the best thing that's ever happened in this stinking refuse of a running narrative on this board

a man in the Reading Eagle who owns a used car lot said that he was pleased with the SC's ruling on Hobby Lobby because he considers his business a Christian one. guess his cars are fuckin' blessed.

mozartpc27 wrote:Bottom line: you don't want to provide health insurance that includes access to birth control? Then don't run a business. No one is putting a gun to your head. If you run a business, you will of necessity have contact with people who did not share your religious beliefs, and your right to yours should not and should never permit you to affect someone else's legal choices about their own lives.

Or don't get a job there. No one is putting a gun to your head to work there.

Additionally, no one is affecting their legal choices about their lives. That is such a bogus argument. They can still go to Target and get what they need, they just have to fork over like 8 bucks. You can disagree with the ruling, that's perfectly fine, but they arent denied anything under the law.

'don't get a job there'. this is about the employer changing their mind about some contraception choices, not understand what these contraception choices do, and then suing the government to not force them to cover what they previous were covering. what was covered now won't be, due to the personal politics of the people that own parts of the corporation.

you should probably research the cost of an IUD sans insurance and then get back to me about affordability.

and, the cost of something really isn't the question that was being decided.

would like to see someone step to an unemployed single mom with a deadbeat for her child's father and tell them they're free to get a job at all the places that agree to cover her contraception

no, the cost wasnt the argument, and that really not what i was saying. I was saying that no one was being denied anything, which they are not.

the argument was the people who own the company and write the checks either should or should not have to offer certain types of coverages in the health insurance based on religious beliefs. They decided they didnt want to offer a few things to their employees, who work there on their own free will, and are free to continue to work there or find new employment. The Court agreed with them.

'Write the checks'

good one.

Rococo4 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Bottom line: you don't want to provide health insurance that includes access to birth control? Then don't run a business. No one is putting a gun to your head. If you run a business, you will of necessity have contact with people who did not share your religious beliefs, and your right to yours should not and should never permit you to affect someone else's legal choices about their own lives.

Or don't get a job there. No one is putting a gun to your head to work there.

Additionally, no one is affecting their legal choices about their lives. That is such a bogus argument. They can still go to Target and get what they need, they just have to fork over like 8 bucks. You can disagree with the ruling, that's perfectly fine, but they arent denied anything under the law.

So, now women have to take extra steps when finding employment, steps men do not have to take...

Equality?

PhillieMooDo wrote:So, now women have to take extra steps when finding employment, steps men do not have to take...

Equality?

What steps? Consider the benefits package their employer is offering in weighing the merits of a job offer?

Werthless wrote:

PhillieMooDo wrote:So, now women have to take extra steps when finding employment, steps men do not have to take...

Equality?

What steps? Consider the benefits package their employer is offering in weighing the merits of a job offer?

Make sure the ownership group isn't some religious group of assholes?

Make sure her specific contraception isn't excluded from said benefits package?

We're assuming the exclusions are going to be explicitly detailed and easy to find, by some company like Hobby Lobby?

Idk...religious views held by others now add considerations for female applicants that didn't exist before and still don't exist for men. Job opportunities are now limited further for one segment of the population. Seems kinda fucked up, no?

Benefits vary greatly from company to company, and you may even have the option of multiple plans with the same employer. That's part of being an adult; weighing the various options, and reading the company paperwork.

Prostate cancer is the leading cause of death in American men, and the second most deadly cancer. Private companies are not required to offer prostate screening. That's not an inequality issue that's "fucked up." If that medical service is important to you, then go work at an employer who offers it, lobby your employer to offer a plan that offers it, or pay for it yourself.

PhillieMooDo wrote:

Werthless wrote:

PhillieMooDo wrote:So, now women have to take extra steps when finding employment, steps men do not have to take...

Equality?

What steps? Consider the benefits package their employer is offering in weighing the merits of a job offer?

Make sure the ownership group isn't some religious group of asshat?

Make sure her specific contraception isn't excluded from said benefits package?

We're assuming the exclusions are going to be explicitly detailed and easy to find, by some company like Hobby Lobby?

Idk...religious views held by others now add considerations for female applicants that didn't exist before and still don't exist for men. Job opportunities are now limited further for one segment of the population. Seems kinda #$!&@ up, no?

If something in a health plan was so important and specfic to a potential job seeker, they would/should try to find out that beforehand, not just assume something was covered (or maybe they just assume and complain after the fact anymore). That could be anything...something contraception related, blood transfusion, asthma medication, I dont know, pick something. that goes for men and women. Not really a undue burden to do some due dilligence on stuff like that for a big decsion like taking a job if it is so important.

This is all on the side of my original comment...someone claiming that the decision affected legal choices of someone lives, which it did not.

This is all ignoring the fact that there is a law to mandate that it is covered. Offering up that "benefits vary greatly from company to company" is very misleading w/r/t the actual issue here.

Glad we got some more dudes here to tell us that women should just pony up the (cites way too low of cost) at (generic store) if they want to be (misogynistic slang).

SK790 wrote:This is all ignoring the fact that there is a law to mandate that it is covered. Offering up that "benefits vary greatly from company to company" is very misleading w/r/t the actual issue here.

Glad we got some more dudes here to tell us that women should just pony up the (cites way too low of cost) at (generic store) if they want to be (misogynistic slang).

And that aspect of the law was struck down. And around and around we go.

it's still ignoring the fact that this only affects women and not men.

not all men

fair enough, gender nazi.

Rococo4 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Bottom line: you don't want to provide health insurance that includes access to birth control? Then don't run a business. No one is putting a gun to your head. If you run a business, you will of necessity have contact with people who did not share your religious beliefs, and your right to yours should not and should never permit you to affect someone else's legal choices about their own lives.

Or don't get a job there. No one is putting a gun to your head to work there.

Additionally, no one is affecting their legal choices about their lives. That is such a bogus argument. They can still go to Target and get what they need, they just have to fork over like 8 bucks. You can disagree with the ruling, that's perfectly fine, but they arent denied anything under the law.

the conversation here has taken the same errant turn found in the broader public shouting about this case.

Despite it being "about" contraception, this case is rather more "about" a legal artifice's magical endowment with religious - spiritual - sentiments. A business, a commercial enterprise, has tender, 'heartfelt' (albeit literally heartless) religious yearnings. It's enough to make a rational person shudder.

I know that's crazy, you know that's crazy, we all know that's crazy - all but a clutch of glassy-eyed supreme court justices.