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

[about_average]

Pregnancy is natural in the sense that it's the direct purpose of having sex.

No. If it were the direct purpose women and men would only want sex when a woman is fertile.

 

[richard_daily]

Actual quote from the Hobby Lobby v. Rational Humans fiasco, uttered by Chief Justice Roberts in response to another Justice who asked if companies could be forced to pay for abortions:



Okay (warning: impending caps lock).

WHAT the FUCK? "That they believe provide abortions"? WHAT? I don't CARE what they believe!!! Emergency contraceptives ARE NOT ABORTIFACIENTS! It's like "believing" 1+1 is 3. Which you can do, if you want! Be a complete ignoramus, if you like! It's your right! But your belief, religious or not, does not entitle you to ignore the law and stomp all the fuck over women's reproductive rights.

What a complete farce. How is this actually happening? What if a Scientologist-run company didn't want to cover any psychotropic drugs because of their genuine and closely-held belief that it will interfere with the ability for humans to channel intergalactic space lords?

Do you think religious beliefs are more valid or important than any other individually held belief? Why? Are they more important than reality?

The right to believe in fantasy is at the core of religious experience, and they want to promote their fantasy as reality.

That's essentially what we're talking about here.

Nice to see you! I want to tie you to a raft and make you bake in the sun and spray cheese whiz all over you. and eat you like a cracker.

You're not vegan are you? Hard limit?

 

[richard_daily]

Religious beliefs and the right of their "free exercise" ARE more important than most other individually held beliefs for the very SAME reason that women's reproductive rights are important; they are both codified and protected by law.

Religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment and women's reproductive rights are protected by statutory law and various court decisions.

Respondents in this case believe that a provision of the Affordable Care Act is compelling them by force of law to perform a specific act contrary to their religious beliefs and in violation of First Amendment protection. Whenever two different laws appear to act in conflict with each other and where that conflict arguably results in a specific harm or burden to an individual, it is appropriate for the aggrieved individual to take the matter to court for a legal resolution.

I don't believe Hobby Lobby will win this dispute because I believe they are asserting their religious protection rights under the First Amendment far too broadly. They are simply wrong on the legal merits.

But the matter of free exercise of religion as a moral principle and legal right should not be minimized and the parameters of that right are appropriately brought before courts of law whenever they need clarification or enforcement.

Their angle of corporate personhood here is stretched WAY too thin. Their primary mission is to provide hobby supplies, not proselytize. If every person in my employ had to abide by my personal moral code, I'd have sluts sucking my cock under my desk and putting on personal burlesque shows for me on my lunch break.

I mean, that doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, so maybe I should take it up with the SCOTUS.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The right to believe in fantasy is at the core of religious experience, and they want to promote their fantasy as reality.

That's essentially what we're talking about here.

Nice to see you! I want to tie you to a raft and make you bake in the sun and spray cheese whiz all over you. and eat you like a cracker.

You're not vegan are you? Hard limit?

Notice the oh-so-smooth transition here, Byron. THIS is how you get teh hawt chicks.

 

[richard_daily]

Notice the oh-so-smooth transition here, Byron. THIS is how you get teh hawt chicks.

I eat ex-lax for breakfast... SO smooth.

 

[richard_daily]

No. If it were the direct purpose women and men would only want sex when a woman is fertile.

Exactly. People who believe this, should turn off their literotica account, never watch porn again, and tie their dicks in a knot until they're ready to spread the baby batter for jesus.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I eat ex-lax for breakfast... SO smooth.

That would explain your nickname "Shits".

"Shits" Daily.

(I'm cracking up laughing here...I do amuse myself)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[richard_daily]

That would explain your nickname "Shits".

"Shits" Daily.

(I'm cracking up laughing here...I do amuse myself)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I feel like I need a new nickname. Approved!

 

[StrangeLife]

You're getting plenty of attention from the hawt chicks, which I suspect was your intention all along, even though most of the attention is negative (aka "Amicus Syndrome")

I can verify that being right and honest about it is definitely not a good way of getting more cybersex and boob-pictures. They may not "kill the messenger" but they sure as hell don't feel like having sex with him either...

No. If it were the direct purpose women and men would only want sex when a woman is fertile.

They were never supposed to survive beyond the menopause AA. No woman is. As soon as the baby mills runs out of steam, nature wan't them gone. Because men are not equipped to detect fertility and therefore might waste their precious seed.

 

[evesdream]

Words have meaning, and while I enjoy your near-constant attempts to redefine commonly accepted definitions, I suspect most people simply laugh at you.

Let's see here, "not unnatural" implies "natural".
Therefore,
"Having sex without getting pregnant is natural".
The converse of that position is"Getting pregnant from having sex is unnatural"
See how I can twist the meaning of words just like you?

In any event, carry on with your slut-shaming. You're getting plenty of attention from the hawt chicks, which I suspect was your intention all along, even though most of the attention is negative (aka "Amicus Syndrome")

I really don't 'get' why anyone is trying to reason with him. He already told the forum about 20 pages ago that he has no intention of changing his mind about any of this. Is the sensation of running into a concrete wall truly that irresistible? He thinks birth control has nothing to do with a woman's health. Is there anywhere to go from there?

 

[evesdream]

Because of this:

The baby must survive, so that when it matures, it can be beaten to death by the rest of us with sticks.

Sig-line worthy.

 

[StrangeLife]

I really don't 'get' why anyone is trying to reason with him. He already told the forum about 20 pages ago that he has no intention of changing his mind about any of this. Is the sensation of running into a concrete wall truly that irresistible? He thinks birth control has nothing to do with a woman's health. Is there anywhere to go from there?

Because they want to believe and my argument makes much too much sense to dismiss out of hand in favor of the popular - but logically flawed - position.

 

[evesdream]

Because they want to believe and my argument makes much too much sense to dismiss out of hand in favor of the popular - but logically flawed - position.

Occasionally I feel sorry for beta males, but when you add blinkered stupidity even my tender mercies run dry.

 

[about_average]

Because they want to believe and my argument makes much too much sense to dismiss out of hand in favor of the popular - but logically flawed - position.

Actually your argument makes no sense. You're arguing financial ("I don't want to pay for it") while promoting a position that increases the financial burden on insurance companies.
I know it makes sense to you.

 

[phrodeau]

Actually your argument makes no sense. You're arguing financial ("I don't want to pay for it") while promoting a position that increases the financial burden on insurance companies.
I know it makes sense to you.

He's arguing against the entire concept of insurance. Like these billboards.

http://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/obamacare-hunger-games-billboard.png

 

[StrangeLife]

Actually your argument makes no sense. You're arguing financial ("I don't want to pay for it") while promoting a position that increases the financial burden on insurance companies.
I know it makes sense to you.

I don't want to pay for it and I don't mind paying more in other areas to avoid paying for it. If anything it proves that I am true to my beliefs - even in the face of increased costs.

 

[Brollyanna]

Too fucking late!!!
I was going to congratulate you on your 100th post in this thread.

 

[StrangeLife]

Too fucking late!!!
I was going to congratulate you on your 100th post in this thread.

It's the thought that counts Anna. Thanks

 

[Bert_Fegg]

Because they want to believe and my argument makes much too much sense to dismiss out of hand in favor of the popular - but logically flawed - position.

You don't have one argument - you've changed your position several times - The only thing that's obvious is that you don't like subsidised birth control and you do like pregnancy.

Given your less than faithful relationship with the truth, it's hard to say what your actual position is. You say you like the idea of birth control - I don't believe you. You say you're pro-choice Don't believe that either. You did say you were a misogynist at one point - That seems legit.

I have no idea why people continue responding to you. perhaps because the points you raise are so easily dismissed - I know why you keep posting though. sooner or later people will give up and then you can rephrase your tired, discredited "argument" one final time and declare yourself the winner.

 

[StrangeLife]

You don't have one argument - you've changed your position several times - The only thing that's obvious is that you don't like subsidised birth control...

Give the man a cigar

...and you do like pregnancy.

I'm neutral on the subject. People can do what they want.

Given your less than faithful relationship with the truth, it's hard to say what your actual position is. You say you like the idea of birth control - I don't believe you.

I know Bert - I don't fit inside your little box. Not wanting to pay implies that I'm against, right? And being against means that I must be religious, right? And being religious means that my opinion can be dismissed as "one of them," right?

I'm sorry... well, actually not really. A prejudice needs to be challenged. Otherwise you'll never get rid of the pesky thing

I'm not religious and I love lotsa things that I don't want to pay for - including birth control.

You say you're pro-choice Don't believe that either.

Believe it.

You did say you were a misogynist at one point - That seems legit.

No, I didn't. But I was accused of being one because I mentioned that I wanted women to pay their own way too. And some people believe that if you respect them enough to hold them to the same standards as you hold yourself and everybody else, you're against them.

I have no idea why people continue responding to you. perhaps because the points you raise are so easily dismissed - I know why you keep posting though. sooner or later people will give up and then you can rephrase your tired, discredited "argument" one final time and declare yourself the winner.

Win what? I'm in an anonymous forum. I cant even brag to anybody I know. And nobody is sending me signed boob pics. Being a winner is not all it's cracked up to be....

 

[Phelia]

A sad and deeply embarrassing day for the US. The day that five old men decided that the religious beliefs of a company are more important than a woman's (as in a real, actual person) right to manage her own reproductive health, and that (I won't attempt to reproduce RBG's fabulous dissent) you don't have to follow laws if you don't BELIEVE you have to, but like, you really really have to believe it, ok?

Anyway, not to generalize, but the five Justices in the majority on this case are dumb, bad people, and if you agree with their decision to any degree, you are a dumb, bad person. Be a complete idiot who is cowed by religion and bewildered by science all you like, but keep it the fuck out of our government.

Viagras all around - Hobby Lobby will still pay for those, thank God (literally!!!!!! Thanks for the boner pills, Dad *winks in the direction of Heaven*).

 

[Phelia]

Oh, and I got tired of responding to this thread before, but someone did get into the whole "women are naturally hypergamous" thing, and I did want to address that. Um, yeahhhhhhh, no. Just because you really think something, and a bunch of people (like MRAs, a rigorously academic bunch) also think that, doesn't make it true.

Seriously people: science. It's a thing. Google it.

 

[about_average]

The most perplexing thing is that HL's argument is based on ignoring science (how the BC methods actually work) and the hypocrisy of earning income from something they don't want covered by insurance.
As for the latter, I can't even believe that, after review, the court even agreed to rule on the case since HL obviously has no true religious objections to the BC methods.

 

[Phelia]

The most perplexing thing is that HL's argument is based on ignoring science (how the BC methods actually work) and the hypocrisy of earning income from something they don't want covered by insurance.
As for the latter, I can't even believe that, after review, the court even agreed to rule on the case since HL obviously has no true religious objections to the BC methods.

Yeah, agree. Even with the glaring, profit-driven hypocrisy, I actually don't doubt the sincerity of their beliefs. I also don't care. People believe dumb things all the time, as is their right; they shouldn't be able to opt out of the law. Particularly "People" that are not actually, you know, people. Like fucking corporations.

I'm a little shocked and very disappointed, but remain confident that this will rate as a mega-facepalm in the larger narrative of human history, as do most decisions rooted in ignorance and bias. It just feels very frustrating to be living it. Honestly, I do not know how the female justices are holding their shit together. I would be kicking Alito in the face right now yelling "IT IS MY RELIGIOUS BELIEF THAT I HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THIS."

I do not normally advocate violence, but that dude needs to get kicked.

 

[bg23]

Yeah, agree. Even with the glaring, profit-driven hypocrisy, I actually don't doubt the sincerity of their beliefs. I also don't care. People believe dumb things all the time, as is their right; they shouldn't be able to opt out of the law. Particularly "People" that are not actually, you know, people. Like fucking corporations.

I'm a little shocked and very disappointed, but remain confident that this will rate as a mega-facepalm in the larger narrative of human history, as do most decisions rooted in ignorance and bias. It just feels very frustrating to be living it. Honestly, I do not know how the female justices are holding their shit together. I would be kicking Alito in the face right now yelling "IT IS MY RELIGIOUS BELIEF THAT I HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THIS."

I do not normally advocate violence, but that dude needs to get kicked.

Seriously. How is it OK to not obey laws based on religious belief? When politicians would talk about how they would put God's law first and man's law second, this used to be a reason for concern and to write the dude off as a dangerous whackjob. But now it's protected?

So can Hobby Lobby refuse to employ somebody on the basis that they're gay now? Why not -- it's a sincerely held religious belief, right? How about stoning people to death? I should be able to use my religion as a defense against murder, right? Slavery, incest - can I go sell my daughters now after I bang them?