Hobby Lobby Still Covers Vasectomies And Viagra

[Avatar4321]

Who buys Hobby Lobby junk? Serious question.

People who are creative. That is kind of the point.

Crafts are not creative. Art is creative. Crafts are basically assembling the raw materials into a finished product,

something millions of Chinese now do for 50 cents an hour.

So you aren't creative eh?

Don't worry. Not all of us have that gift.

 

[Avatar4321]

So I guess when the Little Sisters of the Poor case gets to the Supreme Court you Hobby Lobby defenders won't be defending them?

Because they don't want to cover ANY birth control. Period.

They shouldn't have to.

But then you shouldn't be trying to force them to.

Why do you violent people always demand people do things your way?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Perhaps she should have had him use a condom. Why exactly do you pretend like she is an unwilling victim in your hypothetical scenario? Or that either of them should be allowed to avoid responsibility for the life they've created?

Domestic Violence is something ignorant people like you ought to research. You post things about issues you don't know a damn thing about and regularly make a fool of yourself.

Considering you think the topic is domestic violence, you really aren't in a position to accuse anyone of making a fool of themselves.

The topic is whether you have the right to force other people to buy a specific type of birth control. No one is stopping anyone from getting the other birth control or paying for it themselves.

BTW they aren't obligated to buy condoms for you either. Totally unfair to men.

Good grief you're stupid not ignorant. Read what you posted, "Perhaps she should have had him use a condom"; that simply statement opens the door to my comment and tells me all I need to know about your level of competence.

 

[Avatar4321]

So I guess when the Little Sisters of the Poor case gets to the Supreme Court you Hobby Lobby defenders won't be defending them?

Because they don't want to cover ANY birth control. Period.

I will defend them all day every day. They should NOT have to provide contraception. They are a Religious institution, you twit.

Religious institutions are already exempt to some degree.

 

[RandallFlagg]

So I guess when the Little Sisters of the Poor case gets to the Supreme Court you Hobby Lobby defenders won't be defending them?

Because they don't want to cover ANY birth control. Period.

I will defend them all day every day. They should NOT have to provide contraception. They are a Religious institution, you twit.

Religious institutions are already exempt to some degree.

Ah, but to the ***** left, there should be NO religious institutions especially those who might actually employ the public.

They have no right to anything other than secular humanist beliefs.

There is no theocracy is Washington, save for the theocracy of "secular humanism" THAT is the "religion" that this administration has foisted on the American people just as surely as the Church of England was foisted on the English people by their government.

 

[Avatar4321]

Christian Theocracy vs. Sharia Law: What's the difference?

One is a fiction that people who want to eliminate religious freedom are using to deceive people and the other actually exists.

Why couldn't a mostly Muslim community in this country choose to impose Sharia Law, locally, or even just a set of laws similar to Sharia, and claim them as an exercise of their religious rights under the 1st amendment - even if their laws were contrary to current US laws -

in the same manner as Hobby Lobby has done?

How do you argue against that? Or do you concede that you'd have to side with the Muslims?

You wouldn't think I'd have to explain the obvious to you.

Do you understand the difference between the Federal Government forcing you to do something contrary to your religious beliefs and you doing something illegal to others?

One involves government interference in your rights. The other involves you hurting others.

You realize that there is a balancing test that has been in place for decades to address these very questions, right?

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, what is the difference? A threat one will go to hell vis a vis honor killing? Psychological terror and physical violence are branches of the same tree.

I already told you what the difference is. If you are so illiterate you can't figure that out, there is nothing I can do to help you. But I'll try one more time.

There is no movement for a Christian theocracy. And supporting the free exercise of religion is not a Christian theocracy. It doesn't exist. So stop lying to yourself. It makes you look incredibly foolish.

Any decision to allow a Christian belief to be exercised legally, over a secular law to the contrary,

is theocratic by definition.

The First amendment is theocratic?

And you wonder why your arguments aren't convincing.

 

[Avatar4321]

Domestic Violence is something ignorant people like you ought to research. You post things about issues you don't know a damn thing about and regularly make a fool of yourself.

Considering you think the topic is domestic violence, you really aren't in a position to accuse anyone of making a fool of themselves.

The topic is whether you have the right to force other people to buy a specific type of birth control. No one is stopping anyone from getting the other birth control or paying for it themselves.

BTW they aren't obligated to buy condoms for you either. Totally unfair to men.

Good grief you're stupid not ignorant. Read what you posted, "Perhaps she should have had him use a condom"; that simply statement opens the door to my comment and tells me all I need to know about your level of competence.

Translation: I have absolutely nothing to say of substance so I am going to insult you because you have outsmarted me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I already told you what the difference is. If you are so illiterate you can't figure that out, there is nothing I can do to help you. But I'll try one more time.

There is no movement for a Christian theocracy. And supporting the free exercise of religion is not a Christian theocracy. It doesn't exist. So stop lying to yourself. It makes you look incredibly foolish.

Any decision to allow a Christian belief to be exercised legally, over a secular law to the contrary,

is theocratic by definition.

The First amendment is theocratic?

And you wonder why your arguments aren't convincing.

Do you even know what the word theocracy means?

 

[NYcarbineer]

One is a fiction that people who want to eliminate religious freedom are using to deceive people and the other actually exists.

Why couldn't a mostly Muslim community in this country choose to impose Sharia Law, locally, or even just a set of laws similar to Sharia, and claim them as an exercise of their religious rights under the 1st amendment - even if their laws were contrary to current US laws -

in the same manner as Hobby Lobby has done?

How do you argue against that? Or do you concede that you'd have to side with the Muslims?

You wouldn't think I'd have to explain the obvious to you.

Do you understand the difference between the Federal Government forcing you to do something contrary to your religious beliefs and you doing something illegal to others?

One involves government interference in your rights. The other involves you hurting others.

You realize that there is a balancing test that has been in place for decades to address these very questions, right?

What Hobby Lobby wanted to do was illegal until the Court allowed its religious argument to exempt it from that law.

AGAIN, why couldn't Muslims do exactly the same thing if they wanted to impose religion-based laws on their community that are currently illegal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So I guess when the Little Sisters of the Poor case gets to the Supreme Court you Hobby Lobby defenders won't be defending them?

Because they don't want to cover ANY birth control. Period.

I will defend them all day every day. They should NOT have to provide contraception. They are a Religious institution, you twit.

Ah, I see, it's not just about abortifacients. It's about ALL birth control.

How about then you people quit pretending what it's about.

 

[RandallFlagg]

So I guess when the Little Sisters of the Poor case gets to the Supreme Court you Hobby Lobby defenders won't be defending them?

Because they don't want to cover ANY birth control. Period.

I will defend them all day every day. They should NOT have to provide contraception. They are a Religious institution, you twit.

Ah, I see, it's not just about abortifacients. It's about ALL birth control.

How about then you people quit pretending what it's about.

You know, if you want to go through life stupid, that's your choice. Should the Catholic Church go against their core beliefs and pay for contraceptives for their employees? You would say YES! Happily!! and I would still say that you are a complete fool and an idiot.

Wake up stupid. For you and the other idiots like you - Those who despise religion and anyone who espouses a belief system other than your pseudo-communist bullshit - this is nothing more than your attempt at destroying. That''s what you do. That's all you do.

See the sig below.

 

[Avatar4321]

Any decision to allow a Christian belief to be exercised legally, over a secular law to the contrary,

is theocratic by definition.

The First amendment is theocratic?

And you wonder why your arguments aren't convincing.

Do you even know what the word theocracy means?

Yes. Do you? Then please tell me how preventing the government from interfering in the free exercise of someone's religion creates a theocracy? Especially considering free exercise is the exact opposite of theocratic rule.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why couldn't a mostly Muslim community in this country choose to impose Sharia Law, locally, or even just a set of laws similar to Sharia, and claim them as an exercise of their religious rights under the 1st amendment - even if their laws were contrary to current US laws -

in the same manner as Hobby Lobby has done?

How do you argue against that? Or do you concede that you'd have to side with the Muslims?

You wouldn't think I'd have to explain the obvious to you.

Do you understand the difference between the Federal Government forcing you to do something contrary to your religious beliefs and you doing something illegal to others?

One involves government interference in your rights. The other involves you hurting others.

You realize that there is a balancing test that has been in place for decades to address these very questions, right?

What Hobby Lobby wanted to do was illegal until the Court allowed its religious argument to exempt it from that law.

AGAIN, why couldn't Muslims do exactly the same thing if they wanted to impose religion-based laws on their community that are currently illegal?

No. What the Federal Government did was illegal. Especially since they were already giving that same exact religious exemption to other institutions.

You see the First amendment trumps administrative rules.

They probably could have argued under equal protection as well.

 

[Avatar4321]

So I guess when the Little Sisters of the Poor case gets to the Supreme Court you Hobby Lobby defenders won't be defending them?

Because they don't want to cover ANY birth control. Period.

I will defend them all day every day. They should NOT have to provide contraception. They are a Religious institution, you twit.

Ah, I see, it's not just about abortifacients. It's about ALL birth control.

How about then you people quit pretending what it's about.

That case isn't. This case, however, is just about the abortifacients. Despite you and your little friends trying to lie otherwise.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You wouldn't think I'd have to explain the obvious to you.

Do you understand the difference between the Federal Government forcing you to do something contrary to your religious beliefs and you doing something illegal to others?

One involves government interference in your rights. The other involves you hurting others.

You realize that there is a balancing test that has been in place for decades to address these very questions, right?

What Hobby Lobby wanted to do was illegal until the Court allowed its religious argument to exempt it from that law.

AGAIN, why couldn't Muslims do exactly the same thing if they wanted to impose religion-based laws on their community that are currently illegal?

No. What the Federal Government did was illegal. Especially since they were already giving that same exact religious exemption to other institutions.

You see the First amendment trumps administrative rules.

They probably could have argued under equal protection as well.

They probably could have argued under equal protection as well.

certainly

there has been millions and millions of exemptions handed out

 

[NYcarbineer]

I will defend them all day every day. They should NOT have to provide contraception. They are a Religious institution, you twit.

Ah, I see, it's not just about abortifacients. It's about ALL birth control.

How about then you people quit pretending what it's about.

That case isn't. This case, however, is just about the abortifacients. Despite you and your little friends trying to lie otherwise.

So you acknowledge that this is a legitimate slippery slope to all sorts of further theocratic special privileges, contrary to US law, in the future.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You wouldn't think I'd have to explain the obvious to you.

Do you understand the difference between the Federal Government forcing you to do something contrary to your religious beliefs and you doing something illegal to others?

One involves government interference in your rights. The other involves you hurting others.

You realize that there is a balancing test that has been in place for decades to address these very questions, right?

What Hobby Lobby wanted to do was illegal until the Court allowed its religious argument to exempt it from that law.

AGAIN, why couldn't Muslims do exactly the same thing if they wanted to impose religion-based laws on their community that are currently illegal?

No. What the Federal Government did was illegal. Especially since they were already giving that same exact religious exemption to other institutions.

You see the First amendment trumps administrative rules.

They probably could have argued under equal protection as well.

Why are you scrupulously avoiding the Muslim issue? Other than the obvious reason that you know you'll lose that argument...

 

[jon_berzerk]

Ah, I see, it's not just about abortifacients. It's about ALL birth control.

How about then you people quit pretending what it's about.

That case isn't. This case, however, is just about the abortifacients. Despite you and your little friends trying to lie otherwise.

So you acknowledge that this is a legitimate slippery slope to all sorts of further theocratic special privileges, contrary to US law, in the future.

not according to the opinion of this case by the SC

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Though against abortion, I'm against hypocrisy even more.