Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Pope Joan]

[quote="Trollzilla";p="20732870"]It is now 4:30 am Pacific time and 7:30 am Eastern Time in the United States. In just a few hours the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to issue what many consider to be the most important ruling of 2014 for the American people.

The nine justice will decide whether or not absolute religious freedom may be imposed over a women's right to contraception and to force other employees of other religions to abide by this. [/quote}

/I edited this quote for my own purposes, as a comment on the true issues here./

This is a travesty. Not unexpected, but a travesty nonetheless. My freedom as an employer trumps yours as an employee. What else could we expect from the "Citizens United" court?

Hobby Lobby is NOT a "small business", either.

As of August 2012 the chain has 561 stores nationwide. Hobby Lobby headquarters are located in a 3,400,000-square-foot (320,000 m2) manufacturing, distribution, and office complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby

[The Black Forrest]

I'll repost because you didn't see my other post, clearly.
Sex has everything to do with health coverage. That's pretty clear, whether you disagree or not, that doesn't matter really.
Other uses of contraception:
1) Lowering cancer rates
2) Lighter, less painful periods
3) Clearer skin
4) PMS relief
5) Endometriosis relief
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/ ... e-the-pill
Also, 1/3 of teens use contraception exclusively for other reasons, let alone the people who use them for both to prevent pregnancy and the aforementioned reasons:
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/
Employers aren't BUYING the pill, they WERE required to provide health insurance that covered contraception. Those two are very different things.

1) Buy vitamins
2) Isn't necessary to health
3) Isn't necessary to health
4) Isn't necessary to health
5) There are other medicines for that that are already covered by your employer

Considering all the alternative "uses" for contraception are pretty much unnecessary and wouldn't be covered by an employer anyways, it just furthers the case that contraception should be bought by the employee, or government funded.

Good lord. You aren't a scientologist are you?

[Aravea]

Well the Supreme Court has definitely made an interesting ruling today and congrats to Hobby Lobby for their big win . Also you gotta love how this ruling is lighting up the net(massive liberal butthurt ftw.)

[Doitsu-san]

You don't need it to prevent heart disease, you can buy vitamins. You don't need it to prevent pregnancy, you can just not have sex.

That is a rather ignorant comparison. Please study the pill. Ignorance is not something to be proud.

You can buy condoms to have sex, and please don't give me the rant about how "poor people can't afford condoms", if you can afford a fucking Happy Meal you can buy a box of condoms, fuck, even in the shithole of a town in Puerto Rico where my Grandfather lives there is a whole shop dedicated to condoms.

And again. This ruling isn't about condoms.

Sex isn't a need, sex is an optional risk. And no matter how long you rant you can never change that.

Again an ignorant statement.

You keep on insisting on how I am ignorant, without supplying the smallest explanation.

Is it because everyone who disagrees with you is somehow ignorant by default?

[Ashmoria]

There is are two possible solutions to this conundrum:

1. While the current Tea Party controlled House of Representatives will not endorse a constitutional amendment, we can get the states to pass one over Congress head. But that route is a very difficult and has a high likely hood of never happening because the requirements are so high.

2. The government can take over responsibility for ensuring that both men and women and hermaphrodites (trans people like me) have access to the contraception we need. This will eliminate employers responsibility in this regard and perhaps even insurance companies' responsibility in this regard. In exchange we raise taxes on both insurance companies and private employers enough to cover the contraception the government provides to their employees and health plan policy holders. Either way, the employers will have to pay.

or
3. the president can offer the employees of hobbylobby the same deal he gave the employees of catholic businesses--a free rider provided directly by the insurer. it makes a modicum of sense to me that the hobbylobby family could be considered the same kind of moral agent as the catholic church.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Why is it that, in America, there is more of a social stigma on a poor person having sex than there is on a person believing using birth control will make everyone go to hell?

The Christian Right, Tea Party, GOP, the Anti-Intellectual culture take your pick.

[The Black Forrest]

You claiming employers should cover contraception because of heart disease is just as ridiculous as Hobby Lobby claiming this whole debate is about religion. Contraception prevents heart disease, but it wasn't designed to do that, and that is not it's main purpose, nor what it is sold for. If you want to slash your risk of heart disease, you can simply eat better, exercise, and do a thousand other things outside of taking the pill. If people are somehow too poor to afford affordable contraception alternatives that cost $10 in a nation where the minimum wage is $7 AN HOUR, they'll just have to not have sex.

$7 an hour isn't a lot. Unless you're a kid. Something tells me you haven't handled the responsibilities of an adult if you can make those kind of suggestions.

I suspect your suspicion's are correct.

[Ashmoria]

You were the one arguing that contraception isn't necessary because it's only for sex and sex isn't necessary? So are you conceding that that point is false? And that I proved you wrong? And if it's ridiculous that Hobby Lobby sued for religious reasons, than the Supreme Court shouldn't have made the decision it did, because it was 100% about religion and "religious freedom." And as I've also said: condoms don't work 100% of the time and you don't always have them. If you have an IUD or the pill, which as Justice Ginsburg said:
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.", then you don't have to worry about using a condom to prevent pregnancy.

It's primarily used for pregnancy prevention, it is sold and marketed for pregnancy prevention. The affects that it has on lowering cancer and heart disease risk can be achieved by other means, such as exercising and eating healthily (which don't cost any additional cash).

Sex is an optional activity with risks, it is not necessary for everday life, and other affordable methods of prevention (such as condoms) which have a very small chance of breaking can be used. How many times do I have to go over this?

you make the same point over and over again as if saying it one more time will make you right.

we do many things every day that put us into voluntary risk of doing harm that might end us up in the hospital. we still cover those trips to the hospital.

[The Black Forrest]

That is a rather ignorant comparison. Please study the pill. Ignorance is not something to be proud.



And again. This ruling isn't about condoms.



Again an ignorant statement.

You keep on insisting on how I am ignorant, without supplying the smallest explanation.

Is it because everyone who disagrees with you is somehow ignorant by default?

Your continued use of condoms as an argument.

Your continued use of "just don't have sex" as an argument.

This is about the Pill. Do you even know the medical uses for it? I will save you the answer; you don't.

[Doitsu-san]

$7 an hour isn't a lot. Unless you're a kid. Something tells me you haven't handled the responsibilities of an adult if you can make those kind of suggestions.

I suspect your suspensions are correct.

If you can't afford a box of condoms, just don't have sex in the first place. Seriously, just two hours of work and you have more than enough to buy a condom supply that will last you a couple months. A small group of condoms costs maybe $3.

[The Black Forrest]

I suspect your suspensions are correct.

If you can't afford a box of condoms, just don't have sex in the first place. Seriously, just two hours of work and you have more than enough to buy a condom supply that will last you a couple months. A small group of condoms costs maybe $3.

An ignorant statement.

Again; it's not about condoms.

[Saiwania]

Why is it that, in America, there is more of a social stigma on a poor person having sex than there is on a person believing using birth control will make everyone go to hell?

The poor will receive some stigmatization anywhere, but one of the reasons is because they have more children statistically speaking than rich or middle class people do, and that further entrenches them into poverty. It isn't really fair for the children to possibly have to grow up in a broken home with no financial stability, so the state has to intervene on occasion.

[Doitsu-san]

You keep on insisting on how I am ignorant, without supplying the smallest explanation.

Is it because everyone who disagrees with you is somehow ignorant by default?

Your continued use of condoms as an argument.

Your continued use of "just don't have sex" as an argument.

This is about the Pill. Do you even know the medical uses for it? I will save you the answer; you don't.

Again, you have provided little evidence about your argument despite your opinion about my arguments. At least the others on this forum have at least tried to explain why they think I am wrong, you however have just stayed on the sidelines and made some snarky comments with no serious contribution to the discussion.

I use condoms as an argument against employer-covered contraception because they are an affordable alternative that an employee can buy themselves. I insist that people can just not have sex if they somehow cannot afford a $3 bundle of cheap condoms, because that just seems like basic logic. I do know the medical "uses" for it, uses that are not it's primary function and can easily be replaced by a healthy lifestyle and by other medications.

[Gauthier]

Your continued use of condoms as an argument.

Your continued use of "just don't have sex" as an argument.

This is about the Pill. Do you even know the medical uses for it? I will save you the answer; you don't.

Again, you have provided little evidence about your argument despite your opinion about my arguments. At least the others on this forum have at least tried to explain why they think I am wrong, you however have just stayed on the sidelines and made some snarky comments with no serious contribution to the discussion.

I use condoms as an argument against employer-covered contraception because they are an affordable alternative that an employee can buy themselves. I insist that people can just not have sex if they somehow cannot afford a $3 bundle of cheap condoms, because that just seems like basic logic. I do know the medical "uses" for it, uses that are not it's primary function and can easily be replaced by a healthy lifestyle and by other medications.

Condoms prevent ovarian cysts? I DID NOT KNOW THAT!!

[The Black Forrest]

Your continued use of condoms as an argument.

Your continued use of "just don't have sex" as an argument.

This is about the Pill. Do you even know the medical uses for it? I will save you the answer; you don't.

Again, you have provided little evidence about your argument despite your opinion about my arguments. At least the others on this forum have at least tried to explain why they think I am wrong, you however have just stayed on the sidelines and made some snarky comments with no serious contribution to the discussion.

I use condoms as an argument against employer-covered contraception because they are an affordable alternative that an employee can buy themselves. I insist that people can just not have sex if they somehow cannot afford a $3 bundle of cheap condoms, because that just seems like basic logic. I do know the medical "uses" for it, uses that are not it's primary function and can easily be replaced by a healthy lifestyle and by other medications.

Ok. You have been told the condom argument is invalid as this involves the pill. The fact you keep repeating it; makes you look ignorant.

The vitamin argument is rather ignorant

The ruling affects the pill which I think runs 60-100 dollars. I am not sure of the cost.

Hobby Lobby isn't paying for the pill. They pay for insurance. What the insurance company provides; why should it matter? Healthy employees is a good thing.

The pill isn't only about sex. Read up on the medical use.

[Doitsu-san]

Again, you have provided little evidence about your argument despite your opinion about my arguments. At least the others on this forum have at least tried to explain why they think I am wrong, you however have just stayed on the sidelines and made some snarky comments with no serious contribution to the discussion.

I use condoms as an argument against employer-covered contraception because they are an affordable alternative that an employee can buy themselves. I insist that people can just not have sex if they somehow cannot afford a $3 bundle of cheap condoms, because that just seems like basic logic. I do know the medical "uses" for it, uses that are not it's primary function and can easily be replaced by a healthy lifestyle and by other medications.

Condoms prevent ovarian cysts? I DID NOT KNOW THAT!!

Most people do not use birth control pills to prevent ovarian cysts. Making employers provide contraceptives due to some positive side affects is idiotic.

[The Serbian Empire]

Again, you have provided little evidence about your argument despite your opinion about my arguments. At least the others on this forum have at least tried to explain why they think I am wrong, you however have just stayed on the sidelines and made some snarky comments with no serious contribution to the discussion.

I use condoms as an argument against employer-covered contraception because they are an affordable alternative that an employee can buy themselves. I insist that people can just not have sex if they somehow cannot afford a $3 bundle of cheap condoms, because that just seems like basic logic. I do know the medical "uses" for it, uses that are not it's primary function and can easily be replaced by a healthy lifestyle and by other medications.

Condoms prevent ovarian cysts? I DID NOT KNOW THAT!!

But the condom doesn't do that. However, it does prevent a fair number of genital warts, but not as much as the HPV vaccine.

[Farnhamia]

Condoms prevent ovarian cysts? I DID NOT KNOW THAT!!

But the condom doesn't do that. However, it does prevent a fair number of genital warts, but not as much as the HPV vaccine.

Have you checked the settings on your Sarcasm Detector lately?

[Kelinfort]

Sets a bad precedent, while I disagree with the ruling, the more important aspect is that private exemptions are only limited to contraceptives. If not, we have a serious issue on our hands.

[Farnhamia]

Sets a bad precedent, while I disagree with the ruling, the more important aspect is that private exemptions are only limited to contraceptives. If not, we have a serious issue on our hands.

Well, we'll see. Next time a gay couple is told they have to go somewhere else to get a wedding cake, I betcha this ruling comes up.

[Norstal]

I suspect your suspensions are correct.

If you can't afford a box of condoms, just don't have sex in the first place. Seriously, just two hours of work and you have more than enough to buy a condom supply that will last you a couple months. A small group of condoms costs maybe $3.

I'm not even talking about that. This is what I'm referring to:

If you want to slash your risk of heart disease, you can simply eat better, exercise, and do a thousand other things outside of taking the pill.

You see, you can't just do all of that once you have to work for half of your day and having to take care of other things. You think people are so stupid that they don't know exercise is good for them? Or that "eating better" is good? Please.

[The Black Forrest]

Condoms prevent ovarian cysts? I DID NOT KNOW THAT!!

Most people do not use birth control pills to prevent ovarian cysts. Making employers provide contraceptives due to some positive side affects is idiotic.

Please the ignorance.

So do you have a source for the claim? I can guess you don't.

Employers aren't providing contraception. They are providing insurance.

[Maineiacs]

Sets a bad precedent, while I disagree with the ruling, the more important aspect is that private exemptions are only limited to contraceptives. If not, we have a serious issue on our hands.

Well, we'll see. Next time a gay couple is told they have to go somewhere else to get a wedding cake, I betcha this ruling comes up.

Gay is the new black.

[Doitsu-san]

Again, you have provided little evidence about your argument despite your opinion about my arguments. At least the others on this forum have at least tried to explain why they think I am wrong, you however have just stayed on the sidelines and made some snarky comments with no serious contribution to the discussion.

I use condoms as an argument against employer-covered contraception because they are an affordable alternative that an employee can buy themselves. I insist that people can just not have sex if they somehow cannot afford a $3 bundle of cheap condoms, because that just seems like basic logic. I do know the medical "uses" for it, uses that are not it's primary function and can easily be replaced by a healthy lifestyle and by other medications.

Ok. You have been told the condom argument is invalid as this involves the pill. The fact you keep repeating it; makes you look ignorant.

The vitamin argument is rather ignorant

The ruling affects the pill which I think runs 60-100 dollars. I am not sure of the cost.

Hobby Lobby isn't paying for the pill. They pay for insurance. What the insurance company provides; why should it matter? Healthy employees is a good thing.

The pill isn't only about sex. Read up on the medical use.

If the insurance company has to pay for the pill, what the company pays will increase. Basic logic.

Condoms are an alternative to the pill, they may not have the preventative side affects, but they do the primary function of the pill which is birth control.

A healthy life style and some types of vitamins can reduce cancer/heart disease rates just as good as the pill, even better than the pill, which really makes the positive side affects irrelevant when you can achieve the same results for free.

The "medical uses" are insignificant as it is, and are proved irrelevant by other methods (e.g. a healthy lifestyle).

[Farnhamia]

Well, we'll see. Next time a gay couple is told they have to go somewhere else to get a wedding cake, I betcha this ruling comes up.

Gay is the new black.

Gay is the new back of the bus.