Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Suppose you worked for a Muslim company
Being nice people the Muslims hire a catering company to provide a free lunch every day. The catering company offers 20 choices for the employee lunch. The muslim boss eliminates four choices that contain pork. Any employee wanting a BLT or ham sandwich can buy one or bring one from home.
Your religion permits eating pork. Have your first amendment rights been violated?
I keep asking, but no one ever answers:
Where is this right to free abortifacients enumerated?
Nowhere. Its not in any insurance coverage. Its a lie on the part of the right.
Is it, now?
Then all the leftist whinging about people's rights being taken away by religion...doesn't exist?
I fail to see why I should be concerned about such matters.
I keep asking, but no one ever answers:This decision says that a worker's religious beliefs take a back seat to the boss's. One more worker right bites the dust.
Where is this right to free abortifacients enumerated?
Then put me on ignore. Because I'm not going to stop highlighting the flaws in your posts.Nowhere. Its not in any insurance coverage. Its a lie on the part of the right.
Is it, now?
Then all the leftist whinging about people's rights being taken away by religion...doesn't exist?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...e-else-funding-your-abortion.html#post9366654
Your objections might carry more weight if you didn't have a problem with forcing progressivism on people with religious beliefs.I keep asking, but no one ever answers:This decision says that a worker's religious beliefs take a back seat to the boss's. One more worker right bites the dust.
Where is this right to free abortifacients enumerated?
You're hung up on birth control.
The point is that the employer's religious beliefs are forced on their employees.
That is what's wrong with this decision. It won't end here.
It is interesting today that a family's right to medical support is blocked by religion. Everyone engages in contraception including the religious who deny another that same benefit. They'll pay for Viagra but not a means to prevent unnecessary abortions. Rather odd how unthoughtful and how unsupportive religions can be. They still help the impotent male get a hard-on, but spend enormous amounts of money to deny a medicine for women that serves beneficial purposes. And religions are all the same, please don't act like they wouldn't, given the power, be the same as more fundamentalist religions. Right wingers miss reality.
This SCOTUS ruling says that the boss's religion is superior to the employee's beliefs.
This is in line with the previous decision that said that the more money one has, the more speech he has.
This makes perfect sense in an Oligarchy, like our government has become.
No, doofuss, it says that the government cannot, via some regulatory addition to a duly passed law, force any9one to violate their own conscience by making them pay for something they regard as deeply immoral like killing an unborn child. Hobby Lobby refused to pay for only FOUR kinds of contraceptive services that are abortifacients and that means the drug killed a living baby, but we all know how much libtards enjoy killing little unborn babies, now don't we?
They're very transparent, and very desperate...they are very aware that women will continue to have access to contraception, but there is an election approaching. They will mock the far right gun advocates who want access to every type of weapon, including assault weapons, who still are able to own handguns and rifles. They see those people as hysterical when they claim that their 2nd amendment rights are being trampled upon. I see it as very similar analogies.
If Hobby Lobby wants to make it impossible to find skilled employees, that is fine with me.
This SCOTUS ruling says that the boss's religion is superior to the employee's beliefs.
This is in line with the previous decision that said that the more money one has, the more speech he has.
This makes perfect sense in an Oligarchy, like our government has become.
No, doofuss, it says that the government cannot, via some regulatory addition to a duly passed law, force any9one to violate their own conscience by making them pay for something they regard as deeply immoral like killing an unborn child. Hobby Lobby refused to pay for only FOUR kinds of contraceptive services that are abortifacients and that means the drug killed a living baby, but we all know how much libtards enjoy killing little unborn babies, now don't we?
No, you are wrong.
My religion says birth control is OK. If I worked at Hobby Lobby my religion wouldn't count. I'd be subject to the boss's religion.
Therefore the boss can trump my religious convections because the SCOTUS has, in effect, said that the bosses religion cancels out mine.
Isn't it kind of idiotic to say that birth control is the same as killing and unborn child? One of the ,now, prohibited birth control devices is the IUD.
This decision violates the first amendment.
No, doofuss, it says that the government cannot, via some regulatory addition to a duly passed law, force any9one to violate their own conscience by making them pay for something they regard as deeply immoral like killing an unborn child. Hobby Lobby refused to pay for only FOUR kinds of contraceptive services that are abortifacients and that means the drug killed a living baby, but we all know how much libtards enjoy killing little unborn babies, now don't we?
No, you are wrong.
My religion says birth control is OK. If I worked at Hobby Lobby my religion wouldn't count. I'd be subject to the boss's religion.
Therefore the boss can trump my religious convections because the SCOTUS has, in effect, said that the bosses religion cancels out mine.
Isn't it kind of idiotic to say that birth control is the same as killing and unborn child? One of the ,now, prohibited birth control devices is the IUD.
This decision violates the first amendment.
Horse hockey. So if my religion says it's OK to wear anything that I want to to work I don't have to follow the company's dress code ? My religion is being discriminated against ? That's some mighty faulty logic you have there, pard.
Our goal as liberals is to encourage conservatives like Jim to keep speaking their minds. The more people like Jim talk, the more votes the Democrats receive.
The best part of the plan is how we can openly tell conservatives what the trap is, and they'll still proudly walk into it, declaring that no dirty liberal can stop them from speaking their mind, by golly. Being that they live in a delusion bubble, they have no idea of how unpopular their attitudes are, or how unpopular this SC decision was.
No, doofuss, it says that the government cannot, via some regulatory addition to a duly passed law, force any9one to violate their own conscience by making them pay for something they regard as deeply immoral like killing an unborn child. Hobby Lobby refused to pay for only FOUR kinds of contraceptive services that are abortifacients and that means the drug killed a living baby, but we all know how much libtards enjoy killing little unborn babies, now don't we?
They're very transparent, and very desperate...they are very aware that women will continue to have access to contraception, but there is an election approaching. They will mock the far right gun advocates who want access to every type of weapon, including assault weapons, who still are able to own handguns and rifles. They see those people as hysterical when they claim that their 2nd amendment rights are being trampled upon. I see it as very similar analogies.
Good post, but here is where your analogy breaks down:
1) Gun control advocates (Nazis for short) want to completely deny the purchase of a so-called 'assault weapon'. Hobby Lobby simply does not want to pay for their employees to BUY contraceptives that kill unborn babies. That is quite different, as if gun owners are claiming that their rights are being taken away by the Nazis because the Nazis wont buy their 'Assault Weapons' for them.
2) Define 'Assault weapon'. In the trade an assault weapon is a military grade rifle capable of full auto fire. The single shot rifles that look like military grade weapons but are not because they are only single shot, these are NOT assault weapons.
3) Gun rights advocates are concerned because the gun grabbing Nazis have a long history that goes back centuries of disarming the public by any means and methods necessary. In the USA we have had full cycles of guns being registered then taken by local city governments. No one is trying to get contraceptives taken away from anyone that wants to purchase them and use them; they just don't want to be forced to pay for them for others if the contraceptives kill babies.
See the difference?
They're very transparent, and very desperate...they are very aware that women will continue to have access to contraception, but there is an election approaching. They will mock the far right gun advocates who want access to every type of weapon, including assault weapons, who still are able to own handguns and rifles. They see those people as hysterical when they claim that their 2nd amendment rights are being trampled upon. I see it as very similar analogies.
Good post, but here is where your analogy breaks down:
1) Gun control advocates (Nazis for short) want to completely deny the purchase of a so-called 'assault weapon'. Hobby Lobby simply does not want to pay for their employees to BUY contraceptives that kill unborn babies. That is quite different, as if gun owners are claiming that their rights are being taken away by the Nazis because the Nazis wont buy their 'Assault Weapons' for them.
2) Define 'Assault weapon'. In the trade an assault weapon is a military grade rifle capable of full auto fire. The single shot rifles that look like military grade weapons but are not because they are only single shot, these are NOT assault weapons.
3) Gun rights advocates are concerned because the gun grabbing Nazis have a long history that goes back centuries of disarming the public by any means and methods necessary. In the USA we have had full cycles of guns being registered then taken by local city governments. No one is trying to get contraceptives taken away from anyone that wants to purchase them and use them; they just don't want to be forced to pay for them for others if the contraceptives kill babies.
See the difference?
I don't want to turn this thread into a gun rights debate...my point was that if the left wants to claim that the right shouldn't go off the wall about some weapons being banned while they still have access to other weapons, then it's ridiculous for them to become so hysterical about some forms of contraception not paid for while they still have access to other forms of contraception. It's an example of their double standard which displays their hypocrisy.
Good post, but here is where your analogy breaks down:
1) Gun control advocates (Nazis for short) want to completely deny the purchase of a so-called 'assault weapon'. Hobby Lobby simply does not want to pay for their employees to BUY contraceptives that kill unborn babies. That is quite different, as if gun owners are claiming that their rights are being taken away by the Nazis because the Nazis wont buy their 'Assault Weapons' for them.
2) Define 'Assault weapon'. In the trade an assault weapon is a military grade rifle capable of full auto fire. The single shot rifles that look like military grade weapons but are not because they are only single shot, these are NOT assault weapons.
3) Gun rights advocates are concerned because the gun grabbing Nazis have a long history that goes back centuries of disarming the public by any means and methods necessary. In the USA we have had full cycles of guns being registered then taken by local city governments. No one is trying to get contraceptives taken away from anyone that wants to purchase them and use them; they just don't want to be forced to pay for them for others if the contraceptives kill babies.
See the difference?
I don't want to turn this thread into a gun rights debate...my point was that if the left wants to claim that the right shouldn't go off the wall about some weapons being banned while they still have access to other weapons, then it's ridiculous for them to become so hysterical about some forms of contraception not paid for while they still have access to other forms of contraception. It's an example of their double standard which displays their hypocrisy.
then it's ridiculous for them to become so hysterical about some forms of contraception not paid for while they still have access to other forms of contraception.
they still have access to all legal forms of BC
some they may have to pay for it out of pocket
so no one lost rights by the opinion
Suppose you worked for a Muslim company
Being nice people the Muslims hire a catering company to provide a free lunch every day. The catering company offers 20 choices for the employee lunch. The muslim boss eliminates four choices that contain pork. Any employee wanting a BLT or ham sandwich can buy one or bring one from home.
Your religion permits eating pork. Have your first amendment rights been violated?
Is the lunch part of the pay, like insurance is?
If so, the employer should replace that lunch with equivalent raise in pay.
As it is, SCOTUS gave employers a way to cut the pay to the lowest paid. That's all it is. No high flautin shit about religion or abortion. Its just a way to screw over women.
Meanwhile, that same form of pay is still given to the higher paid males in the same companies.
