Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 9:16am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,581 posts

Knight

And if you insist upon only hiring employees that align to your beliefs then....discrimination with a capital D?

What a company really means when it identifies itself as a Christian corporation, is that its board identifies itself with a Christian image and beliefs. Not the lower hierarchies. Message after all, trickles down, and the direction comes from above.

 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 10:17am

SportShark

SportShark

1,108 posts

I don't see why this company should have to pay for some liberal woman's irresponsible sexual behavior. And if the company's beliefs are pro life, they shouldn't be forced to support abortion. I thought the motto was government (or who ever else) stay out of my bedroom. Hypocrisy.

Bty, I can't believe that pang hasn't weighed in on this yet. He will now that I have. xD


last edited Jul 01 2014 10:17 am by SportShark
 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 10:46am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,581 posts

Knight

It's a gross misconception to think that only ****ty women will ever need contraceptives. Married women who do not want children will also need them. Married women who already feel they have enough children will need them. Anyway, what's so bad about risk-free pre-marital sex when a woman wants to? What about women who were raped? (Spousal rape rates are shockingly high, and make up the majority of rape cases). Notably, the contraceptives contested are only emergency contraceptives but....so? Does it matter? No. Emergency contraceptives will apply even more pertinently against the last group of women.

Furthermore, companies win, if their so hard nosed and think like corporations. No children = no maternity leave/benefits = continued productivity at the workplace.

The government should stay out of my bedroom.....that was applicable only to individuals. What lots of groups are angry about is not only the insufferable clutch of evangelicals shoving their beliefs down the throats of others, but also the fact that corporations now have a precedent whereby "closely held" companies can be counted more or less as individuals.

Conservatives have cast the battle as one for their own petty religious freedom, but for the rest of the public, they see it as a showdown over personal health choices. Anyway, most women also support the contraceptive mandate (And they after all, should be the ones deciding), so who are the corporations or opposition to frame it as "hypocrisy"?

Daft. Btw, stop dragging pang into the argument. You claim to be the victim, but don't seem to play that role very well.


last edited Jul 01 2014 10:47 am by nichodemus
 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 1:01pm

09philj

09philj

2,432 posts

I don't see why this company should have to pay for some liberal woman's irresponsible sexual behavior.

In addition to Nicho's points, unexpected birth control malfunction.

And if the company's beliefs are pro life, they shouldn't be forced to support abortion.

I kill millions of organisms as complex as a human embryo every day by accident. At that stage, it shouldn't be an issue.
 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 1:30pm

thepyro222

thepyro222

2,237 posts

what you're saying is full of hypocrisy. Let me be clear, I, myself, am not a Christian, but I do respect and honor other peoples' beliefs and I will defend them to the death.

first you said this:

It's a gross misconception to think that only ****ty women will ever need contraceptives.

Then you said this:
Anyway, what's so bad about risk-free pre-marital sex when a woman wants to?

That statement is a contradiction, as I am pretty sure that, by definition, is what a **** is.

What about women who were raped?

because all men are evil and will rape you, right? That's an over-generalization based on a prejudiced bias. Just because you have a vagina between your legs does not mean you're going to get raped, and just because I have a penis between my legs does not mean I can't get raped. What if I get raped, and that spawns a kid? Now I have to pay child support for a kid that I didn't want.

Notably, the contraceptives contested are only emergency contraceptives but....so? Does it matter? No. Emergency contraceptives will apply even more pertinently against the last group of women.

Actually yes, it does matter. The reasoning behind the ban on the emergency contraceptives is because it goes against their stance on abortion. They believe that life begins after conception, after the sperm fertilizes the egg. The emergency contraceptives seek out and kill the egg, therefore "aborting" the child. (again, not my personal stance, but I agree with their ruling.) Also, do you know how bad chemically and psychologically emergency contraceptives mess you up? if you don't, look it up sometime.

The government should stay out of my bedroom.....that was applicable only to individuals. What lots of groups are angry about is not only the insufferable clutch of evangelicals shoving their beliefs down the throats of others, but also the fact that corporations now have a precedent whereby "closely held" companies can be counted more or less as individuals.

By this logic, aren't you shoving your beliefs down the throat of others, telling them that they have to provide these emergency contraceptives, no matter what their spiritual beliefs?

Anyway, most women also support the contraceptive mandate (And they after all, should be the ones deciding)

the problem is... who's paying for it? the company is. If women want it so bad, why can't they pay for it themselves? Just because of the supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean you can't buy birth control from anyone EVER, it means that it will not be covered in medical insurance, which I don't think it should anyway. In fact, I see it when I walk into a CVS to buy condoms (also a very effective, and very cheap method of birth control), so you can buy the **** they're banning over the counter.
 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 2:26pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

That statement is a contradiction,

No, because he gave examples of other groups to demonstrate his point.

as I am pretty sure that, by definition, is what a **** is.

You're saying the term can't apply to married people?

because all men are evil and will rape you, right? That's an over-generalization based on a prejudiced bias. Just because you have a vagina between your legs does not mean you're going to get raped.

Saying that it's *possible* doesn't mean it's *guaranteed* or even *likely*. Ignoring the issue itself doesn't help. Address the question.

and just because I have a penis between my legs does not mean I can't get raped.

No one said it did...

Also, do you know how bad chemically and psychologically emergency contraceptives mess you up?

Do you know there are people with other problems (unrelated to fertilization) that can be resolved by taking them?
 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 2:40pm

SportShark

SportShark

1,108 posts

This debate has inevitably morphed into an argument about the complications that arise from penises and vaginas. Who shall save us now? Moegrecheeee!!!!! Come help us out! Where are you? Moe!!!


last edited Jul 01 2014 02:41 pm by SportShark
 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 3:11pm

09philj

09philj

2,432 posts

This debate has inevitably morphed into an argument about the complications that arise from penises and vaginas.


Yes. This is how we will prove Hobby Lobby was wrong.
 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 3:21pm

thepyro222

thepyro222

2,237 posts

No, because he gave examples of other groups to demonstrate his point.

what would those examples be?

You're saying the term can't apply to married people?

what term? ****?

Saying that it's *possible* doesn't mean it's *guaranteed* or even *likely*. Ignoring the issue itself doesn't help. Address the question.

I did address the question. I said that the question is an over-generalization based on a bias. I can't help if you're going to ignore the rest of my statement.

Do you know there are people with other problems (unrelated to fertilization) that can be resolved by taking them?

We're not talking about regular birth control, and even that has side- effects. The stuff in question here is specifically emergency contraceptives. Please read the whole argument before making half- baked posts.
 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 7:10pm

09philj

09philj

2,432 posts

[quote]because all men are evil and will rape you, right? That's an over-generalization based on a prejudiced bias. Just because you have a vagina between your legs does not mean you're going to get raped.


Saying that it's *possible* doesn't mean it's *guaranteed* or even *likely*. Ignoring the issue itself doesn't help. Address the question.[/quote]

I did address the question. I said that the question is an over-generalization based on a bias. I can't help if you're going to ignore the rest of my statement.


Pyro, you seem to be forgetting the point that rape happens. Maybe not to you, but wouldn't you feel better knowing that you have a way out of a pregnancy in that situation?

Do you know there are people with other problems (unrelated to fertilization) that can be resolved by taking them?


I think those are the preventative rather than abortive pills.

[quote]Anyway, what's so bad about risk-free pre-marital sex when a woman wants to?


That statement is a contradiction, as I am pretty sure that, by definition, is what a **** is.[/quote]

Nope. Nicho's quote covers all unmarried women. **** specifically describes those who actively go out looking for sex, or don't maintain high standards of who they will sleep with.
 
Reply to Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision

You must be logged in to post a reply!