Post: #1

Is that most of Hobby Lobby's customer base are WOMEN.

It'd be pretty easy for them to just shift their money over to Michael's.

But that's not going to happen.

WIA

Post: #2

Because most women don't read the news.

If they did, they still would keep going. Because they don't want to ruin their habits. Plus now, more Christians will shop at Hobby Lobby.

Good to see the Supreme Court strike down executive overreach. I don't want to pay for some broke slut's sluttery.

Post: #3

More women are pro-life than men. Don't believe the "misogynistic" claims.

Post: #4

(06-30-2014 10:59 AM)xpatplayer Wrote:  Good to see the Supreme Court strike down executive overreach. I don't want to pay for some broke slut's sluttery.

Oh, you'll still be paying for it. Probably more now. Food stamps, welfare, WIC, Medicaid and Sector 8.

Post: #5

I'm loving the feminist shriek from this decision. I could care less either way and I've never even seen a Hobby Lobby nor heard of it before this got into the news, but its funny to me.

Post: #6

Hobby Lobby is the Circuit City of art supplies stores.

Post: #7

This is interesting. They were allowed to invoke religious freedom on their business...it reminds me of the gay cake baking people, could they have abstained from the gay cakes if they were claiming to be a christian company?

What if this extends further, ie could you claim some sort of religious freedom that women shouldn't work outside of the home to have a company policy that you only hire men?

Post: #8

(06-30-2014 01:44 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  This is interesting. They were allowed to invoke religious freedom on their business...it reminds me of the gay cake baking people, could they have abstained from the gay cakes if they were claiming to be a christian company?

What if this extends further, ie could you claim some sort of religious freedom that women shouldn't work outside of the home to have a company policy that you only hire men?

You shouldn't even have to hide behind religious freedom, but I suppose religious freedom still means something to the Supreme Court.

The funny thing about this to me is all of the shrieking done by the usual suspects about how this is an anti women ruling blah blah blah. Nothing has changed with respect to the availability of contraceptives. If you want to buy contraceptives, you can, just as you could before. All that was ruled was that an employer can't be forced to pay for contraceptives.

The outrage is hypocritical. You can't on one hand scream MY BODY MY RULES NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, and then force someone else to provide you with something, which then makes it precisely their business. I suspect that underneath it all the advocates believe that the contraceptives they feel entitled to are free, and thus this ruling is depriving them of something. That would be a misunderstanding of the economics of the situation, because their employers, should they be forced to buy contraceptives, would most likely be taking that out of the compensation of their workers. Which brings up a different kettle of fish as you'd then be penalizing anyone who didnt need or want contraceptives in order to subsidize those who do.

Even if you're socially liberal on these issues, at some point the special interest groups are going to start losing support. Today most people accepting, but that isn't enough. You have to be an active participant whether you want to or not, otherwise you're discriminating. Look at the True Blood guy. Apparently he's a homophobe now because he is uncomfortable partaking in gay love scenes. At some point even the most tree hugging hippy will get tired of it.

Post: #9

While it's nice to see the government should protect private property rights (a rarity, usually they're doing the opposite)...
- Why is it under religious freedom?
- This healthcare thing is getting messy realquick
- Can a business owner religiously not hire a Jewish person?

Post: #10

None of this would be an issue if insurance was not employer based. But thanks to federal government wage and price controls in the 1930's we have developed a system where two seemingly unassociated things, health insurance and employment, have been joined together to the dentriment of all. So today was just another round of government solutions to government-caused problems.

Post: #11

I don't even see why the idea of religious freedom has to be invoked as other people here have pointed out. I don't expect my employer to pay for my condoms, vasectomy, or boner pills. I don't understand why birth control even falls under the health care umbrella. I mean, unless you consider pregnancy to be some of medical condition or disease...oh wait, we're talking about the same people who refer to their unborn children as "parasites". Makes sense now.

Post: #12

Glad to see Roberts grew a pair on this one.

Post: #13

Yet another upon a myriad of reasons to hope the male contraceptive pill comes out soon. It'll be fascinating to see if feminists will A) support it and B) fight for it to be covered under insurance along with female contraceptives by employers.

Post: #14

What's the Hobby Lobby decision?

Post: #15

(06-30-2014 03:40 PM)mikado Wrote:  What's the Hobby Lobby decision?

It is a decision that came out of the US Supreme Court today holding that a closely held private corporation can refuse to fund contraception for women for the purposes of birth control.

The holding appears to be pretty narrow in that it only applies to corporations that are basically run by a family or a very small group of individuals. It does not apply to publically traded corporations as far as I can tell. Also, this is only for certain kinds of birth control, including Plan B (morning after pill), IUD's, and one other kind.

They did not dispute covering many other types of birth control. However, any decision that does not unilaterally allow women absolute freedom of reproductive control will be seen by US liberals to be the apocalypse.

Post: #16

Unfunny thing about the case: the Supreme Court almost ruled that regulatory law churned out by the executive branch trumps laws passed by congress and constitutional rights.

Four justices actually supported that.

Post: #17

(06-30-2014 11:12 AM)runsonmagic Wrote:  More women are pro-life than men. Don't believe the "misogynistic" claims.

On average, that crowd is much more attractive than the normal feminist group photo.

Post: #18

(06-30-2014 03:49 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Unfunny thing about the case: the Supreme Court almost ruled that regulatory law churned out by the executive branch trumps laws passed by congress and constitutional rights.

Four justices actually supported that.

the affordable care act, like any piece of legislation, passed the house and the senate before being signed into law by the executive.

and actually, obama initially was very hands off in the creation of this law. initially, he told congress he wanted health care reform and left it up to them to figure it out, contra the clinton administration who tried to do it behind closed doors until that blew up in their face.

Post: #19

My little cousing (22) freaked out about this ruling, It's shitty seeing her brainwashed by feminism SMH.

I was talking about the cost of BC and all these other fembots started commenting. Throw in a beta white knight and a landwhale and had myself a party.

I mean seriously ACA is insane to begin with, another question is why is this on religious grounds ?

Also, BC has probably saved me from having some kids, shouldn't we be supporting that ? (Not the part about government enforcing something on a private company)

Post: #20

Jezebel is having their meltdown:

http://jezebel.com/why-women-arent-peopl...1598061808

They are interpreting it as "Supreme court doesn't view women as people."

Post: #21

I've always bought my own condoms. Always have and always will. I never felt it was my god given right that my employer or gubmint buy my "rain coats."

I don't understand how these Bishes feel so entitled that someone else has to buy their birth control. What the fuck is wrong with these hysterical lunatics?

Post: #22

Has anyone been lobbying for the government to buy men condoms?

1220 replies on that Jezebel post. lolzzzzz

No, I did not read them.

Post: #23

Jezebel's response proves that they are, indeed, people. Only a bunch of whiny homosapiens with double X could have such an existential meltdown like that over nothing. What it also proves is that they are not adults since they need to be coddled and placated to at all turns.

Post: #24

(06-30-2014 04:58 PM)Jeans Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 03:49 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Unfunny thing about the case: the Supreme Court almost ruled that regulatory law churned out by the executive branch trumps laws passed by congress and constitutional rights.

Four justices actually supported that.

the affordable care act, like any piece of legislation, passed the house and the senate before being signed into law by the executive.

and actually, obama initially was very hands off in the creation of this law. initially, he told congress he wanted health care reform and left it up to them to figure it out, contra the clinton administration who tried to do it behind closed doors until that blew up in their face.

The ACA passed the house and senate in part because it didn't include this contraceptive mandate. You will not find the language anywhere in the bills passed by Congress.

The administration (and more specifically Health and Human Services) came up with it.

http://executivebranchproject.com/kenned...bby-lobby/

Quote:Congress did not impose the contraception mandate on employers; the administration did. The Affordable Care Act directs large employers only to provide employees the opportunity to enroll in “minimum essential coverage,” pursuant to HHS’s implementation of the act. And so, with Solicitor General Donald Verrilli at the podium, Kennedy stressed the fact that this collision between Obama-care and religious liberty arose not because the statute itself forced HHS’s hand, but because HHS itself had used a vague statute to force the constitutional issue:

Post: #25

Women can very easily be whipped up into hysterics. It's because they follow emotions over logic and have hormones flowing through them that can make them crazy. The left knows how to whip up the hysteria. Obamas strategy was to make single women hysterical that there was a war against them - and the strategy worked. Single women tipped the scales for Obama .

They're doing it again. They left is pushing the buttons of these hysterical women and they're flipping out over hobby lobby employees having to pay ten bucks a month for their birth control.

Bitches spend more on Starbucks milkshakes than they have to pay for birth control.