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.

(Guardian)   "Notably, the Hobby Lobby used to have an employee insurance plan that covered the very same birth control methods it now claims violate its religious freedom" Popcorn, anyone?   (theguardian.com) divider line 168
    More: Dumbass, birth control methods, religious freedom, idea, Christian Scientists, religious values, amicus brief, contraceptives, health insurance  
•       •       •

3621 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Nov 2013 at 8:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-28 10:12:50 PM  
So basically they are lying to escape their obligations.

That's okay. Not like there is anything in the bible about bearing false witness.
 
2013-11-28 10:53:42 PM  

OooShiny: Can religion survive without a enemy and the lure of martyrdom?  American Christians have no religious enemy, thus Christians are bored out of their minds and must manufacture an enemy to "battle."


Gotta create enemies to fight. What other option do they have? Treating their fellow human beings as brothers and sisters? Helping the poor?  That's not the Christians I know.

Christianity is all about feeling like you're better than other people.
 
2013-11-28 11:15:55 PM  

Stile4aly: threedingers: capn' fun: Genuine question, no snark: what is the religious basis for a prohibition against birth control?  I've read the Bible cover to cover, twice, and don't recall any mention of birth control.

For Catholics, it's not based on a biblical prohibition but rather on Papal Encyclicals, notably the Humanae Vitae encyclical by Paul VI.

So, what's the excuse for Hobby Lobby? They're not Catholic, they're Evangelical Protestants.


The argument that usually gets thrown around is that birth control pills function as an abortifacient; that is, they can cause an already fertilized egg to fail to implant in the uterine wall. If you believe that "life begins at conception" and therefore a zygote is morally a full human being, then making it fail to implant is killing it.

The main problem with this argument is that it is completely false, since hormonal birth control works by preventing ovulation. However, whenever someone tries to correct this lie, they get labeled as being part of the "abortion industry" so much like climate change and evolution, the way birth control actually works is one of those bit of reality you must deny to be a "True Christian."

(Other problems with this argument involve the fact that, even assuming that birth control does prevent implantation, an undifferentialed ball of cells the size of the head if a pin is only a "person" of you declare it by religious fiat, and the fact that if you take normal spontaneous abortion into account, a woman on birth control will wind up killing fewer embryos than if she's having unprotected sex. And that's not even getting into the fact that some evangelicals feel morally culpable if they assist unmarried people in having sex safely.)
 
2013-11-29 03:04:41 AM  

Antifun: Relatively Obscure: Can I marry Walmart, divorce Walmart, and make Walmart pay me alimony?


maybe, but you'll have to consummate the marriage before teh divorce


"Cleanup in aisle 9!"
 
2013-11-29 05:52:13 AM  
I wish we could just go back in time and reverse that completely retarded "corporations are people" decision.
 
2013-11-29 06:10:17 AM  

Graffito: pueblonative: Graffito: Moriel: I look forward to the day when a Jehovah's Witness owned company says that their health insurance will no longer cover blood transfusions. There would not be enough popcorn in the world to keep us covered while watching that play out.

That would never happen because a) men get blood transfusions and b) this is all about conservatives' discomfort with sex, women and women having sex.

Still it would be lulzy for a pagan priestess to run a company and say that providing health care that covers boner pills because they go against Diana's will.

I would love to do that except that I have no desire to fark over my employees.


Still, having Rush Limbaugh come into the office to read that in the employee e-mail. . .

Excuse me, I need bunk time.
 
2013-11-29 07:28:12 AM  

xria: wozzeck: Okay, I'm wondering this....

I'm a reform Jew, so that doesn't give me much opportunity to limit what employees do---we're pretty much okay with you getting an abortion on the way to gay wedding where bacon cheeseburgers will be served.

But if I have a company, does the company have to be Jewish? Why can't my company be Catholic? Then I don't have to provide insurance that includes birth control and abortion services that my faith would have no objection to providing employees, but that offends the hell out of my good Catholic company. Why can't my company be a Scientologist?

Why not a Christen Scientist - if your company doesn't believe in blood transfusions, that would presumably take off the board a lot of possibly expensive operations and cut your health insurance costs right down.


You just farking know that if this shiat is not stopped in its tracks all kinds of CEOs will have religious epiphanies and convert to Christian Science or other faith based healing sects so they don"t have to pay anything out in health insurance. Ruling for religious exemption will functionally enable any company run by people sleazy and bold enough to just stop providing health care.
 
2013-11-29 07:54:03 AM  

ambercat: xria: wozzeck: Okay, I'm wondering this....

I'm a reform Jew, so that doesn't give me much opportunity to limit what employees do---we're pretty much okay with you getting an abortion on the way to gay wedding where bacon cheeseburgers will be served.

But if I have a company, does the company have to be Jewish? Why can't my company be Catholic? Then I don't have to provide insurance that includes birth control and abortion services that my faith would have no objection to providing employees, but that offends the hell out of my good Catholic company. Why can't my company be a Scientologist?

Why not a Christen Scientist - if your company doesn't believe in blood transfusions, that would presumably take off the board a lot of possibly expensive operations and cut your health insurance costs right down.

You just farking know that if this shiat is not stopped in its tracks all kinds of CEOs will have religious epiphanies and convert to Christian Science or other faith based healing sects so they don"t have to pay anything out in health insurance. Ruling for religious exemption will functionally enable any company run by people sleazy and bold enough to just stop providing health care.


Which is exactly why it's highly likely this Court will rule in favor of it.
 
2013-11-29 09:16:28 AM  
Ah but there is the pesky Keyword  !  Mandated not by choice .
 
2013-11-29 09:51:33 AM  

LockeOak: My name is Robbie Stobby, and I'm here to lobby for hobbies.

[o.onionstatic.com image 700x396]


Has anybody pointed out yet that the computer isn't plugged into power?
 
2013-11-29 11:16:18 AM  

maxheck: The one that amazed me was the owner of Papa John's Pizza biatching about how providing healthcare for their workers might cost an extra two cents a pie while running an ad where he was giving away a million dollars worth of pizza in a Superbowl promotion.


I haven't bought anything from Papa John's since he did that. They were the closest pizza place to my house, and they have good pizzas, so that was the only pizza I bought for like 5 years, and then *poof* he got political, and it was against my politics, so now I get Dominoes or Pizza Hut, and i tell everybody I know that Papa John's is horrible and disgusting.
 
2013-11-29 12:06:22 PM  

FnkyTwn: Papa John's is horrible and disgusting.


Well, yes. But it has nothing to do with their politics.
 
2013-11-29 01:15:19 PM  

GWSuperfan: If corporations are people, wouldn't owning a corporation be slavery?


Let my Jamba Juices GO!
 
2013-11-29 03:57:48 PM  
s17.postimg.org
 
2013-11-29 06:58:35 PM  

Stile4aly: threedingers: capn' fun: Genuine question, no snark: what is the religious basis for a prohibition against birth control?  I've read the Bible cover to cover, twice, and don't recall any mention of birth control.

For Catholics, it's not based on a biblical prohibition but rather on Papal Encyclicals, notably the Humanae Vitae encyclical by Paul VI.

So, what's the excuse for Hobby Lobby? They're not Catholic, they're Evangelical Protestants.


Genesis 39:9

You're not allowed to spill your baby batter anywhere except a God-approved receptacle.

Of course, they're mis-interpreting it. Onan was killed because he refused to honor his dead brother (he was supposed to give the brother's wife an heir), not because he spilled his seed.
 
2013-11-29 07:03:48 PM  

Jgok: Stile4aly: threedingers: capn' fun: Genuine question, no snark: what is the religious basis for a prohibition against birth control?  I've read the Bible cover to cover, twice, and don't recall any mention of birth control.

For Catholics, it's not based on a biblical prohibition but rather on Papal Encyclicals, notably the Humanae Vitae encyclical by Paul VI.

So, what's the excuse for Hobby Lobby? They're not Catholic, they're Evangelical Protestants.

Genesis 39:9

You're not allowed to spill your baby batter anywhere except a God-approved receptacle.

Of course, they're mis-interpreting it. Onan was killed because he refused to honor his dead brother (he was supposed to give the brother's wife an heir), not because he spilled his seed.


I'm assuming you mixed up verses. because Gen 39:9 is about Joeseph refusing to sleep with his master's wife.

Since you're talking about Onan, a quick google makes me think you meant Gen 38:8-10?
 
2013-11-29 07:07:51 PM  

grumpfuff: ou're not allowed to spill your baby batter anywhere except a God-approved receptacle.

Of course, they're mis-interpreting it. Onan was killed because he refused to honor his dead brother (he was supposed to give the brother's wife an heir), not because he spilled his seed.

I'm assuming you mixed up verses. because Gen 39:9 is about Joeseph refusing to sleep with his master's wife.

Since you're talking about Onan, a quick google makes me think you meant Gen 38:8-10?


Onan was enjoying the benefits of a levirate marriage without fulfilling the responsibility to provide an heir for his dead brother. He was pulling out.
 
2013-11-29 07:10:16 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: grumpfuff: ou're not allowed to spill your baby batter anywhere except a God-approved receptacle.

Of course, they're mis-interpreting it. Onan was killed because he refused to honor his dead brother (he was supposed to give the brother's wife an heir), not because he spilled his seed.

I'm assuming you mixed up verses. because Gen 39:9 is about Joeseph refusing to sleep with his master's wife.

Since you're talking about Onan, a quick google makes me think you meant Gen 38:8-10?

Onan was enjoying the benefits of a levirate marriage without fulfilling the responsibility to provide an heir for his dead brother. He was pulling out.


I know. I was just correcting the verse he was referencing. Like you said last time we discussed Christians and the Old Testament...not their fault, not their book.
 
Displayed 18 of 168 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