Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Ruling

[Rukentuts]

and only two are for men. The war on men must end

I know right, men are 100% covered. Stop the war!

[Kellhound]

So someone who was born with money and went to preppy New England Schools where they were taught that poor people are a blight and that the more stuff you have the better your are?

Poor people are not a blight, they are a resource to be exploited for the betterment of the middle and upper class.

[Cthulhu 2020]

How the hell is "someone else can fix it so let's ignore the sexism" even remotely valid?

It's the same logic as "Cars kill people so let's ignore gun violence."

[Gambit5555]

They aren't providing them. The insurance company they pay is. The insurance company adding these 4 more isn't even statistically significant. This is anti-ACA and an argument not based in the real world.

- - - Updated - - -

Abuse victims make self-detrimental decisions all the time. Does it make it right?

And once again you have no argument so you attempt to build a fallacy. Sad really. I suppose to you all African American conservatives are abuse victims too. Because if they don't fall in line with your lumped way of thinking, then there is something wrong with them.get over your ego

[NYC17]

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.

They aren't arguments for what reason? Because YOU say so? I say differently, thus, impasse. There's no onus on me to "prove it was a factor", because the language of their opinion is the proof.

They are men. They are in no way affected by their own ruling. They do not live life as though they are female. They have not had to secure birth control. These things are facts. They aren't dismissals. They are simply facts. Your denial of them is not relevant.

My favorite Justice was O'Connor. Man how I miss her.

[Cthulhu 2020]

HL is not preventing any employee from using any contraceptive.

People/Government/Corperations inflict religion/anti-religion on us all the time. People only moan and groan when they don't like a specific instance of it.

What people often refer to as anti-religion is really just laws that don't allow Christians to shove their moral code into law.

[Captain N]

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

Let's put it this way - Let's say that you need Chemotherapy (By Right Wing Nut Definition Life is Right at Conception so a clump of non-sentient cells begins dividing and creating "Life") - Your employer says that Chemotherapy, which would be the best way to cure your condition, is a violation of their religious values but will allow you 15 other means to get rid of your cancer. Because by Wing Nut logic - Cancer Cells and the beginnings of pregnancy are pretty damn close. Is that acceptable? Because it happened in 2009...

[Tradewind]

Let's put it this way - Let's say that you need Chemotherapy (By Right Wing Nut Definition Life is Right at Conception so a clump of non-sentient cells begins dividing and creating "Life") - Your employer says that Chemotherapy, which would be the best way to cure your condition, is a violation of their religious values but will allow you 15 other means to get rid of your cancer. Because by Wing Nut logic - Cancer Cells and the beginnings of pregnancy are pretty damn close. Is that acceptable? Because it happened in 2009...

All insurance and medical coverage rescinded, because "He wills it." You got butthole cancer because it was "His will" and therefore we cannot interfere.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Poor people are not a blight, they are a resource to be exploited for the betterment of the middle and upper class.

Well at least you're being honest. That's gotta count for something.

[Rukentuts]

All insurance and medical coverage rescinded, because "He wills it." You got butthole cancer because it was "His will" and therefore we cannot interfere.

My beliefs are not to cover prostate exams so all the assholes get what they deserve.

[Slaskra]

They aren't arguments for what reason? Because YOU say so? I say differently, thus, impasse. There's no onus on me to "prove it was a factor", because the language of their opinion is the proof.

I told you why - because they are a complete dismissal that it is possible for individuals to think objectively. Not all human's ascribe to "human nature" or their respective gender's common way of thinking and interpreting events, when making decisions that affect others.

They are men. They are in no way affected by their own ruling. They do not live life as though they are female. They have not had to secure birth control. These things are facts. They aren't dismissals. They are simply facts. Your denial of them is not relevant.

I haven't denied any of these facts. Not a single one of these are an automatic indication of an innate sexual bias within the reasoning of the majority justice's opinion.

[Kellhound]

What people often refer to as anti-religion is really just laws that don't allow Christians to shove their moral code into law.

A large amount of our criminal law is based on "religious" moral codes though.

[Slaskra]

A large amount of our criminal law is based on "religious" moral codes though.

Which in turn are largely based on universal human values. Mostly.

[Tradewind]

A large amount of our criminal law is based on "religious" moral codes though.

I am somewhat dubious. Unless we're talking archaic backwoods laws like sodomy and adultery. It doesn't take "religious morals" to deem murder to be not good.

[Endus]

In the case of Hobby Lobby, no one is forced to work there.

Which is irrelevant.

I was making the point that the "free exercise" clause has never been construed as allowing you to affect others directly and negatively with the practice of your faith. Except for here.

This isn't about "free exercise". Free exercise of religion would be for the owners of Hobby Lobby to choose not to use those birth control methods which they were covered for, in their own personal lives. That's what the free exercise clause means. It does not apply to other people, including your own children, if the state can determine it's at the expense of their general welfare, as is the case with Jehovah's Witnesses and their stance on blood transfusions. An adult Jehovah's Witness can refuse transfusions, themselves. They cannot deny transfusions to their child. The state will use that refusal as grounds to establish legal guardianship over the child and overrule the parents. There's outstanding case law supporting this throughout most, if not all, of the United States. Because the "free exercise" clause applies to you, not pushing your religious stance on anyone else.

[Deleted]

They aren't.

Those contraceptives do not cause abortions.

This is open to interpretation by some people (on religious grounds).

You lost the Constitutional argument.

A private business shouldn't pay for a woman's sex life. Hobby Lobby aren't forcing their religion on anyone because no one is forced to work there.

Why don't women want to pay for their own sex lives? Why do they have to make a private business pay for it?

This reeks of entitlement to me.

Force is a red herring argument. Force is not required for it to be an imposition.

Work somewhere else. Find another job. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to work for Hobby Lobby.

[Cthulhu 2020]

My beliefs are not to cover prostate exams so all the assholes get what they deserve.

No finger up the butt?

[Adam Jensen]

A large amount of our criminal law is based on "religious" moral codes though.

No.

It's based on rational ethics. Killing people is bad. Stealing is bad. There's nothing inherently religious about that, those things are universally bad across most cultures. There are reasons why those things are bad that have nothing to do with religion.

[Rukentuts]

Work somewhere else. Find another job. No one is holding a gun to a person's head and forcing them to work for Hobby Lobby.

They can pick another country to operate their corporation in.

A private business shouldn't pay for a woman's sex life.

But it should pay for a man's.

There's also nothing sexist because I believe it.

[Ebildays]

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 Greens are denying them choice based on their beliefs. What is the difference with a woman using her pay check from the Greens to buy Plan B vs allowing the option as part of a healtcare plan? Either way it goes the Greens are "purchasing it" for use.