All is quiet...

[_Darth J]

but a private company not having to subsidize sluts is somehow demeaning to women.

Oh, well then you must understand the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby's owners better than they do, since they were not making that claim, nor do they oppose a health plan that provides birth control per se.

[_just me]

This isn't about religious convictions at all. It's about power.

No, it really is about religious convictions. Hobby Lobby is similar to Chik-fil-A, in that the founders of both companies are not kidding about trying to integrate their beliefs about Christian values into how they do business (that's explicitly why Chik-fil-A closes on Sunday, for example).

David Green, the founder of Hobby Lobby, wrote a book in which he talks at length about how his Christian upbringing and beliefs inform his business practices. The book is even sold in Christian bookstores, which should be a pretty good hint about Hobby Lobby's founder/owners commingling their religious convictions and business model.

More Than a Hobby: How a $600 Startup Became America's Home and Craft Superstore

One element of the statutory test for exemption from a federal law under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is that the religious belief at issue must be sincerely held. It was undisputed by the government that Hobby Lobby's owners sincerely held their religious belief that life begins at conception. If this were merely about having power over women, then you could reasonably expect Hobby Lobby to be opposing all forms of birth control for women. That wasn't their position. They're only opposed to birth control that takes effect after fertilization has happened. Plus the majority of Hobby Lobby's customer base is women, so it would not be a very prudent move for the company to be blatantly sexist like that.

The RFRA exemption for Hobby Lobby doesn't deny these other four forms of birth control to female employees of Hobby Lobby, either. The reason Hobby Lobby won was on the question of fact of whether a less restrictive means for fulfilling the government mandate was available. There is such a less restrictive means available; the Affordable Care Act on its own terms makes FDA-approved birth control available to women with no cost sharing if they work for an exempt religious entity or for a company whose health care plan has been grandfathered.

I still don't see how this is not about power. I think it is power play between right wing conservatives and Obama.

Hobby Lobby was more than happy to cover these birth control methods they sincerely don't believe in until 2012 when they decided to take on the Affordable Care Act. Their retirement investments also include pharmaceutical companies that make these same methods of BC. At least, that is what I've been reading online.

It seems awfully convenient for their sincerely held religious conviction to only come into play when they want to get into it with the liberals.

Am I missing something, Darth? I don't think this can be said to just be about a religious conviction.

[_canpakes]

My sister was prescribed birth control pills by her doctor for many years as part of her management of endometriosis. She was not even capable of becoming pregnant or having a child.

Presumably you can tell us how that equates to being a slut or using 'abortion pills' as a lifestyle choice.

Hobby Lobby offered 16 different types of birth control. I'm sure that list includes birth control for management of endometriosis. The birth control at issue was "the day after pill."

And I'm sure that this distinction will be made in future complaints about 'sluts' and their need for 'free birth control', just as it always is whenever these bizarre diatribes are launched from their conservative-minded mouthpieces.

[_Darth J]

I still don't see how this is not about power. I think it is power play between right wing conservatives and Obama.

In that sense, yes. Every court case against the government is about power.

[_Brackite]

There has already been a Thread on this Message board about this ruling.
But subgenius never posts in the Terrestrial forum here.

the Supreme Court: Cannot Be Compelled Against Religious Beliefs


There have also been several threads about this ruling over on the Hannity forum.
Here is my favorite thread there.

A moderate perspective on the Hobby Lobby verdict

[_ldsfaqs]

Again, keep bringing these gems. First attack science and now women. Of course all women who want birth control (even those who need it for medical reasons) must be "sluts"!

Yeah, I'd be hiding behind a pseudonym too if I shared your bigotry.

Kevin G..... Do you not know how to use your brain?
It's called a truthful "generalization".
Some likely 95% of those who use birth control use it because they are sluts.
Obviously he wasn't talking about those who use it for medical reasons or necessary family planning.

Is your warped brain not able to process reality and truth, but can only see the "exception" TO THE RULE???
More so, what part of your brain doesn't understand that there are other means and ways, thus zero necessary need for birth control?

Tell us in your warped brain how truth and fact is somehow "bigotry" against women?
A person is either a slut or they aren't. How is truth bigotry?

Talk about being "anti-science".... that would be you buddy. Fact is science weirdo.

[_Darth J]

Some likely 95% of those who use birth control use it because they are sluts.

A much higher proportion of married than of never-married women use a contraceptive method (77% vs. 42%). This is largely because married women are more likely to be sexually active. But even among those at risk of unintended pregnancy, contraceptive use is higher among currently married women than among never-married women (93% vs. 83%)

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr060.pdf

From what I hear, fact is science.

[_just me]

Some likely 95% of those who use birth control use it because they are sluts.

A much higher proportion of married than of never-married women use a contraceptive method (77% vs. 42%). This is largely because married women are more likely to be sexually active. But even among those at risk of unintended pregnancy, contraceptive use is higher among currently married women than among never-married women (93% vs. 83%)

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr060.pdf

From what I hear, fact is science.

Married women are filthy slutty whores!!! Everybody knows that.

[_just me]

Obviously he wasn't talking about those who use it for medical reasons or necessary family planning.

Oh, yes, obviously. Here you agree there are women who use it for medical reasons and "necessary" family planning.

More so, what part of your brain doesn't understand that there are other means and ways, thus zero necessary need for birth control?

Wait, what just happened here? Zero need for birth control?!?! You just said that there are women who NEED to use it. Which is it?

A person is either a slut or they aren't. How is truth bigotry?

You mean a woman, right? Not men. A woman is either a slut or she isn't and you will be sure to let us know which women are sluts. Bigot.

[_Darth J]

I would like to point out the muddled reasoning here that by providing a health care plan that provides birth control, Hobby Lobby is subsidizing slutty behavior.

The owners of Hobby Lobby religiously believe that sex should only happen between married persons. They also do not oppose birth control in general. It stands to reason that by taking these positions, Hobby Lobby assumes that birth control is largely used by married couples. Otherwise, Hobby Lobby's owners would have argued that their sincere religious beliefs proscribed providing health care plans with any birth control at all, since it would be, as asserted in this thread, subsidizing fornication.

But again, you guys probably know what Hobby Lobby's owners' religious beliefs are better than they do.