You know me well enough to understand my feelings on a nanny government. Your twisted logic does not apply to me.

Des



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
But I'll bet they have to pay for Viagra.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

Well, you are going to feel really silly when your tax dollars are paying for clitoridectomy procedures based on religious freedom.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: seabag

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic





I will never go to a Hobby Lobby again. And I just might join a protest.




I'm with you, BH.




I'll only go to Michael's from here on out. And I know plenty who will do the same.


I think I might pack up the family and do some shopping at Hobby Lobby tonight!! After some quick dinner at Chick-fil-A of course!!


Pack up the family? What do you do put them in boxes?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

I think that procedure has been outlawed on most countries. It would never pass here. Our government has already made it's opinion known on this matter.

Next argument...

Des



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
It feels like religious people are forcing their beliefs onto the unwilling.

You've got it backwards. People are trying to force religious people to go against their religion, which is unconstitutional. No one is stopping contraception from getting to people. The religious folks just aren't going to provide it because it goes against their religion to do so.

I will never go to a Hobby Lobby again.

Did you ever really go shopping there to begin with?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

That sounds like a procedure that would be administered over great religious objection by what I'd guess as something approaching 80% of the American population, by self declared Faith.

So... The Supreme Court decision today would work to support the right to say no to doing anything which helps that occur, wouldn't it?

This is all about NOT seeing an action forced upon those whose Faith says 'no'. I don't know anyone off hand who considers female genital mutilation to be ..acceptable.

Some surely do..and I know it's done in areas of the world as a routine matter. I've just never met one, and the S.C. now says I'll never have to worry about hearing someone had to be involved. Not in this nation, anyway.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Tyranny of the Corporation.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone



You know me well enough to understand my feelings on a nanny government. Your twisted logic does not apply to me.

Sure it does. You cry about the nanny state but want people to go to a program that is supported by that nanny state. You are a closet lover of the nanny state but don't have the backbone to admit it. I bet you even voted for Obama you closet socialist.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
you are going to feel really silly when your tax dollars are paying for clitoridectomy procedures based on religious freedom.

That's a silly straw man. If someones religion requires a clitoridectomy, they can go pay for it themselves. It's not for the government to pay for religion based medical procedures.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
This is equivalent to Hobby Lobby stating that people can't use the money they earned working for them to buy contraception. Health Care packages are a part of employee compensation, good to know SCOTUS is perfectly willing to give corporations that kind of power.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Destinyone



You know me well enough to understand my feelings on a nanny government. Your twisted logic does not apply to me.

Sure it does. You cry about the nanny state but want people to go to a program that is supported by that nanny state. You are a closet lover of the nanny state but don't have the backbone to admit it. I bet you even voted for Obama you closet socialist.


Shudders...I did not vote for Obama...LOL You need a new Magic 8 Ball...the one you have is broken.

I'm all for Planned Parenthood. It fills a social need for low cost BC. There is no reason to have another redundant BC mandate forced upon us in the form of Obamacare.

Des



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010




That's right every form of religious discrimination is now ok. All you have to do is say my faith says it should be this wa


Oh damn talk about hyperbole.

Yes it's religious discrimination to expect people to pay for their own sex lives!

How dare the SCOTUS !



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Hobby Lobby employees can go buy all the contraception THEY WANT.

Nothing is stopping them.

The Scotus ruling says.

THEY PAY FOR IT.

Hobby Lobby doesn't have too.

So where is the 'discrimination' ?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I'm happy the court ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor, but I have to admit that I'm a little confused. I pretty much abandoned my thread on this topic when I did a little research and found that they didn't have a leg to stand on. Their whole argument centered on a study that suggested the forms of birth control in question altered the lining of a woman's uterus, which in turn would prevent an accidentally fertilized egg from implanting. Well that study was like 20 years old if I'm not mistaken.

A more recent study however, supposedly proved that the findings of the old study were incorrect, and that drugs such as the morning after pill didn't affect the lining of the uterus at all. I was certain that the findings of the new study would destroy Hobby Lobby's case, but obviously I was wrong.

So now I'm left wondering why the new study had no bearing on this case. Was there a problem with the study?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Oh and now closely held corporations can now be a religious person.
Way to go Scalia.




top topics



 
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join