We'd both think so and still be wrong, somehow. Hobby Lobby also thinks that IUD's are abortifactants and covered the other forms of birth control prior to filing their suit.
I don't have an issue with the IUDs as abortificants argument, I can see how they get there (well, I do have an issue with it, and I think they're wrong, but I can see how they get there). I'm not sure about US law, but here there's an implied duty of good faith in contracts and legal documents; a contract or a lawsuit can be deemed invalid if it's shown a party was acting in bad faith.
This is almost the perfect example of acting in bad faith.
I find the childish insistence of religious people that life starts at conception, problematic at best. There's a reason that no civil or legal rulings have ever made in favor of that position.
Hobby Lobby is run by shitheads. The remedy now is a market remedy. Losing business.
Yes, well that's chicken. And notable dunderheads like the Palins made a big point about eating there. Because the love of Jeebus and hating gays goes together.
Hobby Lobby appeals to a more niche market. Instead of irritating a smaller group, they went after women, that 50% of the population group.
100% of the users of IUD's and morning-after pills are women.
If Hobby Lobby really had principles, they'd probably stop those investments in abortion-related products and doing most of their buying from China, the land of forced abortions.
100% of the users of IUD's and morning-after pills are women.
And? The point was their religious rights, it had nothing to do with the gender of who was using the contraceptives.
If Hobby Lobby really had principles, they'd probably stop those investments in abortion-related products and doing most of their buying from China, the land of forced abortions.
That's at least a reasonable criticism, even if it's irrelevant to this specific case.
And? The point was their religious rights, it had nothing to do with the gender of who was using the contraceptives.
Funny how the exercise of religious rights always ends up being restrictions that affect only women. Or maybe funny is the wrong work and "telling" is the more correct word to use.
I can't help it if you want to defend things you don't understand. You want to fall back and claim some sort of biological essentialism but these religious traditions have their roots in a series of assumptions about human nature that are tribalistic and frankly backwards.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
*Viagra, penis pumps, vasectomies still covered. Also, investments in abortion product firms.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
This is almost the perfect example of acting in bad faith.
no subject
Hobby Lobby is run by shitheads. The remedy now is a market remedy. Losing business.
no subject
*or whatever it's called, "chick filler" is how I always read it, so I always think there's innuendo in the name, which is funny in this context.
no subject
I have to say, I've never actually seen one.
no subject
Hobby Lobby appeals to a more niche market. Instead of irritating a smaller group, they went after women, that 50% of the population group.
no subject
How does offering most contraceptives constitute going after women?
no subject
If Hobby Lobby really had principles, they'd probably stop those investments in abortion-related products and doing most of their buying from China, the land of forced abortions.
no subject
And? The point was their religious rights, it had nothing to do with the gender of who was using the contraceptives.
If Hobby Lobby really had principles, they'd probably stop those investments in abortion-related products and doing most of their buying from China, the land of forced abortions.
That's at least a reasonable criticism, even if it's irrelevant to this specific case.
no subject
And a lot of men have abortions, I guess. That was the key, right? - abortifacients or something.
The irrational beliefs of an employer definitely should take precedence over the real, material health needs of women..
no subject
Yes, abortifacients. If there's some sort of prescription that men can take that causes abortions, those would be opposed, too.
The irrational beliefs of an employer definitely should take precedence over the real, material health needs of women..
The beliefs of the employer, irrational or not, have no impact over the desired material health products of the women. Merely the funding of it.
no subject
But you know how the world goes: no funds, no goods and services.
Though, I presume this will be taken care of, and the taxpayers in general will likely pay for these Devil products.
no subject
Sure. Thankfully, these people get wages for their work.
Though, I presume this will be taken care of, and the taxpayers in general will likely pay for these Devil products.
I don't see such a regulation getting out of the House.
no subject
and more obstacles for women - what a guy,
what a philosophy!
Go, Corporate, Go!
no subject
no subject
no subject
But doesn't it tell us something about the genuineness of their beliefs?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
which I find all the more awesome from an atheist.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Funny how the exercise of religious rights always ends up being restrictions that affect only women. Or maybe funny is the wrong work and "telling" is the more correct word to use.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject