This would be a more persuasive argument if "not purchasing for you" and "denying you access to" were rationally related concepts, but they really just are not. If the Greens were threatening to fire any employee that, on their own, was procuring the other forms of contraception, I don't think I would disagree at all, since that could at least be argued as coercive.
The discussion taking place was that it was THE reason. I stated very clearly it was not a sole factor, but it's delusional for one to believe it is a NON-factor.
Keep up please. I'm not usually in favor of having to explain and re-explain the discussion to people who have nothing to contribute, but wish to take part anyway.
Last edited by NYC17; 2014-07-02 at 05:16 PM.
Why? Just because you aren't guaranteed a job doesn't mean you're guaranteed for me to support you. I'd figured out real quick how to become a better employee or go to some of those horrible Christian charities that actually exist to help people. Don't expect my ass to carry you
On what grounds? To claim that it was a non-factor is to claim to have knowledge of the majority justice's thought process. The onus is on you to prove that it was a factor to whatever extent you believe it is - and "they are men" or "its human nature" are not arguments, but rather extremely broad dismissals of any given person's ability to think objectively.
I'm not saying the bias did not exist. I find it hard to believe that even supreme court justices are infallible in their reasoning. What I am saying is that there is nothing to indicate that sex was an influencing factor in their decision.
You are right, the sexism is horrible. Hobby Lobby covers 16 forms of birth control, and only two are for men. Those sexist bastards. They probably cover a maternity leave that is far longer then paternity leave too. I'm so tired of this sexism against men. The war on men must end