The Upside of the Theocratic Hobby Lobby Ruling.

[daveman]

So, any guesses as to when Hobby Lobby pulls a Chick-fil-A and caves hard?

Sucks for the poor righties. Nobody pays attention to their boycotts, but boycotts from the left get results. Shows where the numbers are, at least the numbers of people with money to spend.

Yes, the CFA boycott certainly got results.

Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar In 2012 Despite Bad PR

In the latest sign that all press is good press, Leon Stafford of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Chick-fil-A's sales soared 12 percent, to $4.6 billion, in 2012. The good fortune follows several years of impressive expansion and strong sales, which have pushed the privately-held company's valuation north of $4.5 billion, making billionaires out of its founders.

Chick-fil-A caught a great deal of flak throughout the year after its president Dan Cathy came out against gay marriage and in support of the "biblical definition of the family unit." Gay rights activists staged protests at locations around the country, and some even called for a boycott of the brand.​

 

[Sallow]

1. How so? It only applies to "closely held companies".
2. It only expanded the who can get an exemption that already existed. It didn't create a new exemption.

It bodes well for the Freedom of Religion of this Country.

Again, it affects alot of employees. And that exemption applied to actual religious organizations, not for profits.

Freedom of Religion was meant for people. Not corporations.

And freedom of religion stops when it takes someone else's rights away.

Since no one, including you or anyone on the left side of the Supreme Court showed where anyone rights have been taken away, why do you keep saying that?

Keep saying what?

That people's rights are being taken away?

Because they are.

The Supreme Court just ascribed religious "liberty" to corporate entities.

Most religious folks use that liberty as a means to deny or discriminate against those that do not belong to their religion. And that's all religions.

That has effectively taken away government protections from about half of employed Americans.

This could wind up rolling back civil rights.

 

[Sallow]

It's terrible---we're getting as bad as Israel.

Naw.

More like Saudi Arabia.

Israelis value education.

Do you consider you posting lies and hyperemotionalism to be "education"?

Ah the Insect King is back.

Bzz bzz bzz..no emotion here.

 

[Contumacious]

It makes it very plain what the Theocratic GOP/Tea Party have in store for this country. A country ruled by the Christian Bible.

And that may well wake up folks in the mid terms.

Decisions , decisions .......hummmmmmmmmmmmmm.....................................................

do we want to be ruled by a Theocracy or by secular Communism?

NONE OF THE ABOVE

.

 

[hjmick]

I think the upside is that maybe a few more women can pay, for themselves, the 9 bucks a months it takes to buy birth control pills...instead of their employers or the taxpayers footing the bill.

It ought to be between the woman and the men she consorts with. If she want to shack up with 9 different men a month, let each one leave a dollar on the table by the bed.

Except that the insurance provided by Hobby Lobby still covers sixteen other forms of birth control... As they should.

What they do not have to cover is the morning after type meds...

 

[OriginalShroom]

Again, it affects alot of employees. And that exemption applied to actual religious organizations, not for profits.

Freedom of Religion was meant for people. Not corporations.

And freedom of religion stops when it takes someone else's rights away.

Since no one, including you or anyone on the left side of the Supreme Court showed where anyone rights have been taken away, why do you keep saying that?

Keep saying what?

That people's rights are being taken away?

Because they are.

The Supreme Court just ascribed religious "liberty" to corporate entities.

Most religious folks use that liberty as a means to deny or discriminate against those that do not belong to their religion. And that's all religions.

That has effectively taken away government protections from about half of employed Americans.

This could wind up rolling back civil rights.

You keep saying that women lost their rights.. Just how did they do that?

How are women prevented from getting the services or drugs that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for? Aren't they free to pay for those services or drugs themselves?

 

[Sallow]

Since no one, including you or anyone on the left side of the Supreme Court showed where anyone rights have been taken away, why do you keep saying that?

Keep saying what?

That people's rights are being taken away?

Because they are.

The Supreme Court just ascribed religious "liberty" to corporate entities.

Most religious folks use that liberty as a means to deny or discriminate against those that do not belong to their religion. And that's all religions.

That has effectively taken away government protections from about half of employed Americans.

This could wind up rolling back civil rights.

You keep saying that women lost their rights.. Just how did they do that?

How are women prevented from getting the services or drugs that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for? Aren't they free to pay for those services or drugs themselves?

The LAW said that women had a right to health care.

The SUPREME COURT said that CORPORATIONS have a RIGHT to restrict WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE based on their own RELIGIOUS opinions.

By the way? It doesn't stop there according to this ruling..because it is NOT narrow.

There is NO PROTECTION against these corporations extending this into other things they do not want to do, based on their religion. That, effectively, rolls back civil rights.

Do you not get that?

 

[daveman]

Naw.

More like Saudi Arabia.

Israelis value education.

Do you consider you posting lies and hyperemotionalism to be "education"?

Ah the Insect King is back.

Bzz bzz bzz..no emotion here.

Horseshit.

 

[daveman]

I think the upside is that maybe a few more women can pay, for themselves, the 9 bucks a months it takes to buy birth control pills...instead of their employers or the taxpayers footing the bill.

It ought to be between the woman and the men she consorts with. If she want to shack up with 9 different men a month, let each one leave a dollar on the table by the bed.

Except that the insurance provided by Hobby Lobby still covers sixteen other forms of birth control... As they should.

What they do not have to cover is the morning after type meds...

Hey! No fair posting facts! It makes the progressives sad!

 

[daveman]

Keep saying what?

That people's rights are being taken away?

Because they are.

The Supreme Court just ascribed religious "liberty" to corporate entities.

Most religious folks use that liberty as a means to deny or discriminate against those that do not belong to their religion. And that's all religions.

That has effectively taken away government protections from about half of employed Americans.

This could wind up rolling back civil rights.

You keep saying that women lost their rights.. Just how did they do that?

How are women prevented from getting the services or drugs that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for? Aren't they free to pay for those services or drugs themselves?

The LAW said that women had a right to health care.

The SUPREME COURT said that CORPORATIONS have a RIGHT to restrict WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE based on their own RELIGIOUS opinions.

By the way? It doesn't stop there according to this ruling..because it is NOT narrow.

There is NO PROTECTION against these corporations extending this into other things they do not want to do, based on their religion. That, effectively, rolls back civil rights.

Do you not get that?

Nope, no emotion there, right, Chicken Little?

 

[Sallow]

Do you consider you posting lies and hyperemotionalism to be "education"?

Ah the Insect King is back.

Bzz bzz bzz..no emotion here.

Horseshit.

Oh look Dave..

A song for and about you!

 

[OriginalShroom]

Keep saying what?

That people's rights are being taken away?

Because they are.

The Supreme Court just ascribed religious "liberty" to corporate entities.

Most religious folks use that liberty as a means to deny or discriminate against those that do not belong to their religion. And that's all religions.

That has effectively taken away government protections from about half of employed Americans.

This could wind up rolling back civil rights.

You keep saying that women lost their rights.. Just how did they do that?

How are women prevented from getting the services or drugs that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for? Aren't they free to pay for those services or drugs themselves?

The LAW said that women had a right to health care.

The SUPREME COURT said that CORPORATIONS have a RIGHT to restrict WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE based on their own RELIGIOUS opinions.

By the way? It doesn't stop there according to this ruling..because it is NOT narrow.

There is NO PROTECTION against these corporations extending this into other things they do not want to do, based on their religion. That, effectively, rolls back civil rights.

Do you not get that?

You are misstating what the SCotUS ruled.

They ruled that you can not force a certain type of company to pay for certain things if the owners of the company have a religious objection.

Perhaps you should rely more on what was actually ruled instead of what MSNBC is saying.

The women still have the right to go get those drugs and treatments if they want. They simply can not demand that their employers pay for them.

Then, again, the employees, women in this case, have the right to find other employment with a company that offers the benefits they want. OR pay for those items themselves.

 

[Sallow]

You keep saying that women lost their rights.. Just how did they do that?

How are women prevented from getting the services or drugs that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for? Aren't they free to pay for those services or drugs themselves?

The LAW said that women had a right to health care.

The SUPREME COURT said that CORPORATIONS have a RIGHT to restrict WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE based on their own RELIGIOUS opinions.

By the way? It doesn't stop there according to this ruling..because it is NOT narrow.

There is NO PROTECTION against these corporations extending this into other things they do not want to do, based on their religion. That, effectively, rolls back civil rights.

Do you not get that?

Nope, no emotion there, right, Chicken Little?

I am full of emotion, Dave.

Big Bad wolves are pretty emotional.

Excuse me a sec..little red robin hood..

Well you know the rest.



Well maybe you don't.

No emotions.

 

[daveman]

Ah the Insect King is back.

Bzz bzz bzz..no emotion here.

Horseshit.

Oh look Dave..

A song for and about you!

So, you can't rationally dig yourself out of the hole you've dug, so you're going with retardery.

Pretty much all I expected from you. After all, you're a fucking dumbass.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, any guesses as to when Hobby Lobby pulls a Chick-fil-A and caves hard?

Sucks for the poor righties. Nobody pays attention to their boycotts, but boycotts from the left get results. Shows where the numbers are, at least the numbers of people with money to spend.

Probably just like Chick-Fil-A, which will be never.

{Cathy sparked protests and couter-protests in 2010 after saying he was “guilty as charged” when it came to being against gay marriage. Now he’s ready to play down any focus on those issues.

“All of us become more wise as time goes by,” he told USA Today. “We sincerely care about all people. … I’m going to leave it to politicians and others to discuss social issues.”}

Chick-fil-A Looks and Dan Cathy to Lower The Heat on Gay Marriage - TIME

He's right that business isn't the venue to debate social issues, but nowhere did he alter his stance.

Chick-Fil-A had record profits in 2012, so in that way, I expect Hobby Lobby to follow in their footsteps.

Basic fact, the 1st Amendment won - you and your shameful party lost.

 

[daveman]

The LAW said that women had a right to health care.

The SUPREME COURT said that CORPORATIONS have a RIGHT to restrict WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE based on their own RELIGIOUS opinions.

By the way? It doesn't stop there according to this ruling..because it is NOT narrow.

There is NO PROTECTION against these corporations extending this into other things they do not want to do, based on their religion. That, effectively, rolls back civil rights.

Do you not get that?

Nope, no emotion there, right, Chicken Little?

I am full of emotion, Dave.

Big Bad wolves are pretty emotional.

Excuse me a sec..little red robin hood..

Well you know the rest.



Well maybe you don't.

No emotions.

Big bad wolf?



The reality is far less intimidating:

 

[Sallow]

You keep saying that women lost their rights.. Just how did they do that?

How are women prevented from getting the services or drugs that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for? Aren't they free to pay for those services or drugs themselves?

The LAW said that women had a right to health care.

The SUPREME COURT said that CORPORATIONS have a RIGHT to restrict WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE based on their own RELIGIOUS opinions.

By the way? It doesn't stop there according to this ruling..because it is NOT narrow.

There is NO PROTECTION against these corporations extending this into other things they do not want to do, based on their religion. That, effectively, rolls back civil rights.

Do you not get that?

You are misstating what the SCotUS ruled.

They ruled that you can not force a certain type of company to pay for certain things if the owners of the company have a religious objection.

Perhaps you should rely more on what was actually ruled instead of what MSNBC is saying.

The women still have the right to go get those drugs and treatments if they want. They simply can not demand that their employers pay for them.

I'm not "misstating" anything.

There are no provisions to protect an employee from an employer denying other types of health care.

Actually there are no provisions protecting an employee from anything in concerns to the religious objections of an employer.

This was a very bad and very short sighted decision.

And will lead to a whole plethora of legal cases that are "perhaps" unintended consequences.

 

[Sallow]

Nope, no emotion there, right, Chicken Little?

I am full of emotion, Dave.

Big Bad wolves are pretty emotional.

Excuse me a sec..little red robin hood..

Well you know the rest.



Well maybe you don't.

No emotions.

Big bad wolf?



The reality is far less intimidating:

Cute dog.

Hope it got it's heartworm meds..Davey.

You could infect him.

 

[Ibentoken]

It makes it very plain what the Theocratic GOP/Tea Party have in store for this country. A country ruled by the Christian Bible.

And that may well wake up folks in the mid terms.

Yes, yes, you nailed it. The Tea Party planted chips in the brains of five justices. It's a vast right wing conspiracy. You're gonna be forced to attend a Pentecostal church and speak in tongues. Then your children will be taken from you and forced to attend Christian school and read only the bible and learn how to shoot. Yup.

 

[Ibentoken]

The LAW said that women had a right to health care.

The SUPREME COURT said that CORPORATIONS have a RIGHT to restrict WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE based on their own RELIGIOUS opinions.

By the way? It doesn't stop there according to this ruling..because it is NOT narrow.

There is NO PROTECTION against these corporations extending this into other things they do not want to do, based on their religion. That, effectively, rolls back civil rights.

Do you not get that?

You are misstating what the SCotUS ruled.

They ruled that you can not force a certain type of company to pay for certain things if the owners of the company have a religious objection.

Perhaps you should rely more on what was actually ruled instead of what MSNBC is saying.

The women still have the right to go get those drugs and treatments if they want. They simply can not demand that their employers pay for them.

I'm not "misstating" anything.

There are no provisions to protect an employee from an employer denying other types of health care.

Actually there are no provisions protecting an employee from anything in concerns to the religious objections of an employer.

This was a very bad and very short sighted decision.

And will lead to a whole plethora of legal cases that are "perhaps" unintended consequences.

Did Hobby Lobby stop offering Insurance with BC? Nope. Are you going to be okay now?