Results 37 to 48 of 63
-
-
Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE
-
07-07-2014, 12:24 PM #39
-
Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE
Diitto and spot on.
Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-07-2014 at 05:26 PM.
-
07-07-2014, 02:07 PM #41Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
07-08-2014, 04:03 AM #42
-
07-09-2014, 03:17 AM #43
Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE
Hence the point I already made: Hobby Lobby is odiously hypocritical for continuing to cover vasectomies. Last I checked, vasectomies prevent conception.
Do you actually understand how most daily birth control pills work? Most do not work by "destroying a fertilized egg." Most prevent fertilization by making the 'shell' around the egg damn near impossible for sperm to penetrate. Therefore, NO: Common daily birth control is not an abortifacient.
Oh, look! A man who finds the War On Women "meme" to be "absurd nonsense!" Now, there is something not seen every day. I would never have guessed that someone who has never had to live a single day in the life of the gender that is often viewed and treated as less would think a 100% demonstrably real, harmful, systemic phenomenon to be an "absurd" "meme." Although I just tried, there really are no words to describe how backward and senseless you just made yourself sound.
Then they should stop covering vasectomies and Viagra.
The Constitution does not grant people the right to impose their religious beliefs on others. I personally don't give a single fuck what gods you worship or what manmade fantasies you have internalized. Those fantasies/unprovable beliefs do not give you the right to dictate to others how they go about their health. And for many women, birth control is also a health issue.
I'm willing to bet most people who go the "Don't trample my religious freedom to impose on your freedoms!" route would do a QUICK about-face if the situation put them on the receiving end of a ruling that supported a religion they were not a part of.
Funny. I'd say a moron was a person who didn't see the danger in the government letting the religious beliefs of employers affect how they compensate employees. Because there certainly aren't hundreds of religions/denominations in this country with thousands of contradictory, horrifying beliefs.
See above. Small scale: Inconsistent internal logic on the part of Hobby Lobby. Large scale: Slippery slope. Though it may perhaps be an exercise in futility to argue sensibility with a man who thinks the War On Women is an "absurd" "meme."My Ravens Blog: Brittany Rants About Football
Ravens-Redskins: Dissecting the Final Drive
"The days are long. But the years are short." - John Harbaugh
-
07-09-2014, 03:21 AM #44
Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE
My Ravens Blog: Brittany Rants About Football
Ravens-Redskins: Dissecting the Final Drive
"The days are long. But the years are short." - John Harbaugh
-
07-09-2014, 09:15 AM #45Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE
I see aka is completely ignoring there facts of this case and instead is favoring the rhetoric.
The reason there's no hypocrisy is simple. Hobby Lobby was opposed to four types of birth control, all of which in some manner or another destroy an egg that's already been fertilized. Thus, they are fine with both control methods such as vasectomies, the pill, etc since those forms of birth control prevent the egg from ever being fertilized in the first place.
Funny how her side seems to forget this fact. Just as they only see the portions of the constitution that fit their narrow argument. Last time I checked, there were two parts to the religious clause to the Constitution.Last edited by HoustonRaven; 07-09-2014 at 10:56 AM.
-
07-09-2014, 10:49 AM #46Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
-
07-09-2014, 11:20 AM #47Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE
Hobby Lobby does cover contraception. And tubal ligation. There is no hypocrisy at all regarding vasectomies. Anyone who imagines "odious hypocrisy" where there is none, or who lies about it to fool others who are too ill-informed to make their own opinions is certainly worthy of being called out.
No one said common birth control is an abortifacient, and now I am forced to believe you aren't even reading the plain English in front of you. I really think you need to actually do some research instead of going to partisan political sites and gobbling up propaganda then repeating it in forums interested in intelligent discussions. Your blurb above has literally nothing to do with Hobby Lobby case. Nothing.
Oh look! A vapid retort that does not in any way address any argument. Just a bunch of empty words and a few impotent insults at the end. Do you know how ignorant and senseless you just made yourself sound?
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about as this response obviously fails two separate ways.
I already addressed why vasectomies and Viagra are not in any way, shape or form abortifacients. So fail #1 for you.
And of course, I already addressed why demanding that someone subsidize your bedroom activities precludes you from accusing them of entering your bedroom uninvited. So fail #2 for you.
You are right about the Constitution not giving people the right to force their beliefs on others, unfortunately for you, there is no instance of that occurring here. Not in the least. The Constitution established a protection for religion from government interference. That is what we are talking about here, a relationship between the government and the people (the Green family), the employees are entirely irrelevant to the Constitutional/RFRA argument here.
As much as this might surprise you, I am an atheist, though not a cartoonish militant one like many others. I was not raised in a religious household and have been to a church maybe four times in my life (when staying with friend as a child, couple of weddings and a baptism). But unlike you and a depressing percentage of others, I am able to view logical and legal arguments/issues on their merits, without willingly ignoring facts, laws or realities that are inconvenient to my desired outcome. And this case is as obvious as it gets, as long as one uses the law, the RFRA, and not their own personal desires, to decide the case.
Again, you are acting as if the judges were just sitting there and deciding the case based on their desires of the end results, instead of judging the case using facts, logic and the relevant laws of the land (RFRA). I realize that disgraceful leftist justices are prone to do exactly that, but expecting all the justices to be disgraceful is your problem, not the problem of the justices you are complaining about.
No one was imposed on at all, except Hobby Lobby being imposed on by the government (until the court overturned the illegal imposition). You do not have a "right" to have a third party give you something. And the government is not unlimited in its ability to demand a citizen pay for (or do) something.
Read the last paragraph as many times as necessary to absorb what it says.
Nope, the morons are still the ones that swallow arguments claiming that undoing a mandate first enforced in 2012 suddenly makes us go back not to 2011, but 50 years further. But considering your obvious confusion about this case, from soup to nuts, I am not surprised in the least that you arrived at the wrong conclusion here as well.
And a whole lot of nothing to finish off the flailing.
No inconsistent logic (except coming from you), no slippery slope concerning the RFRA (or no slipperier than any other issue/decision that requires strict scrutiny, and there are plenty of those), and yep War On Women is an absurd meme meant to influence dimbulbs (note: I am not saying that the meme is not effective, as the country has plenty of dimbulbs) .Last edited by Haloti92; 07-09-2014 at 11:34 AM.
-
Bookmarks