SCOTUS men do it again, harder

[Bob Juch]

Here's a photo of some folks exercising their first amendment rights:

Spoiler

[silverscreenselect]

Here's a photo of some folks exercising their first amendment rights:

Spoiler

Someone else seems to have exercised their first amendment rights by deleting your photograph.

[Bob Juch]

Here's a photo of some folks exercising their first amendment rights:

Spoiler

Someone else seems to have exercised their first amendment rights by deleting your photograph.

Strange. If you right click on it and selected open in new tab it works. I'll see if I can find another.

[Bob Juch]

Here's a photo of some folks exercising their first amendment rights:

Spoiler

Someone else seems to have exercised their first amendment rights by deleting your photograph.

Strange. If you right click on it and selected open in new tab it works. I'll see if I can find another.

This works:

Spoiler

[Beebs52]

You a fan of Westboro Baptist?

[Ritterskoop]

I did not read every post in the thread. I apologize if I am repeating anything.

I have finally gotten around to reading a little bit about the Supreme Court decision. Just based on the little bit I read, I agree with it.

That probably makes me a bad sometimes-liberal female. Here are my reasons.

1. Hobby Lobby is a private company. No one has to shop there and no one has to work there. Stuff is different when it's public vs. private.

2. The treatments they object to paying for are after-sex abortifacients, like morning-after and week-after pills. They are biologically different from pre-sex things that prevent contraception, such as birth-control pills and condoms.

3. Contraception is a luxury and not a medical necessity.*

I know that last argument is weaker, but the first two -- I think -- are strong enough to support the ruling.

No one said these options are illegal, only that they did not feel it was morally right for them as a company to pay for them. I'm cool with that (even though I am glad the treatments are available for those who need them and can pay for them).

* I realize the word "luxury" may trigger some reaction, but in this context, I mean it as a thing that one can live without (in this case, by abstaining from sex).

[Beebs52]

Scoop, you're so rational. Beware.And, I agree.

[Bob Juch]

I did not read every post in the thread. I apologize if I am repeating anything.

I have finally gotten around to reading a little bit about the Supreme Court decision. Just based on the little bit I read, I agree with it.

That probably makes me a bad sometimes-liberal female. Here are my reasons.

1. Hobby Lobby is a private company. No one has to shop there and no one has to work there. Stuff is different when it's public vs. private.

2. The treatments they object to paying for are after-sex abortifacients, like morning-after and week-after pills. They are biologically different from pre-sex things that prevent contraception, such as birth-control pills and condoms.

3. Contraception is a luxury and not a medical necessity.*

I know that last argument is weaker, but the first two -- I think -- are strong enough to support the ruling.

No one said these options are illegal, only that they did not feel it was morally right for them as a company to pay for them. I'm cool with that (even though I am glad the treatments are available for those who need them and can pay for them).

* I realize the word "luxury" may trigger some reaction, but in this context, I mean it as a thing that one can live without (in this case, by abstaining from sex).

Wrong!

1. So it's OK with you if Hobby Lobby, being a private company, refused to hire non-whites and to let only whites shop there?

2. What they are objecting to are not abortifacients. They are drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted. They do not cause a developed egg to be aborted. They also object to IUDs for the same reason.

3. Contraceptive drugs are very often prescribed for reasons other than contraception, e.g. to treat endometriosis.

I can not believe that it's OK with you that a company impose its religious views on its employees.

[BackInTex]

Wrong!

1. So it's OK with you if Hobby Lobby, being a private company, refused to hire non-whites and to let only whites shop there?

2. What they are objecting to are not abortifacients. They are drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted. They do not cause a developed egg to be aborted. They also object to IUDs for the same reason.

3. Contraceptive drugs are very often prescribed for reasons other than contraception, e.g. to treat endometriosis.

I can not believe that it's OK with you that a company impose its religious views on its employees.

How is Hobby Lobby imposing its religious views on its employees? Be specific as to action (what Hobby Lobby is doing) and result (employee compliance with Hobby Lobby's religion).

And this is different than hiring or not hiring based on race, or even religion. In fact, this has nothing to do with hiring, or even the compensation level of workers. It has to do with the medium used to compensate employees. You think Hobby Lobby should be forced to compensate their employees with IUD and birth control pills. Hobby Lobby would rather compensate them with money. And they do. More so than their competitors and other similar businesses.

But that,paying employees enough to make their own choices, doesn't help your agenda.

[tlynn78]

I did not read every post in the thread. I apologize if I am repeating anything.

I have finally gotten around to reading a little bit about the Supreme Court decision. Just based on the little bit I read, I agree with it.

That probably makes me a bad sometimes-liberal female. Here are my reasons.

1. Hobby Lobby is a private company. No one has to shop there and no one has to work there. Stuff is different when it's public vs. private.

2. The treatments they object to paying for are after-sex abortifacients, like morning-after and week-after pills. They are biologically different from pre-sex things that prevent contraception, such as birth-control pills and condoms.

3. Contraception is a luxury and not a medical necessity.*

I know that last argument is weaker, but the first two -- I think -- are strong enough to support the ruling.

No one said these options are illegal, only that they did not feel it was morally right for them as a company to pay for them. I'm cool with that (even though I am glad the treatments are available for those who need them and can pay for them).

* I realize the word "luxury" may trigger some reaction, but in this context, I mean it as a thing that one can live without (in this case, by abstaining from sex).

Skoop, thank you for your eloquent, and sensible remarks. It's refreshing, and appreciated.

[mrkelley23]

I did not read every post in the thread. I apologize if I am repeating anything.

I have finally gotten around to reading a little bit about the Supreme Court decision. Just based on the little bit I read, I agree with it.

That probably makes me a bad sometimes-liberal female. Here are my reasons.

1. Hobby Lobby is a private company. No one has to shop there and no one has to work there. Stuff is different when it's public vs. private.

2. The treatments they object to paying for are after-sex abortifacients, like morning-after and week-after pills. They are biologically different from pre-sex things that prevent contraception, such as birth-control pills and condoms.

3. Contraception is a luxury and not a medical necessity.*

I know that last argument is weaker, but the first two -- I think -- are strong enough to support the ruling.

No one said these options are illegal, only that they did not feel it was morally right for them as a company to pay for them. I'm cool with that (even though I am glad the treatments are available for those who need them and can pay for them).

* I realize the word "luxury" may trigger some reaction, but in this context, I mean it as a thing that one can live without (in this case, by abstaining from sex).

Wrong!

1. So it's OK with you if Hobby Lobby, being a private company, refused to hire non-whites and to let only whites shop there?

2. What they are objecting to are not abortifacients. They are drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted. They do not cause a developed egg to be aborted. They also object to IUDs for the same reason.

3. Contraceptive drugs are very often prescribed for reasons other than contraception, e.g. to treat endometriosis.

I can not believe that it's OK with you that a company impose its religious views on its employees.

I know this is going to be less useful than farting in an elevator, but since I'm one of the few here who will still talk to you, here goes:

Did you ever think that if your goal is to convince people of something, the best way might NOT to be screaming that they're wrong in superhypercosmofont?

There may be some people who haven't considered all the ramifications of the Court's decision to the best of their abilities. Skoop is not one of them. Choosing to respond to her thoughtful, heartfelt post with screaming talking points from Daily Kos does your cause no good.

In fact, I sometimes wonder if you aren't Glenn Beck, trolling the internet in disguise. I keep waiting for the letters in "I am Bob Juch" to rearrange themselves into something.

[littlebeast13]

I did not read every post in the thread. I apologize if I am repeating anything.

I have finally gotten around to reading a little bit about the Supreme Court decision. Just based on the little bit I read, I agree with it.

That probably makes me a bad sometimes-liberal female. Here are my reasons.

1. Hobby Lobby is a private company. No one has to shop there and no one has to work there. Stuff is different when it's public vs. private.

2. The treatments they object to paying for are after-sex abortifacients, like morning-after and week-after pills. They are biologically different from pre-sex things that prevent contraception, such as birth-control pills and condoms.

3. Contraception is a luxury and not a medical necessity.*

I know that last argument is weaker, but the first two -- I think -- are strong enough to support the ruling.

No one said these options are illegal, only that they did not feel it was morally right for them as a company to pay for them. I'm cool with that (even though I am glad the treatments are available for those who need them and can pay for them).

* I realize the word "luxury" may trigger some reaction, but in this context, I mean it as a thing that one can live without (in this case, by abstaining from sex).

Wrong!

1. So it's OK with you if Hobby Lobby, being a private company, refused to hire non-whites and to let only whites shop there?

2. What they are objecting to are not abortifacients. They are drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted. They do not cause a developed egg to be aborted. They also object to IUDs for the same reason.

3. Contraceptive drugs are very often prescribed for reasons other than contraception, e.g. to treat endometriosis.

I can not believe that it's OK with you that a company impose its religious views on its employees.

I know this is going to be less useful than farting in an elevator, but since I'm one of the few here who will still talk to you, here goes:

Did you ever think that if your goal is to convince people of something, the best way might NOT to be screaming that they're wrong in superhypercosmofont?

There may be some people who haven't considered all the ramifications of the Court's decision to the best of their abilities. Skoop is not one of them. Choosing to respond to her thoughtful, heartfelt post with screaming talking points from Daily Kos does your cause no good.

In fact, I sometimes wonder if you aren't Glenn Beck, trolling the internet in disguise. I keep waiting for the letters in "I am Bob Juch" to rearrange themselves into something.

This post made my day in so many ways!

lb13

[Bob Juch]

Wrong!

1. So it's OK with you if Hobby Lobby, being a private company, refused to hire non-whites and to let only whites shop there?

2. What they are objecting to are not abortifacients. They are drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted. They do not cause a developed egg to be aborted. They also object to IUDs for the same reason.

3. Contraceptive drugs are very often prescribed for reasons other than contraception, e.g. to treat endometriosis.

I can not believe that it's OK with you that a company impose its religious views on its employees.

How is Hobby Lobby imposing its religious views on its employees? Be specific as to action (what Hobby Lobby is doing) and result (employee compliance with Hobby Lobby's religion).

And this is different than hiring or not hiring based on race, or even religion. In fact, this has nothing to do with hiring, or even the compensation level of workers. It has to do with the medium used to compensate employees. You think Hobby Lobby should be forced to compensate their employees with IUD and birth control pills. Hobby Lobby would rather compensate them with money. And they do. More so than their competitors and other similar businesses.

But that,paying employees enough to make their own choices, doesn't help your agenda.

Well the SCOTUS may think Hobby Lobby is a person so can have religious views but I don't.

Hobby Lobby claims they have the right to decide what health conditions their employee health plans can cover. They claim a religious exemption. That is imposing its owners' religious views on its employees.

Are you aware the Green family, who control Hobby Lobby, are trying to get a Federal requirement to have the bible taught in public schools through Congress? They evidently aren't in favor of separation of church and state; they want the state to impose their religion on everyone. They are the Christian Taliban.

[Bob Juch]

I did not read every post in the thread. I apologize if I am repeating anything.

I have finally gotten around to reading a little bit about the Supreme Court decision. Just based on the little bit I read, I agree with it.

That probably makes me a bad sometimes-liberal female. Here are my reasons.

1. Hobby Lobby is a private company. No one has to shop there and no one has to work there. Stuff is different when it's public vs. private.

2. The treatments they object to paying for are after-sex abortifacients, like morning-after and week-after pills. They are biologically different from pre-sex things that prevent contraception, such as birth-control pills and condoms.

3. Contraception is a luxury and not a medical necessity.*

I know that last argument is weaker, but the first two -- I think -- are strong enough to support the ruling.

No one said these options are illegal, only that they did not feel it was morally right for them as a company to pay for them. I'm cool with that (even though I am glad the treatments are available for those who need them and can pay for them).

* I realize the word "luxury" may trigger some reaction, but in this context, I mean it as a thing that one can live without (in this case, by abstaining from sex).

Wrong!

1. So it's OK with you if Hobby Lobby, being a private company, refused to hire non-whites and to let only whites shop there?

2. What they are objecting to are not abortifacients. They are drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted. They do not cause a developed egg to be aborted. They also object to IUDs for the same reason.

3. Contraceptive drugs are very often prescribed for reasons other than contraception, e.g. to treat endometriosis.

I can not believe that it's OK with you that a company impose its religious views on its employees.

I know this is going to be less useful than farting in an elevator, but since I'm one of the few here who will still talk to you, here goes:

Did you ever think that if your goal is to convince people of something, the best way might NOT to be screaming that they're wrong in superhypercosmofont?

There may be some people who haven't considered all the ramifications of the Court's decision to the best of their abilities. Skoop is not one of them. Choosing to respond to her thoughtful, heartfelt post with screaming talking points from Daily Kos does your cause no good.

In fact, I sometimes wonder if you aren't Glenn Beck, trolling the internet in disguise. I keep waiting for the letters in "I am Bob Juch" to rearrange themselves into something.

I have given up trying to convince anyone here of anything.

[Beebs52]

Wrong!

1. So it's OK with you if Hobby Lobby, being a private company, refused to hire non-whites and to let only whites shop there?

2. What they are objecting to are not abortifacients. They are drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted. They do not cause a developed egg to be aborted. They also object to IUDs for the same reason.

3. Contraceptive drugs are very often prescribed for reasons other than contraception, e.g. to treat endometriosis.

I can not believe that it's OK with you that a company impose its religious views on its employees.

I know this is going to be less useful than farting in an elevator, but since I'm one of the few here who will still talk to you, here goes:

Did you ever think that if your goal is to convince people of something, the best way might NOT to be screaming that they're wrong in superhypercosmofont?

There may be some people who haven't considered all the ramifications of the Court's decision to the best of their abilities. Skoop is not one of them. Choosing to respond to her thoughtful, heartfelt post with screaming talking points from Daily Kos does your cause no good.

In fact, I sometimes wonder if you aren't Glenn Beck, trolling the internet in disguise. I keep waiting for the letters in "I am Bob Juch" to rearrange themselves into something.

I have given up trying to convince anyone here of anything.

Now that's funny.

[Estonut]

In fact, I sometimes wonder if you aren't Glenn Beck, trolling the internet in disguise. I keep waiting for the letters in "I am Bob Juch" to rearrange themselves into something.

a bi chum job

[tlynn78]

In fact, I sometimes wonder if you aren't Glenn Beck, trolling the internet in disguise. I keep waiting for the letters in "I am Bob Juch" to rearrange themselves into something.

a bi chum job

LOL