Christianity & Hobby Lobby

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: NthOther

Again where are you getting this from?...an owner with religious values can reflect those values in the way he runs his company. But he's not a king, he can't demand that his subjects follow the same religion. More than half the US is women, this ruling just made every company be able to control whether or not female workers can have access to contraceptives in their health care plan. Whether the owner is Christian or not, it would be foolish for a company to not save the money and so women across the country will soon not be able to have access to contraceptives, whether they're religious or not.
PS: No one wants to do business in the US because it costs too much, not whatever fairy tale reason you were thinking of.

But he's HL was not "controlling access to contraception" nor were they forcing their religion on other people. Hobby lobby just didn't want to pay for some types of contraception. Only to a progressive is not paying for something for you persecution. They were free to have other types of birth control subsidized and they were free to buy those 4 other types of BC themselves. No one was prevented access to contraception and nobody had religion forced upon them.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: NthOther

I think that's the biggest problem with the SCOTUS ruling. Only Christians can hold these views. Only closely held companies can hold these views.

The SCOTUS ruling doesn't apply to Muslims, atheists, Jews or anyone else of faith (or lack thereof). It also doesn't apply to anyone who doesn't own a corporation or who owns a corporation that's not 'closely held'. SCOTUS has said that the owners of Hobby Lobby are special. Only wealthy Christians can defy the mandate. Everyone else has to comply.

WHere does it say those things in the decision--that it didn't apply to muslims, jews, etc?

a reply to: tsingtao

they should be taught where to get them. maybe start a collective and share them. someones dad has too have given one of them a credit card, right? i wouldn't say sell them coz that would be capitalism, they have to give them away to whomever wants them.

so you think we should teach the kids to take advantage of their parents trust and abuse the credit cards they were given and max the thing out on birth control for themselves and friends?? Thus forcing their parents to buy birth control possibly instead of feeding the family?
I am sorry but I am sitting here and wondering!!
This seems to be a much bigger transgression than hobby lobby just including birth control in their insurance coverage!!!!

is there any limit to the stupidity people will spout to support their "beliefs"???

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
no company should be able to force their religious views onto your personal health care plan.

No worker should be able to force their religious views onto family who runs the company.

I agree. But that is far from what was happening here. As a matter of fact, it's the other way around.

From the SCOTUS syllabus: (that I have downloaded to my desktop, so no link)

The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable.

Clearly, the court upheld the Hahn's and the Green's archaic paranoia that they can't control or trust their employees to make correct decisions on their own. They've pre-judged their employees and assumed an authoritative moral position over their self determinism. To gain control over them, they've sought out a legal recourse to create burden, limit access and create obstacles in their path to access to legal contraception, of which they disapprove.

SCOTUS ruled that corporations have the right to burden their employees from exercising a LEGAL and PROTECTED right, that the owner sees as immoral. The idea that an employer should be able to strong arm a women's choice, based on the fear that NOT doing so is somehow sinning themselves, betrays this court's obvious bias against women's self determinism and integrity.

If the worker wants free abortificants, they can go work elsewhere.
No one is stopping them from walking out the door.

This issue was never about abortion or abortificants. No worries. Your stance is protected by the Hyde Amendment

a reply to: NavyDoc

WHere does it say those things in the decision--that it didn't apply to muslims, jews, etc?

Because Muslims and Jews don't object to contraception.

originally posted by: windword
Because Muslims and Jews don't object to contraception.

They object to abortion and that's what the Hobby Lobby ruling was ... it was against four abortificants.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

Comparing forcing a company to pay for contraceptives for its employees to an employer forcing Sharia law on its employees is not nearly a reasonable comparison.

The main issue here, in my opinion, is why is the government forcing any company to buy insurance at all? The government needs to stay out of it, and let commerce take its natural course.

Years ago, companies competed against each other to obtain and keep quality employees by offering the best insurance plans they could. Back then, insurance was not nearly as expensive as it is now, so employers could do that.

The government forcing everyone, including employers, to buy a certain level of insurance only gives the insurance companies, drug companies, medical suppliers, etc., more incentive to charge whatever they want. A captive customer with few or no choices ends up paying what they are told to pay. The main one making out by the forced contraceptive mandate is the drug companies.

If commerce took its natural course, and employers wanted to attract qualified women who demand contraceptive cover, then they would likely cover it. If an employer chose not to offer it, and women chose not to work there, then... that is their choice.

The mandates in the entire mess of this health care plan are only going to ruin our economy and force companies out of business.

Excellent point and star from me to you, however, the salient point is that a lot of people WANT government to force people and businesses to fulfill their versions of "social justice." The sad thing about this short sighted view of political power is that they empower the government to force things they don't like on them someday, but they don't see it as long as they see it as "sticking it to evil Christians," or corporations, or gun owners, or whomever the progressive hate is directed to at the moment.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

WHere does it say those things in the decision--that it didn't apply to muslims, jews, etc?

Because Muslims and Jews don't object to contraception.

Well no duh. However, just because someone has not objected to a mandate, does not mean the law or the concept therein would not apply to them as well. It is disingenuous to say that this, or the principle behind it, would not apply to other faiths and to say so would be an assumption without evidence.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: xuenchen

If you are a dude, I really don't care what your opinion is on this.

Nor, do I care about the loophole 5 old fart male Catholic judges used to make this insulting decision.

Oh, and yes I know YOU don't consider it a loophole.

Great, so I assume that you wouldn't be insulted nor find it sexist if someone said that women should not have an opinion on other subjects?

The Constitution prevents congress from making any law for or against the exercise of religious freedom and it's expression. This means that as a business owner I cannot be forced by the government to disobey my religious practice in order to satisfy someone else's disregard for it.

Courts, namely the US Supreme Court have power to define what the Constitution says. It has said that businesses are an extension of the person and because of that, they are individuals for that purpose. Not just for religious purposes but for many other legal matters as well.


If a woman wants to take pills to abort a pregnancy, I should not have to be conspirator in an act I deem is murder.

I am thankful that the Court still has the sanity it needs to rule during this awful time of lawlessness.

a reply to: NavyDoc

It is disingenuous to say that this, or the principle behind it, would not apply to other faiths and to say so would be an assumption without evidence.

We have yet to see. How do you foresee this ruling benefiting Muslims and Jews?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: windword
Because Muslims and Jews don't object to contraception.

They object to abortion and that's what the Hobby Lobby ruling was ... it was against four abortificants.

It most certainly was not!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

It is disingenuous to say that this, or the principle behind it, would not apply to other faiths and to say so would be an assumption without evidence.

We have yet to see. How do you foresee this ruling benefiting Muslims and Jews?

Who knows where precedent takes us until a case comes before the court that applies. However, to assume that "Catholic male justices" would not rule according to the law and would be prejudicial against other religions is not only unfounded, but a rather bigoted stance.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: xuenchen

If you are a dude, I really don't care what your opinion is on this.

Nor, do I care about the loophole 5 old fart male Catholic judges used to make this insulting decision.

Oh, and yes I know YOU don't consider it a loophole.

Great, so I assume that you wouldn't be insulted nor find it sexist if someone said that women should not have an opinion on other subjects?

You can have all the opinions you want on women's rights, but you're not a woman. You are not a woman who spent years fighting for rights, then having them taken away because of religious belief and a bias USSC.

I don't care what your opinion is if it's in opposition to my rights and freedoms. But, you can have them.

I support mandatory DNA paternity testing. Do you?

Oh wait, I'm only the woman who's held responsible for getting pregnant.

a reply to: NavyDoc

However, to assume that "Catholic male justices" would not rule according to the law and would be prejudicial against other religions is not only unfounded, but a rather bigoted stance.

I love the way you throw pejoratives around to demean and insult those who disagree with you and then cry "foul" like a little girl when someone insinuates that "otherwise" may be true.

I disagree with you and DO believe that the Court has shown a religious and political bias. That's my opinion. Deal with it!

originally posted by: windword
. . . .DO believe that the Court has shown a religious and political bias. That's my opinion. Deal with it!

Of course they have.

a reply to: windword

And I wonder what HL would do if one of their UNMARRIED employees turned up pregnant. Like the teacher in the Catholic school who was fired for being pregnant and single.

This can of worms is huge.
BTW, I totally agree with you on the differentiation between "abortion" and "contraception." A fertilized egg that does not implant is not a "baby". It is a cluster of cells. Preventing implantation is not, therefore, an "abortifacient."

(Which is the correct spelling, folks. ABORTIFACIENT. Just so you all know.)

a·bor·ti·fa·cient
əˌbôrtəˈfāSHənt/Submit
MEDICINE
adjective
1.
(chiefly of a drug) causing abortion.
noun
1.
an abortifacient drug.

Call me pedantic. BUT - Women have used everything from turtle shells to apricot kernels to prevent pregnancy. It's been going on forEVER.

Examples include brewer's yeast,[7] vitamin C, bitter melon,[8] wild carrot, blue cohosh, pennyroyal, nutmeg, mugwort, slippery elm, papaya, vervain, common rue, ergot, saffron and tansy. Animal studies have shown that pomegranate may be an effective abortifacient.[2][9]

Wiki entry

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: xuenchen

If you are a dude, I really don't care what your opinion is on this.

Nor, do I care about the loophole 5 old fart male Catholic judges used to make this insulting decision.

Oh, and yes I know YOU don't consider it a loophole.

Great, so I assume that you wouldn't be insulted nor find it sexist if someone said that women should not have an opinion on other subjects?

You can have all the opinions you want on women's rights, but you're not a woman. You are not a woman who spent years fighting for rights, then having them taken away because of religious belief and a bias USSC.

I don't care what your opinion is if it's in opposition to my rights and freedoms. But, you can have them.

I support mandatory DNA paternity testing. Do you?

Oh wait, I'm only the woman who's held responsible for getting pregnant.

I'm against a lot of governmental mandates. Of course, DNA paternity testing is something that is done quite often, especially if there is some conflict and fathers should be held fiscally responsible for their offspring, so I don't see the point you want to make other than some sort of victim card.

No woman's rights were taken away by this decision--unless you believe that your rights include subsidies.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

However, to assume that "Catholic male justices" would not rule according to the law and would be prejudicial against other religions is not only unfounded, but a rather bigoted stance.

I love the way you throw pejoratives around to demean and insult those who disagree with you and then cry "foul" like a little girl when someone insinuates that "otherwise" may be true.

I disagree with you and DO believe that the Court has shown a religious and political bias. That's my opinion. Deal with it!

What do you mean? The anti religious and anti male comments in this thread have not been from me. You embrace pejoratives so don't act all offended when called out on your biases.

Yes, that is your opinion and it would be wrong and based on an ideology that can't see otherwise. I guess you'll have to deal with that too.

originally posted by: windword
It most certainly was not!

It most certainly was! The four abortificants were what the ruling was for.
The morning after .. the week after ... the IUD ... these are known abortificants.
They cause the death of conceived children. Abortificants.

You can try to claim that it's not really an abortion unless the newly conceived child is hanging onto the uterus wall all you want .. but the FACT is that these four abortificants destroy a newly conceived child. It's MURDER in the eyes of many Christians as well as Jews and Muslims. Abortificants.