Christianity & Hobby Lobby

originally posted by: windword
Yes you did. Here's what you posted:

I thought I was being clear ... apparently not. I'll rephrase it to be more clear. The Hobby Lobby people object to abortion and that's what the Hobby Lobby ruling supported ... their objection to funding abortion. SCOTUS supported Hobby Lobby in not paying for four abortificants.

That is an opinion e.g. personal "belief", not a fact.

No, it's a fact. A child is conceived and the four abortificants can cause that child to die.

Not ALL Christians agree with you.

No kidding. The churches themselves are against abortion. The people in those churches are split.

I know of no Muslim orJewish edict that forbids the use of IUD's or hormonal birth control. If you do, please post that info.

Islam does not have edicts against the IUD. That is up to the individual interpretation. As for the Morning After pill in Islam - It depends. In Judaism, the Morning After pill is also split. Some Rabbis approve, while others forbid it
. Most rabbis permit the morning after pill for sexual assault
- not as a regular birth control method.

In all cases, abortion is not allowed. They have a time period .. after like 2 weeks or something .. but it's fuzzy and not agreed on.

originally posted by: Annee
No one is stopping people from their belief.

People who don't even work for Hobby Lobby are trying to stop Hobby Lobby owners from THEIR beliefs.

But, when their chosen belief infringes on me --- that is overstepping and taking away my personal rights.

- You don't work for Hobby Lobby so you aren't infringed upon.
- The people who work for Hobby Lobby aren't infringed upon, they can still go get their abortificants elsewhere.
- The people who work for Hobby Lobby are free to go get a job elsewhere if they wish.
- People who want free abortificants are the ones trying to infringe upon the rights of the Hobby Lobby family owners ... not the other way around.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Heya...
you know that only about half of "fertilized eggs" implant into the uterus, right?

In fact, the way "birth control pills" work is to trick the body into thinking it is already pregnant (using hormones).
That's how IUDs work also.
The uterus thinks there's already something there - so, no, nothing else is going to implant here.

How Birth Control Methods Prevent Pregnancy

Hormonal
Prevents ovulation
Thickens mucus at the cervix so sperm cannot pass through
Changes the environment of the uterus and fallopian tubes to prevent fertilization and to prevent implantation if fertilization occurs

Intrauterine device (IUD)

The progestin released by the hormonal IUD prevents fertilization by making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can't get through to the uterus. The progestin and IUD change the uterine lining, preventing implantation in the rare case that fertilization occurs.

The copper in the copper IUD is toxic to sperm. It causes changes in the uterus and fallopian tubes that kill sperm. The IUD changes the uterine lining, which prevents implantation in the rare case that fertilization occurs.

So, is killing the sperm also considered an abortifacient?
I'm pretty sure that's how the RCC sees it.
But the thing is - preventing the cells (fertilized ovum with sperm) from gaining a "foothold" is what contraceptives do...and also what IUDs do - and the Ella and Plan B.

The RUwhatever pill is different. I can see them (HL) denying that - but the others? Well, in my opinion, they are simply "birth control methods." Get to it before it's planted...

a reply to: NavyDoc

there are other companies that area also exempt and some of them believe that ALL birth control is wrong so they are exempt from ALL!!!

(2) The Government has failed to satisfy RFRA's least-restrictive-means standard. HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The Government could, e.g., assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers' religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to [*5] non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS's stated interests. Pp. 40-45.

www2.bloomberglaw.com...

What Alito is saying is that forcing the company to cover these isn't the least restrictive means to achieve the gov't objective- supplying contraceptives to women with no out of pocket costs since there are two other options- the gov't can supply them themselves- we the taxpayers can foot the bill! or they can extend t he accommodation that has already been set up to accomodate non-profit employers with similar beliefs which I believe would mean that the insurance company can foot the cost!-- we the people!!!

so where in the world do you get that it is protecting the owners of hobby lobby? They will still be paying for it along with the rest of us only through a different avenue! More than likely a more costly avenue at that!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: NavyDoc

there are other companies that area also exempt and some of them believe that ALL birth control is wrong so they are exempt from ALL!!!

(2) The Government has failed to satisfy RFRA's least-restrictive-means standard. HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The Government could, e.g., assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers' religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to [*5] non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS's stated interests. Pp. 40-45.

www2.bloomberglaw.com...

What Alito is saying is that forcing the company to cover these isn't the least restrictive means to achieve the gov't objective- supplying contraceptives to women with no out of pocket costs since there are two other options- the gov't can supply them themselves- we the taxpayers can foot the bill! or they can extend t he accommodation that has already been set up to accomodate non-profit employers with similar beliefs which I believe would mean that the insurance company can foot the cost!-- we the people!!!

so where in the world do you get that it is protecting the owners of hobby lobby? They will still be paying for it along with the rest of us only through a different avenue! More than likely a more costly avenue at that!

Or an even better option--let people pay for their own stuff.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

People who don't even work for Hobby Lobby are trying to stop Hobby Lobby owners from THEIR beliefs.

NO ONE is stopping Hobby Lobby from their belief.

They are forcing their belief on others.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: FlyersFan

People who don't even work for Hobby Lobby are trying to stop Hobby Lobby owners from THEIR beliefs.

NO ONE is stopping Hobby Lobby from their belief.

They are forcing their belief on others.

How?

Employees still have birth control--16 out of 20 types covered by other plans.

Employees are still free to buy any and all of the other 4 types on their own if they wish.

Employees can quit HL if they cannot come to a mutually agreeable compromise with the company.

The owners of HL have rights too--when does one person's right supersede another's?

a reply to: NavyDoc

I'd agree with that but I would also expect a time of pure chaos also!! You do realize that in some areas of the country over 50% of the revenues going into the health care providers are from gov't programs don't you??

"people pay for their own stuff"
ya sounds good!! Me thinks that I could possibly find a job that pays me a living wage if this was to happen!!
Me thinks that the cost of alot of the necessities of life would decrease making it even easier!!

or did you mean just pay for their own stuff that you disagree with???

if a taxpayer is paying for the medical care of others shouldn't they also have that care available to them also?? if the single mom with a brood of kids can sit on her arse and do nothing more than take care of them and have her birth control paid for by the taxpayer should the taxpayer have that same birth control taken out of her coverage?
I don't think so!!
Tell ya what when you manage to talk the gov't into not taking money from my household's income to pay for the poor's rent, child care, birth control, and healthcare you can come talk to me about the working mom having to accept that that one healthcare need of hers isn't worthy of being included in the health insurance policy that the gov't has decided to force her to buy!!!

just when does a corporations rights superceed a person's rights?? like I pointed out they are expecting we the taxpayers or we the policy holders to pick up the slack and pay for it instead so poor little hobby lobby doesn't have to lest it's feeling get hurt!! Can a corp have feelings?? or do people have feelings??

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: NavyDoc

I'd agree with that but I would also expect a time of pure chaos also!! You do realize that in some areas of the country over 50% of the revenues going into the health care providers are from gov't programs don't you??

"people pay for their own stuff"
ya sounds good!! Me thinks that I could possibly find a job that pays me a living wage if this was to happen!!
Me thinks that the cost of alot of the necessities of life would decrease making it even easier!!

or did you mean just pay for their own stuff that you disagree with???

if a taxpayer is paying for the medical care of others shouldn't they also have that care available to them also?? if the single mom with a brood of kids can sit on her arse and do nothing more than take care of them and have her birth control paid for by the taxpayer should the taxpayer have that same birth control taken out of her coverage?
I don't think so!!
Tell ya what when you manage to talk the gov't into not taking money from my household's income to pay for the poor's rent, child care, birth control, and healthcare you can come talk to me about the working mom having to accept that that one healthcare need of hers isn't worthy of being included in the health insurance policy that the gov't has decided to force her to buy!!!

just when does a corporations rights superceed a person's rights?? like I pointed out they are expecting we the taxpayers or we the policy holders to pick up the slack and pay for it instead so poor little hobby lobby doesn't have to lest it's feeling get hurt!! Can a corp have feelings?? or do people have feelings??

I! Don't know what's with all of the exclamation points but okay, I'll play! This is the whole can of worms when we open up the nanny state! People insist that the government take care of them from cradle to grave or at least mandate that someone else take care of them! If we are going to remain solvent, we have to stop! The more you subsidize something, the more you get of that something!

What rights did the corporation supersede! (I know a question mark goes there, I'm just going with your idiom.) A person does not have a right to having someone else pay for what he wants, so in not being forced to pay for a person's whatever, the person's rights have not been infringed upon!

A corporation has the rights that the people who are part of it! Like a union, a corporation is just a group of PEOPLE who get together for a common interest! Those who run the corporation have every right to their beliefs as anyone else!

a reply to: NavyDoc
what is your computer a piece of crap with a keyboard that needs to be pounded every time you want a period??
sorry for the exclamations but at least that key still works.

I also have beliefs. Many of them are trampled on by our gov't
Hobby Lobby the corp has gotten this exemption because it's owners believe that four types of birth control goes against their principles. But I believe that hobby lobby the people still are like the rest of us. They still have to buy insurance that includes this coverage and they still have to pay the taxes for this coverage for those employed by their company (or higher premiums if it's decided that they should force the insurance companies to pick up the tab)
(see already got tired of pounding)

and we all still have to pay for it for those who the gov't deems can't afford it

so what has been accomplished? certainly not the rights of any person!!

originally posted by: dawnstar

so what has been accomplished? certainly not the rights of any person!!

What's been accomplished?

The Right Wing half of the USSC showed their true colors and religious bias.

a reply to: Annee

and you are so far beyond child bearing capacity that I
truthfully do not care what your opinion is on the, moot for you, issue of contraception.

maybe it is a vicarious event for you.

I trust the judgment of nine college educated and experienced in law persons on the SCOTUS bench.

It is called the Supreme Court for a reason.

originally posted by: Annee
NO ONE is stopping Hobby Lobby from their belief.
They are forcing their belief on others.

And if Hobby Lobby was forced to provide free abortificants to workers, then those workers would be forcing their beliefs on Hobby Lobby. See?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

A fertilized egg ... a conceived child ... is destroyed.
Hobby Lobby is run by a evangelical Christian family.
They believe that's wrong. They don't want to pay for it.
So they shouldn't have to. SCOTUS agrees.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

A fertilized egg ... a conceived child ... is destroyed.
Hobby Lobby is run by a evangelical Christian family.
They believe that's wrong. They don't want to pay for it.
So they shouldn't have to. SCOTUS agrees.

If I'm an employee, that's all I am. I am NOT one of their flock and as far as I'm concerned it's a violation of church and state to make me adhere to their belief.

The USSC is forcing me to accept their belief. I don't agree with their belief and I don't accept it.

Nor do I accept courts forcing me to adhere to any religious belief.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

A fertilized egg ... a conceived child ... is destroyed.
Hobby Lobby is run by a evangelical Christian family.
They believe that's wrong. They don't want to pay for it.
So they shouldn't have to. SCOTUS agrees.

If I'm an employee, that's all I am. I am NOT one of their flock and as far as I'm concerned it's a violation of church and state to make me adhere to their belief.

The USSC is forcing me to accept their belief. I don't agree with their belief and I don't accept it.

Nor do I accept courts forcing me to adhere to any religious belief.

there you go defining yourself as yet another victim of another "something" outside of yourself.

The fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

Hobby Lobby does not agree with aborting a fertilized egg.
The SUPREME COURT AGREES.

Since we are including punctuation in this discussion.

put a period after it and move on

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0

I didn't say any of that lol. Where are you getting this from?...Christians shouldn't be lifted higher than other religions and no company should be able to force their religious views onto your personal health care plan.

Ah. So an owner's religious views should in no way be reflected in the policies of the owner's company. Is there now a "wall of separation" between corporation and religion?

Starting a new business? Leave your values at the door, please.

And we wonder why no one wants to do business here anymore...

a business doesn't have values based on religious beliefs...it's an entity that sells goods or services....period. humans have values and religious beliefs...god is a mythical being, you can't force others to live by a mythical beings values...you yourself can, that's freedom of religion. if you force others to live by YOUR mythical being's values, than it IS NOT religious freedom. it's pretty damn simple, but the republicans on the supreme court don't seem to get that, or, if they do, they need to step down and go judge pie eating contests, because that is the limit of their common sense

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: dawnstar

so what has been accomplished? certainly not the rights of any person!!

What's been accomplished?

The Right Wing half of the USSC showed their true colors and religious bias.

LOL

They actually upheld the law and the Constitution.

Something the "Left Wing half" hates with a wild passion.

originally posted by: Annee
If I'm an employee, that's all I am.

And you are free to work elsewhere.
And you are free to get abortificants elsewhere.

The USSC is forcing me to accept their belief.

No. You don't have to agree with their beliefs. But if you work for them, you have to respect their beliefs which include not providing abortificants. If you can't agree to the work terms ... then leave.

(and I am saying that with respect for you as a poster ... I'm not taking pot shots at you ... so don't imply a tone to my post that isn't there. Okay?)

My Satanist boss told me I had to sacrifice my dog to Satan or look for a new job. Are you happy now Hobby Lobby?