Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The Supreme Court will consider this week whether to hear four more cases challenging Obamacare, because that chicken was just asking for it the way it was dressed in those feathers and all   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 170
    More: Asinine, U.S. Supreme Court, obamacare, Hobby Lobby, for-profit corporations, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Liberty University, Mennonite  
•       •       •

1210 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Nov 2013 at 12:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-25 12:17:36 PM  
Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!
 
2013-11-25 12:18:40 PM  
You gotta fight...
For your right...
To deny coverage!
 
2013-11-25 12:21:45 PM  
Wow. There is some weapons grade derp in the comments section for that article

The Supreme Court (now better known as Obama's SS)

Yes, that's how we all know them these days. I mean, I never hear them referred to as anything except
Obama's SS!
 
2013-11-25 12:25:41 PM  
The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows a for-profit corporation to deny employees health insurance coverage related to contraceptives, because of the religious objections of the company's owners.

It's great to define the terms of the debate.  How different it sounds when written:

The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is whether the government violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 when it compels a corporation to subsidize contraceptive purchases for its employees over the religious objections of the company's owners.
 
2013-11-25 12:27:55 PM  

sonnyboy11: Wow. There is some weapons grade derp in the comments section for that article

The Supreme Court (now better known as Obama's SS)

Yes, that's how we all know them these days. I mean, I never hear them referred to as anything except
Obama's SS!


Weapons grade indeed.  Holy fark.
 
2013-11-25 12:33:09 PM  
i.huffpost.com

Asking for it from what can see
 
2013-11-25 12:33:45 PM  

Garet Garrett: It's great to define the terms of the debate. How different it sounds when written:


And it's even greater to pretend that all 'contraception medicines' are used for 'contraception' when in fact they aren't.   But you knew that, eh troll?
 
2013-11-25 12:36:38 PM  
All it takes is one.
SCOTUS is like a nuke these days...
 
2013-11-25 12:41:02 PM  

AngryDragon: sonnyboy11: Wow. There is some weapons grade derp in the comments section for that article

The Supreme Court (now better known as Obama's SS)

Yes, that's how we all know them these days. I mean, I never hear them referred to as anything except
Obama's SS!

Weapons grade indeed.  Holy fark.


I hadn't looked at the comments until I saw these posts. Then, like the glutton for punishment that I am I went and clicked on it.

/why did I do that?
//my lunchtime coffee hadn't even kicked in yet!
 
2013-11-25 12:46:23 PM  
The Obamacare Chicken:  The only breed of chicken that, whenever a republican walks into a room that it occupies and unzips his pants, immediately puts on an MMA boxing glove and taps out with a fury that rivals a performing Savion Glover with Parkinson's disease hooked up to a Die-Hard car battery.
 
2013-11-25 12:52:25 PM  

bgddy24601: AngryDragon: sonnyboy11: Wow. There is some weapons grade derp in the comments section for that article

The Supreme Court (now better known as Obama's SS)

Yes, that's how we all know them these days. I mean, I never hear them referred to as anything except
Obama's SS!

Weapons grade indeed.  Holy fark.

I hadn't looked at the comments until I saw these posts. Then, like the glutton for punishment that I am I went and clicked on it.

/why did I do that?
//my lunchtime coffee hadn't even kicked in yet!


Same here. I had to close the tab when I got to the comment claiming that Muslims are exempt from Obamacare.
 
2013-11-25 01:00:12 PM  

Garet Garrett: The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows a for-profit corporation to deny employees health insurance coverage related to contraceptives, because of the religious objections of the company's owners.

It's great to define the terms of the debate.  How different it sounds when written:

The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is whether the government violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 when it compels a corporation to subsidize contraceptive purchases for its employees over the religious objections of the company's owners.


Seeing as how the Reinquist court essentially gutted the RFRA in   City of Boerne v. Flores and basically re-asserted  the holding in Employment Division v. Smith (which RFRA was specifically passed to overturn actually)  which was:
""It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended. '

If we assume that therefore   Smith is basically good law, this case is a non-issue.  Provision of birth control is part of a genrerally applicable law to provide comprehensive health care, and it's infrignement on on religious beleifs is merely incidental.   Furthermore, out law does not yet accept, as in the Hobby Lobby case that a CORPORATION, in and of itself, is capable of having a "sincerely held religious belief" to offend.

  Given how cut and dried the case law would seem to be it worries me that 4 separate cases are  being considered for cert. It hints to me that somebody wants another crack at Boerne
 
2013-11-25 01:00:56 PM  

sonnyboy11: Wow. There is some weapons grade derp in the comments section for that article "The Supreme Court (now better known as Obama's SS)"  Yes, that's how we all know them these days. I mean, I never hear them referred to as anything except Obama's SS!


Low information voters have had the notion of the SCOTUS being this villainous hive of unrestrained liberalism drilled into their minds for so long, they've failed to recognize its swing to the right.  If anything, the Koch brothers have benefited more than Obama.  But LIVs just refuse to see it.

It doesn't help with when you have instances like Robert's vote during the last ACA case.  The right saw it as treason, but more reasoned minds note that his decision may actually contain federalism in the long term.  If it isn't clear-cut, it must be liberalism.


Garet Garrett: The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is whether the government violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 when it compels a corporation to subsidize contraceptive purchases for its employees over the religious objections of the company's owners.


And given that Citizens United clearly defined that corporations are persons in the eye of the law, and that they should have the same rights to free speech as living individuals, I'd put my money on Hobby Lobby winning its case.

Which of course, it should not.  Corporations should not be people.  The United States needs to take a page from the Canadian Charter and introduce an amendment that limits personhood to real people.  Of course, the trick will be to ensure that pro-life groups don't try to hijack it and give personhood status to zygotes.
 
2013-11-25 01:04:43 PM  

Magorn: Furthermore, out law does not yet accept, as in the Hobby Lobby case that a CORPORATION, in and of itself, is capable of having a "sincerely held religious belief" to offend.


And therein lies the heart of the argument they will make.  That the corporation is a legally created 'person' under the direct command and control of a majority of the stakeholders, therefore assuming all the freedoms and rights of a 'real' person, and is by extension a legally created 'person' that does exactly what it's owners say...wait...if a corporation is a 'person'...it can't be 'owned'....can it?
 
2013-11-25 01:05:43 PM  

Dinjiin: And given that Citizens United clearly defined that corporations are persons in the eye of the law, and that they should have the same rights to free speech as living individuals, I'd put my money on Hobby Lobby winning its case.

Which of course, it should not. Corporations should not be people.


Agree. Which makes it doubly a shame that this administration chose to create this fight when they used executive power to "tweak" the regulations to not only exclude religious organizations that HAD been exempted (religious organizations that were not 'places of worship') but to make contraception coverage mandatory in the first place.
 
2013-11-25 01:07:00 PM  

Leader O'Cola: Garet Garrett: It's great to define the terms of the debate. How different it sounds when written:

And it's even greater to pretend that all 'contraception medicines' are used for 'contraception' when in fact they aren't.   But you knew that, eh troll?


"Contraception medicines" aren't used for contraception?  No wonder we have 300,000 abortions a year.

But you're just trolling, yourself.  You know that Hobby Lobby hasn't objected to 16 of the mandated contraception-related benefits, right?  Only to Plan B, ella, and 2 forms of IUD?  Care to provide some statistics on the off-label use for those?  Hint:  women aren't dying in the streets for lack of access to the week-after pill.
 
2013-11-25 01:09:14 PM  

Dinjiin: The United States needs to take a page from the Canadian Charter and introduce an amendment that limits personhood to real people.


Yeah, I'm sick of those bastard "editors" at the NY Times hiding behind the corporate shield.  Time to enter the 21st Century and stop pretending they enjoy "rights."
 
2013-11-25 01:09:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Dinjiin: And given that Citizens United clearly defined that corporations are persons in the eye of the law, and that they should have the same rights to free speech as living individuals, I'd put my money on Hobby Lobby winning its case.

Which of course, it should not. Corporations should not be people.

Agree. Which makes it doubly a shame that this administration chose to create this fight when they used executive power to "tweak" the regulations to not only exclude religious organizations that HAD been exempted (religious organizations that were not 'places of worship') but to make contraception coverage mandatory in the first place.


I was unaware that Obama forced people to take birth control pills.  That is wrong.
 
2013-11-25 01:11:59 PM  

mrshowrules: BojanglesPaladin: Dinjiin: And given that Citizens United clearly defined that corporations are persons in the eye of the law, and that they should have the same rights to free speech as living individuals, I'd put my money on Hobby Lobby winning its case.

Which of course, it should not. Corporations should not be people.

Agree. Which makes it doubly a shame that this administration chose to create this fight when they used executive power to "tweak" the regulations to not only exclude religious organizations that HAD been exempted (religious organizations that were not 'places of worship') but to make contraception coverage mandatory in the first place.

I was unaware that Obama forced people to take birth control pills.  That is wrong.


Condoms too.  I wear one all day just to be in compliance.
 
2013-11-25 01:13:04 PM  
Insurance pools are like tax dollars. You can say what your money does and doesn't go towards
 
2013-11-25 01:14:33 PM  

Garet Garrett: The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is whether the government violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 when it compels a corporation to subsidize contraceptive purchases for its employees over the religious objections of the company's owners.


i.imgur.com

A "For-Profit" Corporation. Non-Profit corporations already have exemptions. But I suspect you knew that already too.
 
2013-11-25 01:14:34 PM  

Garet Garrett: The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows a for-profit corporation to deny employees health insurance coverage related to contraceptives, because of the religious objections of the company's owners.

It's great to define the terms of the debate.  How different it sounds when written:

The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is whether the government violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 when it compels a corporation to subsidize contraceptive purchases for its employees over the religious objections of the company's owners.


The First Amendment and The RFRA apply to persons.  The concept of corporate personhood is long established for the purposes of contract law, and the Citizens United ruling recognized that certain speech rights which apply to natural persons may also apply to corporate persons, but the notion that a corporation can have a religion is patently ridiculous.  How does a corporation worship, or attend services, or pray?  Can corporations go to heaven?  The Green family which owns Hobby Lobby is certainly entitled to their beliefs, but they created an entity separate from themselves (the corporation) and cannot conjoin their personal beliefs to their corporation.
 
2013-11-25 01:14:48 PM  

Magorn: Garet Garrett: The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows a for-profit corporation to deny employees health insurance coverage related to contraceptives, because of the religious objections of the company's owners.

It's great to define the terms of the debate.  How different it sounds when written:

The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is whether the government violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 when it compels a corporation to subsidize contraceptive purchases for its employees over the religious objections of the company's owners.

Seeing as how the Reinquist court essentially gutted the RFRA in   City of Boerne v. Flores and basically re-asserted  the holding in Employment Division v. Smith (which RFRA was specifically passed to overturn actually)  which was:
""It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended. '

If we assume that therefore   Smith is basically good law, this case is a non-issue.  Provision of birth control is part of a genrerally applicable law to provide comprehensive health care, and it's infrignement on on religious beleifs is merely incidental.   Furthermore, out law does not yet accept, as in the Hobby Lobby case that a CORPORATION, in and of itself, is capable of having a "sincerely held religious belief" to offend.

  Given how cut and dried the case law would seem to be it worries me that 4 separate cases are  being considered for cert. It hints to me that somebody wants another crack at Boerne


hey there now you durty libby llibbeist lib, that hobby lobby sincerely beleves in baby jeebus
 
2013-11-25 01:14:49 PM  
Err "can't" stupid phone
 
2013-11-25 01:15:33 PM  

mrshowrules: I was unaware that Obama forced people to take birth control pills.


I do not know what his position is on his daughters, or his wife, but to the best of my knowledge he does not. Since no one suggested that he did, I don't know where you got that idea from.

You may be interested to know that the topic of discussion is the ACA requiring that ALL organizations must provide contraception as part of their insurance, even when those organizations have moral or religious objections to doing so. Previously, such organizations could simply opt out, but the administration opted to remove this exemption last year or so.
 
2013-11-25 01:17:30 PM  

Stile4aly: Garet Garrett: The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows a for-profit corporation to deny employees health insurance coverage related to contraceptives, because of the religious objections of the company's owners.

It's great to define the terms of the debate.  How different it sounds when written:

The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is whether the government violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 when it compels a corporation to subsidize contraceptive purchases for its employees over the religious objections of the company's owners.

The First Amendment and The RFRA apply to persons.  The concept of corporate personhood is long established for the purposes of contract law, and the Citizens United ruling recognized that certain speech rights which apply to natural persons may also apply to corporate persons, but the notion that a corporation can have a religion is patently ridiculous.  How does a corporation worship, or attend services, or pray?  Can corporations go to heaven?  The Green family which owns Hobby Lobby is certainly entitled to their beliefs, but they created an entity separate from themselves (the corporation) and cannot conjoin their personal beliefs to their corporation.


Well stated.  A 'corporation' is a legally created 'person' and any discussion about 'rights' of corporations must be wholly separate from the 'rights' of real, tangible persons.
 
2013-11-25 01:19:48 PM  

Stile4aly: The First Amendment and The RFRA apply to persons. The concept of corporate personhood is long established for the purposes of contract law, and the Citizens United ruling recognized that certain speech rights which apply to natural persons may also apply to corporate persons, but the notion that a corporation can have a religion is patently ridiculous. How does a corporation worship, or attend services, or pray? Can corporations go to heaven? The Green family which owns Hobby Lobby is certainly entitled to their beliefs, but they created an entity separate from themselves (the corporation) and cannot conjoin their personal beliefs to their corporation.


Ok, I'll bite:  explain why non-profits are treated differently.  Or even religious organizations.  Those aren't "people."  Crazy fact:  The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (i.e., "Mormons") was incorporated in 1851.  So it has no 1st A protections?
 
2013-11-25 01:22:56 PM  

Garet Garrett: The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows a for-profit corporation to deny employees health insurance coverage related to contraceptives, because of the religious objections of the company's owners.

It's great to define the terms of the debate.  How different it sounds when written:

The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is whether the government violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 when it compels a corporation to subsidize contraceptive purchases for its employees over the religious objections of the company's owners.


So if it fits with the company owner's beliefs, a company should be allowed insurance that only covers herbal and homeopathic 'remedies'?
 
2013-11-25 01:23:16 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: mrshowrules: I was unaware that Obama forced people to take birth control pills.

I do not know what his position is on his daughters, or his wife, but to the best of my knowledge he does not. Since no one suggested that he did, I don't know where you got that idea from.

You may be interested to know that the topic of discussion is the ACA requiring that ALL organizations must provide contraception as part of their insurance, even when those organizations have moral or religious objections to doing so. Previously, such organizations could simply opt out, but the administration opted to remove this exemption last year or so.


State/Federal governments require Christian/Catholic organizations to pay employees minimum wage.  If the employees buy birth control with that money, why is the Government forcing an organized religion to fund birth control?
 
2013-11-25 01:23:56 PM  

A Cave Geek: A 'corporation' is a legally created 'person' and any discussion about 'rights' of corporations must be wholly separate from the 'rights' of real, tangible persons.


Why do liberals hate it when people work cooperatively, except when it's the government?

Seriously, have a look at my response to Stile4aly.  You're relying on a distinction that's either meaningless (a corporation is, essentially, its shareholders) or, potentially, insidious (a means to kneecap liberty that would be enjoyed by people individually simply because they've entered into a collective group).  We pride ourselves on freedom.  Why work so hard to insist that our freedoms have a hard limit like that?
 
2013-11-25 01:25:35 PM  

Garet Garrett: You know that Hobby Lobby hasn't objected to 16 of the mandated contraception-related benefits, right? Only to Plan B, ella, and 2 forms of IUD?


Plan B prevents ovulation, ella and IUDs prevent implantation.  Pregancy doesn't begin until a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus, therefore none of these treatments are abortifacients.  Even the ideas behind the lawsuit are unsupported by science.
 
2013-11-25 01:26:53 PM  

Garet Garrett: The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows a for-profit corporation to deny employees health insurance coverage related to contraceptives, because of the religious objections of the company's owners.

It's great to define the terms of the debate.  How different it sounds when written:

The central issue in the Hobby Lobby case is whether the government violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 when it compels a corporation to subsidize contraceptive purchases for its employees over the religious objections of the company's owners.


1) Birth control pills are prescribed to treat medical conditions, too. When employers were able to select plans that specifically excluded contraceptive coverage, these women often had trouble getting this needed medical treatment paid for.

2) It is far cheaper to cover birth control than to cover even an uncomplicated birth. These employers are fighting for the right to pay more to restrict their employees' options.
 
2013-11-25 01:28:14 PM  

LordJiro: So if it fits with the company owner's beliefs, a company should be allowed insurance that only covers herbal and homeopathic 'remedies'?


Well if you're asking me, a company should be free not to provide any insurance at all, if it doesn't want to, or insurance that only covers emergency hot vinyasa yoga sessions in the event of cuticle fragility.  Not my business, at all.

But if you're asking how Hobby Lobby should be decided, that's a different matter.
 
2013-11-25 01:30:54 PM  

Skirl Hutsenreiter: Birth control pills are prescribed to treat medical conditions, too.


I covered that earlier.  They're not objecting to birth control pills (in the common parlance).

Skirl Hutsenreiter: It is far cheaper to cover birth control than to cover even an uncomplicated birth.


I don't think this is about "cheaper."  But again, they're not objecting to contraception, only to what (they believe) is abortion, or likely to cause abortion.

It might help if people read more than Fark headlines on this stuff.
 
2013-11-25 01:31:09 PM  

Garet Garrett: LordJiro: So if it fits with the company owner's beliefs, a company should be allowed insurance that only covers herbal and homeopathic 'remedies'?

Well if you're asking me, a company should be free not to provide any insurance at all, if it doesn't want to, or insurance that only covers emergency hot vinyasa yoga sessions in the event of cuticle fragility.  Not my business, at all.

But if you're asking how Hobby Lobby should be decided, that's a different matter.


Companies are free to not provide insurance. It is hard to hire when you don't provide insurance but it is done all over the country.
 
2013-11-25 01:31:33 PM  

mrshowrules: State/Federal governments require Christian/Catholic organizations to pay employees minimum wage. If the employees buy birth control with that money, why is the Government forcing an organized religion to fund birth control?


Surely you know how nonsenscical that argument is? It's not. The employees are purchasing contraception with their own money. No one is being forced anything.

So we are agreed. Since it's the same thing, let's just make people buy their own contraception if they want it. Let's not have the Federal government force religious organizations to provide contraception to employees against the stated principles of the organization.
 
2013-11-25 01:32:44 PM  

monoski: Companies are free to not provide insurance. It is hard to hire when you don't provide insurance but it is done all over the country.


Not anymore. At least not above 50 employees, and not after next year.
 
2013-11-25 01:34:36 PM  

Garet Garrett: Stile4aly: The First Amendment and The RFRA apply to persons. The concept of corporate personhood is long established for the purposes of contract law, and the Citizens United ruling recognized that certain speech rights which apply to natural persons may also apply to corporate persons, but the notion that a corporation can have a religion is patently ridiculous. How does a corporation worship, or attend services, or pray? Can corporations go to heaven? The Green family which owns Hobby Lobby is certainly entitled to their beliefs, but they created an entity separate from themselves (the corporation) and cannot conjoin their personal beliefs to their corporation.

Ok, I'll bite:  explain why non-profits are treated differently.  Or even religious organizations.  Those aren't "people."  Crazy fact:  The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (i.e., "Mormons") was incorporated in 1851.  So it has no 1st A protections?


Non profit religious corporations exist for the purpose of promulgating the religion or supporting its causes (as in the cases of Catholic hospitals or colleges).  Because they do not exist for the purpose of providing profits to its shareholders, the corporation they are granted additional latitude in the applicability of regulations.
 
2013-11-25 01:36:46 PM  

Stile4aly: Even the ideas behind the lawsuit are unsupported by science.


One might find it ironic that you use that standard for a free-exercise-of-religion case.

"I'm sorry, Father, but there's no scientific evidence of anyone having been resuscitated more than an hour after being clinically dead, so these beliefs that you hold, premised on a 'resurrection' some 3 days after the subject's death, are clearly unsupported by science."

If only the Founding Fathers had been smart enough to have the 1st Amendment only extend to "freedom of religion that Stile4aly finds credible."  Much easier.
 
2013-11-25 01:37:23 PM  

Stile4aly: Because they do not exist for the purpose of providing profits to its shareholders, the corporation they are granted additional latitude in the applicability of regulations.


I believe that you believe that, if that helps.
 
2013-11-25 01:38:15 PM  

Garet Garrett: You're relying on a distinction that's either meaningless (a corporation is, essentially, its shareholders) or, potentially, insidious (a means to kneecap liberty that would be enjoyed by people individually simply because they've entered into a collective group).  We pride ourselves on freedom.  Why work so hard to insist that our freedoms have a hard limit like that?


OK....where to even start with this one....?

A corporation is a legally created entity that represents the economic interests of a group of people.  Unless you're willing to ascribe all the freedoms and rights you enjoy as an American citizen to a corporation, then your argument is specious at best.

The distinction is NOT meaningless.  If corporations were granted the full freedoms of 'real' people, then in effect, owners of those corporations would be slave-owners at best, and at worst, would receive 'double-protection', first as real people, and second as owners of a legally-created entity.  Would corporations be allowed to vote in your fantasy-land?  If so, would the shareholders get to vote for President twice?  Once for the corporation, once as themselves?  Or should they have to rescind their personal right to vote in favor of the corporation?
 
2013-11-25 01:38:23 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: monoski: Companies are free to not provide insurance. It is hard to hire when you don't provide insurance but it is done all over the country.

Not anymore. At least not above 50 employees, and not after next year.


They are free to choose not to offer insurance, they simply have to pay a penalty.
 
2013-11-25 01:38:51 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: mrshowrules: State/Federal governments require Christian/Catholic organizations to pay employees minimum wage. If the employees buy birth control with that money, why is the Government forcing an organized religion to fund birth control?

Surely you know how nonsenscical that argument is? It's not. The employees are purchasing contraception with their own money. No one is being forced anything.

So we are agreed. Since it's the same thing, let's just make people buy their own contraception if they want it. Let's not have the Federal government force religious organizations to provide contraception to employees against the stated principles of the organization.


You realize that health insurance plans of these employees are part of an employee's pay and benefits.  They pay taxes on this?  Got it?

Their health care plan is already theirs.  The employee decides to get liquor, birth control or strippers.  Their choice.  Their sin.

Whether or not you buy a pill with the money the Church gave you as salary or through the insurance they got you as a benefit you paid taxes on, is irrelevant.  BTW these pills are not just for birth control.
 
2013-11-25 01:42:32 PM  

Garet Garrett: Stile4aly: Even the ideas behind the lawsuit are unsupported by science.

One might find it ironic that you use that standard for a free-exercise-of-religion case.

"I'm sorry, Father, but there's no scientific evidence of anyone having been resuscitated more than an hour after being clinically dead, so these beliefs that you hold, premised on a 'resurrection' some 3 days after the subject's death, are clearly unsupported by science."

If only the Founding Fathers had been smart enough to have the 1st Amendment only extend to "freedom of religion that Stile4aly finds credible."  Much easier.


Well, Hobby Lobby refuses to use barcodes in their stores because they think they contain the Mark of the Beast, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the fact that they don't understand how contraception works.
 
2013-11-25 01:43:36 PM  

mrshowrules: You realize that health insurance plans of these employees are part of an employee's pay and benefits. They pay taxes on this? Got it?


They pay taxes on their employer provided healthcare? And what difference does that make?

mrshowrules: Their health care plan is already theirs. The employee decides to get liquor, birth control or strippers. Their choice. Their sin.


I'm certain you understand the difference between an employee spending his own money on a hooker, and the Catholic Charity being required by law to pay for his hooker for him.

If you do not, then there's really not much more that can be said here.
 
2013-11-25 01:44:15 PM  

Stile4aly: Well, Hobby Lobby refuses to use barcodes in their stores because they think they contain the Mark of the Beast


Cite?

Also, Relevance?
 
2013-11-25 01:53:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: mrshowrules: You realize that health insurance plans of these employees are part of an employee's pay and benefits. They pay taxes on this? Got it?

They pay taxes on their employer provided healthcare? And what difference does that make?

Employees get paid two main ways and pay taxes on both. Cash which can be used to buy pills with and an insurance plan which can be used to buy pills with.

mrshowrules: Their health care plan is already theirs. The employee decides to get liquor, birth control or strippers. Their choice. Their sin.

I'm certain you understand the difference between an employee spending his own money on a hooker, and the Catholic Charity being required by law to pay for his hooker for him.

See above.  In both cases, it is their money/benefit.  They paid taxes on it.

If you do not, then there's really not much more that can be said here.


I agree.
 
2013-11-25 01:55:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Stile4aly: Well, Hobby Lobby refuses to use barcodes in their stores because they think they contain the Mark of the Beast

Cite?

Also, Relevance?


Crazy Christians think that barcodes are the Mark of the Beast.

Hobby Lobby doesn't have some statement in a FAQ somewhere claiming that barcodes are the Mark of the Beast, but there is no plausible explanation for why a large retailer would refuse to use the most basic of inventory control systems, and given the particular fundamentalist beliefs of the Green family it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Relevance?  They are claiming a violation of their religious freedom for being forced to purchase insurance which covers contraception under the mistaken belief that the contraceptives in question are abortifacients.  I'm simply suggesting this wouldn't be the first time they've made a decision based on a religious interpretation which stands on no logical ground.
 
2013-11-25 02:05:44 PM  

Stile4aly: Garet Garrett: You know that Hobby Lobby hasn't objected to 16 of the mandated contraception-related benefits, right? Only to Plan B, ella, and 2 forms of IUD?

Plan B prevents ovulation, ella and IUDs prevent implantation.  Pregnancy doesn't begin until a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus, therefore none of these treatments are abortifacients.  Even the ideas behind the lawsuit are unsupported by science.


If you argue that life begins at fertilization, then any device or medication that inhibits implantation can be seen as an abortion device.  I kinda agree with them.

Of course, even in the best of conditions, not all fertilized eggs actually implant.  Just talk to anyone who has gone through IVF and they'll probably remark that it took a few tries, even with fancy drugs that encourage implantation.

But some religious people will argue that it was God's will to have those fertilized eggs not attach, that He had a purpose for those souls in Heaven and that people shouldn't interfere with His work.  I'd argue that the Bible doesn't really support that view, that instead it isn't until the Quickening (first fetal movements) that a soul comes into play.  So IMHO, it doesn't matter if a birth control medication causes abortion because at that point, it really isn't a man in His eyes.
 
2013-11-25 02:14:18 PM  

Dinjiin: If you argue that life begins at fertilization, then any device or medication that inhibits implantation can be seen as an abortion device. I kinda agree with them.


If you want to have a philosophical debate over the nature of life go right ahead, but that's not a valid use of the court system.  The medical consensus is that pregnancy begins at the implantation of the fertilized egg.  Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.  Anything that prevents implantation is by definition not an abortion.
 
Displayed 50 of 170 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report