Your "belief" is not more important than my reality.

[Tryharder62]

Okay, thank you for clarifying. I agree with you. That said, I do recognize the importance of protecting an individual's right to their beliefs and convictions, religious or not. It's not always cut and dry, but in this instance, I think it is.

Interestingly enough, Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays because of their owners' religious leanings.



Please do not twist my words. Obviously I would prefer that they provided coverage for their employees in accordance with the ACA. They're the ones trying to chip away at the coverage they make available to their employees, which is unconscionable.

But yes, I'd rather they take away coverage from all of their employees (who would still be able to receive coverage thanks to the ACA) than disregard women's rights, embarrass the country, and waste countless thousands of dollars on this idiotic court case.

If nobody ever disagreed with the law then laws would never be changed. I am not even talking about this issue. They are going through legal means to say that part of the "law" sucks in their opinion. How can it be embarrassing to discuss the issue and make a final ruling on it? It used to be thought that women had no place in government and shouldn't vote. It certainly wasn't seen as their right. Women challenged the reality of the day and said we need to make a change. This kind of challenge has been going on forever. What isn't liked is that it is a Christian perspective.

 

[smallgirl]

Sherbert v. Verner

I looked the case up, since I had never heard of it. Interesting.
I still think companies should cover them since it is law.

 

[GermanGoddess]

I looked the case up, since I had never heard of it. Interesting.
I still think companies should cover them since it is law.

Not every law is constitutional. And just because something is law, does not make it right or good.

 

[RobDownSouth]

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/26/eri...nt/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Oh I LOVE this quote, I think I'm going to go rub Grampa Urine's and Dazzle1's snouts in this....

For what practical reasons might a corporation adopt a religious identity *other than* to burden employees, customers, competitors etc?

 

[smallgirl]

Not every law is constitutional. And just because something is law, does not make it right or good.

True, but the law says cover it. Unless the law is over turned, they need to cover it and abide by the law.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

This is such an annoying cliche thing to say. We don't know how the world would be if men could get pregnant. Stop throwing around generalities and acting like a victim because of your gender.

Annnnnd you're a dude.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3ukoOYpm1qa6g1m.gif

It's kind of hilarious that because I say something in favor of men, I must be a dude. It wasn't even really in favor of men; I'm just bored with that tired cliche that really has no basis in anything. Imagine if men could get pregnant. Okay. Everything would be completely different, so I can't really make assumptions about how this specific issue would be any different.

Sorry to disappoint. I happen to like the government being out of my sex life, which means paying for my own birth control. Not to mention I don't expect others to pay for my choices or want to pay for theirs.

Must be a dude if I disagree with the feminists voices though.

Yuuuuuuuuuup.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/nodding.gif

 

[Garnate]

This important thread has too many words and not enough boobs. Now my brain is sad.

 

[Tryharder62]

True, but the law says cover it. Unless the law is over turned, they need to cover it and abide by the law.

Or try to change it which they are doing.

 

[Lorilei]

If nobody ever disagreed with the law then laws would never be changed. I am not even talking about this issue. They are going through legal means to say that part of the "law" sucks in their opinion. How can it be embarrassing to discuss the issue and make a final ruling on it? It used to be thought that women had no place in government and shouldn't vote. It certainly wasn't seen as their right. Women challenged the reality of the day and said we need to make a change. This kind of challenge has been going on forever. What isn't liked is that it is a Christian perspective.

This was something that gained additional rights for US citizens. Are you really equating the right to vote with the right to deny access to contraception?

Or try to change it which they are doing.

Trying to change a law that affects millions, in order to comply with a minority's religious beliefs? You don't see a problem with that?

 

[Sean]

What isn't liked is that it is a Christian perspective.

No, what isn't liked is that they are trying to use their imaginary magic man in the sky to break the law.

 

[smallgirl]

Or try to change it which they are doing.

And that I do not agree with. They are the minority I would say, and I thought majority ruled?
Those companies getting the law changed would really cross the line between church and state, IMO.

 

[Bacigalupo]

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/pvhtvo/federally-funded-penis-pumps

 

[smallgirl]

No, what isn't liked is that they are trying to use their imaginary magic man in the sky to break the law.

exactly!

I know people who are in church 3x a week, but they still use birth control. I don't see being a Christian equaling not using birth control.

 

[JohnnySavage]

If I had known FeelYa was going to post this thread, I wouldn't have wasted my best posts in an Amicus thread.


Even though she says I can't have an opinion on food; as if I'm a Brit!

 

[phrodeau]

This important thread has too many words and not enough boobs. Now my brain is sad.

The boobs are the ones posting.

 

[about_average]

Oh, that is rich. Thank you for surfacing it. My eyes go all crossed when I stumble into an amicus thread, so I miss out on some of the most delicious crazy.

I was wondering why you started another thread on the topic, but I see now.

 

[Tryharder62]

This was something that gained additional rights for US citizens. Are you really equating the right to vote with the right to deny access to contraception?



Trying to change a law that affects millions, in order to comply with a minority's religious beliefs? You don't see a problem with that?

I was just talking about rights in general. Challenging the law made contraceptives available. I think if you don't believe in any law there is no embarrassment in trying to change it by legal means. The Supreme court has the job to look at the constitution and see if this law meets the way it is set up. That's why we are a democracy.

 

[GermanGoddess]

exactly!

I know people who are in church 3x a week, but they still use birth control. I don't see being a Christian equaling not using birth control.

You know that not all churches follow the same exact rules, right? And a lot of the members don't always know those rules that do exist (which is a fault of many churches). Some churches make a clear line of what is okay when it comes to birth control and pregnancy, and others are not so clear.
Not all sects of Christianity are the same.

Not to mention that the case isn't about birth control on general. It's about certain forms of birth control...that's actually even explained by the OP in the first post.

 

[smallgirl]

You know that not all churches follow the same exact rules, right? And a lot of the members don't always know those rules that do exist (which is a fault of many churches). Some churches make a clear line of what is okay when it comes to birth control and pregnancy, and others are not so clear.
Not all sects of Christianity are the same.

Not to mention that the case isn't about birth control on general. It's about certain forms of birth control...that's actually even explained by the OP in the first post.

Yes, I know that. It's partly why I do not go to church. I've never found one who sees the world like I do and I am not willing to change the way I am to "conform" to their rules.

All it boils down to is this, they don't want to follow the law, and this is their way of trying to avoid the law. They need to follow the law like everyone else does.

 

[Phelia]

Sir Francis Bacon

Essays or Counsels

I. Of Truth.

I've never read that before. Wonderful. Thank you for posting it!

"...yet truth, which only doth judge itself, teacheth that the Inquiry of truth, which is the love-making or wooing of it, the knowledge of truth, which is the presence of it, and the belief of truth, which is the enjoying of it, is the sovereign good of human nature."

Awww yiss.

I just don't see how companies can yell "it's against my religion to cover contraceptives". I am pretty sure not every one working at these companies sees contraception as wrong, so why should they not access to it like I would because my company feels differently? I see Hobby Lobby's issue with contraception as a religious issue and having no place in the law.

Maybe I did not say it well, I am writing a research paper in between being on Lit...sorry folks. When a company yells it is against their religious beliefs, I see the line keeping church and state getting blurred and crossed.

They should have to cover contraceptives...just like the law says.

That's actually a point that's been raised - why do the rights and beliefs of the company's owners trump the employees' rights and what they might believe.

And no worries! I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. It can be hard to get your point across in writing, especially when multi-tasking, which I'm TERRIBLE at

It's kind of hilarious that because I say something in favor of men, I must be a dude. It wasn't even really in favor of men; I'm just bored with that tired cliche that really has no basis in anything. Imagine if men could get pregnant. Okay. Everything would be completely different, so I can't really make assumptions about how this specific issue would be any different.

Sorry to disappoint. I happen to like the government being out of my sex life, which means paying for my own birth control. Not to mention I don't expect others to pay for my choices or want to pay for theirs.

Must be a dude if I disagree with the feminists voices though.

No, it's much more likely that you're a hot, blonde, 25-year old bisexual attorney who joined this site eight years ago (were you even old enough?), barely posts a thing and then suddenly had the urge to pipe up and rail on a woman for "using her gender as an excuse to play the victim."

A woman's health is intrinsically tied to her reproductive system. Birth control has medical applications that extend far beyond contraceptive purposes. It's not about anyone's sex life, least of all yours. Stop being so selfish and ignorant.

Also, you are a man, and you can fuck right off.

Sherbert v. Verner

Good job sexy attorney!

Employment division v Smith.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/26/eri...nt/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Awesome read. Thanks for linking.

If nobody ever disagreed with the law then laws would never be changed. I am not even talking about this issue. They are going through legal means to say that part of the "law" sucks in their opinion. How can it be embarrassing to discuss the issue and make a final ruling on it? It used to be thought that women had no place in government and shouldn't vote. It certainly wasn't seen as their right. Women challenged the reality of the day and said we need to make a change. This kind of challenge has been going on forever. What isn't liked is that it is a Christian perspective.

Wow, that is a completely illogical and irrelevant comparison. It's like comparing apples and oranges but the oranges are AK-47s.

Respectfully, the rest of us ARE discussing the issue, by and large, and if you want to disagree, you are going to have to familiarize yourself with the facts. Did you read Lori's link? Their "opinion" about the "law" "sucking" is baseless. They didn't seem to have any issue with the contraceptives (NOT abortifacients, as they are claiming) before the ACA.

This important thread has too many words and not enough boobs. Now my brain is sad.

YOU!

*rubs my boobies on your brain*

Is better?

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/pvhtvo/federally-funded-penis-pumps

I can't tell if that makes me want to laugh or sob.

Mainly laugh

 

[contrifan32]

This was something that gained additional rights for US citizens. Are you really equating the right to vote with the right to deny access to contraception?



Trying to change a law that affects millions, in order to comply with a minority's religious beliefs? You don't see a problem with that?

First of all... no one is denying access to contraception to any one. I seem to remember women having full access before this "law" was signed.

Second, you have to admit there are many flaws in the "law" that have religions and non religions people up in arms.

 

[Lorilei]

First of all... no one is denying access to contraception to any one. I seem to remember women having full access before this "law" was signed.

Second, you have to admit there are many flaws in the "law" that have religions and non religions people up in arms.

No, I admit that was hyperbole on my part, but that was a ridiculous comparison.

The law's flaws (heh, I made a rhyme!) have nothing to do with religious beliefs. Religion has no place in legislation. Period.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Theres a few things that bother me about this issue besides the government forcing people to buy health insurance or providing it.

Womens reproductive rights, man I am so sick of hearing about this. Let's be honest without getting into the whys of how someone got pregnant.

I don't think any woman gets pregnant on purpose just to get an abortion. However when you abort a fetus your killing a human being that is not yet fully developed. That's the long and short of it. You can hem and haw about it being just cell's. They are human cells.

I think it's wrong when pro life people throw the word murder around. It's also wrong when pro abortion people screech about their reproductive rights are being taken away. Unless roe v Wade is repealed your right to abortion is intact.

If a woman wants an abortion nobody is stopping her. Planned parenthood which was founded to legally control the black population of America by Margret Sanger is more than willing to assist any woman blk wht,yellow whatever color.

That being said I don't think it's unreasonable for a business to pay for things related to "reproductive health" of a woman, including birth control. pills (the morning after pill) , condoms, inter uterine devices.

At some point there has to be a measure of personal responsibility of women (and men who got them pregnant) about their reproductive system that they are demanding rights to. I don't think a company or religious organization should be forced to pay for abortions.

 

[Sean]

Not to mention that the case isn't about birth control on general. It's about certain forms of birth control...that's actually even explained by the OP in the first post.

No, it isn't. It's about whether people that believe in imaginary magic men in the sky can break the law.

 

[smallgirl]

Religion has no place in legislation. Period.

very well said!