If Hobby Lobby wins...

[ScreamingEagle]

Dude -- even the National Catholic Reporter lays it out: "there is no scientific evidence that any FDA-approved contraception is capable of destroying an embryo."

What an abortifacient is -- and what it isn't | National Catholic Reporter

some of that seems pretty borderline.....

when she starts the sympathy appeal about all the rape cases as reason for using these drugs.....i get suspicious...

...are you prepping for a debut of a fresh "legitimate rape" commentary?

are you prepping for a debut of a fresh 'women should decide to kill or not kill' commentary...?

does rape justify homicide....?

 

[paperview]

some of that seems pretty borderline.....

when she starts the sympathy appeal about all the rape cases as reason for using these drugs.....i get suspicious...

...are you prepping for a debut of a fresh "legitimate rape" commentary?

are you prepping for a debut of a fresh 'women should decide to kill or not kill' commentary...?

does rape justify homicide....?

Ah....so you're in the 'even if women are raped they must carry' camp.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[BobPlumb]

Fornication is certainly a sin according to the Bible;

shouldn't a Christian employer have the right to refuse to hire 'fornicators'? Or fire them if their sins are discovered?

Ever hear of a morality clause in a professional contract?

 

[BobPlumb]

Fornication is certainly a sin according to the Bible;

shouldn't a Christian employer have the right to refuse to hire 'fornicators'? Or fire them if their sins are discovered?

Ever here of at will employment or morals clauses?

Oops. QW beat me to it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what exactly is the argument that Hobby Lobby is trying to make? Its a business, not a church. What does religion have to do with employees' benefits?

Seems to me that before your question can be answered, you will first need to clarify for us the apparently erroneous parameter of "not a church". What does not being a church have to do with anything, aside from being the likely reason that they don't have a pulpit or a choir loft?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what exactly is the argument that Hobby Lobby is trying to make? Its a business, not a church. What does religion have to do with employees' benefits?

Ask the SCOTUS

This fucking idiot poster thinks the Supreme Court "grants" rights.

Think about that for a moment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And of course, there's this huge hypocrisy -

I do believe that pill on the right would be covered by Hobby Lobby's healthcare, Lud, I'm not so sure the one on the left is covered. Not that many major insurance plans cover the blue one.

Actually, most major health insurance plans my company deals with cover Viagra and similar medications. They also cover most types of birth control.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Viagra is a medication used in treatment of heart disease. Treating erectile dysfunction is a side effect. Insurance should pay when used to treat heart disease. Other than that buy your own.

Insurance should pay when the people paying the bulk of the costs decide it should. And people should have a lot more freedom and personal responsibility both when it comes to their own healthcare. We wouldn't have this problem at all if so many people in this country didn't believe "This is important to my life, ergo someone owes it to me!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Viagra is a medication used in treatment of heart disease. Treating erectile dysfunction is a side effect. Insurance should pay when used to treat heart disease. Other than that buy your own.

Birth control pills are prescribed for dysmensia, ovarian cysts, endometriosis, and other conditions, not just birth control.

Except we're not talking about "birth control". We're talking, specifically, about Plan B. And what other medical conditions is that prescribed for, again?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you read the article, the CEO is bending over backwards trying to tell everyone how Chick-fil-a isn't anti-gay. His business must have really been taking damage.

Hence, people like Randallflagg and Katz must now flipflop and hate Chick-fil-a, being it's become such a gay-friendly chain.

Um, no, that's not from reading the article, Chuckles. That's from you reading what you wanted to see into the article.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They never were anti-gay. You buttholes claimed that.

So we just imagined the tax records showing Chick-fil-A giving millions to some really nasty anti-gay groups?

You can pretend it was about a statement about traditional marriage, but it was always about piles of corporate cash being donated to openly anti-gay groups. Meaning that if you patronized the restaurant, part of your cash ended up going to nasty anti-gay groups.

"Nasty anti-gay groups" as defined by whom? You and other lefties? As meaningless as everything else you people say.

 

[RandallFlagg]

If you read the article, the CEO is bending over backwards trying to tell everyone how Chick-fil-a isn't anti-gay. His business must have really been taking damage.

Hence, people like Randallflagg and Katz must now flipflop and hate Chick-fil-a, being it's become such a gay-friendly chain.

Um, no, that's not from reading the article, Chuckles. That's from you reading what you wanted to see into the article.

Exactly. Not one Chick-fil-a has EVER denied service to a limp-wrist. It was they, who "went to war" against the restaurant chain and it was they who got their collective asses kicked in their little "hissy fit".

5% (or less) of the population and you would think that it was actually 105% of the population. They are about as bothersome as a cloudy day.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Bible dictates that a Christian who operates a business cannot compensate his employees with anything that could be used as payment for an IUD??

Cite that passage.

Perhaps some pro life reading would fill the bill :

Abortion - Pro Life - The Bible's Teaching Against Abortion

I noticed you didn't cite passage.

Perhaps he noticed that you asked a dumbshit, deliberately obtuse strawman question that didn't deserve to be answered as though it was meaningful. That's right up there with, "The Bible doesn't specifically say it's okay to fly in helicopters, so I guess they must be sinful" (yes, I've actually heard a leftist make that argument in a sad little attempt to be clever).

 

[ScienceRocks]

The conservatives won't be happy until the pope is the president!

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's curious really, how a small fraction of our population can dictate the direction of the the greater part. But then again, the pea sized brains of sauropods managed to drive those massive beasts, so anything is possible I suppose.

Though, we were warned of this type of behavior in the Federalist papers, namely in Federalist #10 by James Madison.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one can force beliefs on employees because no one is obligated to become the employee of someone else.

There is a transitive property in math that says if A = B and B = C, then A = C. This property can loosely be observed in the real world. If A leads to B and B leads to C, then A leads to C. Some how you wingers cannot handle this simple idea. YOU lack the ability to see from A to C. All that you do see is A, and your vision ends there.
Avatar, you are a perfect example of this lack of vision. Your suggestion that if an employee doesn't like an employer trying to ram their religious beliefs down their throat they should quit is a perfect example of only seeing A. What if no other jobs are available, should they still quit and put themselves on the street or on welfare? What if others are dependent on the employee, should the employee quit knowing the hardship it will bring on others? It is all very well to stand in the pulpit and tell others that if they don't like something they should just quit but it just shows you have a poor grasp of the situation. The bottom line is this, no employer has a right to force their religious beliefs on their employees. Giving them that right then gives them the right to force any of their beliefs on their employees and that moves those people from being employees to being slaves forced to do the bidding of their masters. Giving employers the right to turn their employees into slaves based on the employer's beliefs is an example of going from A leading to C. You just see A.

Your logic derailed at "ram their religious beliefs down their throats". Demonstrate where this is the case, or make your argument without it, because "hyperbole = logic" is not an equation that computes. In fact, if you have to use hyperbole to try to convince people, that's a warning sign that you have no real argument to make.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not only did they fail miserably, they made the chain stronger than it has ever been.

The Chick-fil-a CEO disagrees with you. He says he regrets taking a public anti-gay position.

Chick fil A CEO Regrets Same-Sex Marriage Debacle - TIME

Dang. Looks like those durn liberals won _again_.

Funny how that doesn't actually say he thinks he was wrong, just that he wants people to know that, despite his personal religious beliefs, the company doesn't discriminate against employees or customers.

Yet you still hate him.

Sounded to me like he was saying he learned his lesson about not exercising his right to free speech, because people are assholes . . . which is a sad lesson for anyone to have to learn in an ostensibly free country.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one can force beliefs on employees because no one is obligated to become the employee of someone else.

There is a transitive property in math that says if A = B and B = C, then A = C. This property can loosely be observed in the real world. If A leads to B and B leads to C, then A leads to C. Some how you wingers cannot handle this simple idea. YOU lack the ability to see from A to C. All that you do see is A, and your vision ends there.
Avatar, you are a perfect example of this lack of vision. Your suggestion that if an employee doesn't like an employer trying to ram their religious beliefs down their throat they should quit is a perfect example of only seeing A. What if no other jobs are available, should they still quit and put themselves on the street or on welfare? What if others are dependent on the employee, should the employee quit knowing the hardship it will bring on others? It is all very well to stand in the pulpit and tell others that if they don't like something they should just quit but it just shows you have a poor grasp of the situation. The bottom line is this, no employer has a right to force their religious beliefs on their employees. Giving them that right then gives them the right to force any of their beliefs on their employees and that moves those people from being employees to being slaves forced to do the bidding of their masters. Giving employers the right to turn their employees into slaves based on the employer's beliefs is an example of going from A leading to C. You just see A.

If no other jobs were available I would ask myself why, and look around. I would then discover that (A) Obamacare leads to (B) higher expenses for employes leads to (C) no jobs and conclude that Obamacare is the reason I don't have a job.

I hate to break it to leftists, but my life experience has been "there are no jobs" either means a) one is unqualified for nearly everything and therefore barely employable, or b) one is too lazy to look or too arrogant to do the jobs available.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Asswipe....hating people based on the color of their skin and holding them as slaves, is not justified by the Bible.

Of course, a piece of shit like you is all about distraction.

20 years from now when morality is even worse, I guess you will force employers to pay for their workers to get laid by a prostitute.

For generation upon generation, discrimination was justified on biblical grounds --

Perhaps some reading would fill the bill ...

Title: Defence Of Southern Slavery. Against The Attacks of
Henry Clay And Alex'r. Campbell,
In Which Much Of The False Philanthropy And Mawkish Sentimentalism Of

The Abolitionists Is Met And Refuted. In Which

It Is Moreover Shown That The Association Of The White

And Black Races In The Relation Of Master And Slave

Is The Appointed Order Of God, As Set Forth In

The Bible, And Constitutes The Best Social

Condition Of Both Races, And The Only

True Principle Of Republicanism.

By A Southern Clergyman.

Well, it IS therapeutic.

Seriously, I've known of oncologists (that's "cancer doctors" to you illiterate leftists in the audience) who refer prostate cancer patients who are in remission to high-end prostitutes to determine if their junk still works after the chemo and radiation therapies. I guess the lefties think that should be covered by insurance, too.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My point was -- people have used the bible to justify discrimination for a very, very long time. Some refuse to accept that was the case,and I really don't understand why.

Well, you leftists try to use the Constitution to justify YOUR bullshit, but that doesn't mean that's what the Constitution actually says.

Bottom line: what a document actually means and stands for is not necessarily defined by the lowlife scumbags who try to twist it to their purposes.