Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby...

so these hobby lobby peeps believe a woman is pregnant if there is a fertilized egg inside her but not implanted in the uterus?

The Church views sexual intercourse as a means of expressing love and for procreation thru marriage. The Church teaches that sexual intercourse has a purpose; and that outside marriage it is contrary to its purpose. According to the catechism, "conjugal love ... aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul" since the marriage bond is to be a sign of the love between God and humanity.

Two of the Ten Commandments address sexual morality, forbidding adultery and coveting a neighbor's wife. While the Bible doesn't specifically say anything against birth control (because the pill wasn't introduced until the 1960's), it does make mention of the correlation between sex and marriage, and there are verses in the Bible that support this.

Also, the issue is not about Hobby Lobby being against all contraceptives - only the 4 that the owners consider abortifacients.

That is not the same as being against birth-control. That is just an example of religious people creatively interpreting something to fit their own views. So their view on this really isn't based on the bible. It is based on their personal opinions so they should not be protected by this ruling.

4? And yet the ruling can be used to apply to ALL birth-control, among a countless number of other things.

What I find really funny is that Hobby Lobby has money invested in a company that makes the very birth control that they refuse to cover for employees. lol Hypocrisy at its finest.

I quoted more of the Roman Catholicism view on sexual morality than just Christianity in general. Catholicism is based on more than just the Bible. It holds views on many subjects that go beyond the holy book, and that's what sets it apart from other denominations of Christianity. So, yes, in a way the Catholic view goes beyond just that of the Bible. It's not based on personal opinions, it's based on a long history of rules and practices.

But what are those rules and practices actually based on? That is the question. The bible is the main source for all Christian religions, including Catholicism. Yes, there are a lot of differences between Catholics and other sects of Christianity but if these added views are not based on their holy text, then they are just based on personal opinions regardless of whether or not those opinions are a tradition.

You're wrong.

Genesis 38:8

⁸ Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” ⁹ But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. ¹⁰ What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

Three problems here.

#1. That described a specific situation involving specific people. That isn't the same as condemning birth-control in general.

#2. Its from the old testament, which Christians claim is no longer valid except when they need to cherry-pick verses to use against LGBT people while ignoring all of the things about condoning slavery, genocide, stoning people, forcing women to marry rapists, etc...

#3. I would sincerely hope that they are not using this passage as a reason to be morally opposed to birthcontrol considering that it clearly condones having someone sleep with his brother's wife and then put him to death when he refused. LOL Silly Christians...

It's pretty asinine, yet, here we are

As I pointed out, they took that completely out of context. The passage in question isn't about condemning the "birth control method" mentioned, it about the person fulfilling his "duty" as a brother-in-law, which is completely idiotic. If this was really about condemning birth control then you would think it would be mentioned in more than just this one specific case. And yet Catholics use this one instance and take it completely out of context so they can attack birth-control, along with anything else that involves sex. Its like when they take another passage out of context and used it to create the "just war" theory even though jesus constantly speaks about peace, says you should love your enemy, turn the other cheek and "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

And its just like how many muslim extremists like the Taliban take passages from the Quran out of context, such as their view that women aren't supposed to leave the house. This is in the quran but it only applies to Mohammed's wives, not women in general.

Different sects of religions do this all the time to justify their own personal views. Look at Westboro Baptist Church for another example.

Agreed. People do pretty stupid things with religion in order to promote their own personal agenda.

Even weaker people follow them.

At least with Catholicism you must attend Seminary to become a priest, at last they have an education.

Any dumbass holding a Bible can receive "The Call" and call themselves a preacher, regardless of how much or how little they know of the Bible.

That's why American Protestant's are nothing more than Dogma Worshipers, with little regard or interest in the Teachings of Christ. Getting butts in the seats, and $20 bills in the collection plate is their only goal.

I don't know why americans think christianity can shit on other religion. If YOUR religion says you can say what other people can't and can do. Then there is something seriously wrong. Because that right there is discrimination

Good sh*t.

@sSubZerOo: I'm pretty sure it still has to be covered if the reason for them taking it is a medical issue.

The more I read about Hobby Lobby's owners the more shitbags they become. Just found out they covered all these contraceptives prior to obamacare, and only now don't want to cover them since they were required to.

They also put this ignorant ad in the paper:

This isn't about religious freedom, these owners are looking for theocracy and political power

No company should be forced to provide anything...especially if it's against their morals. If you don't like what they have to offer find a job somewhere else.

Can't we say that no person is forced to provide anything. Don't want to provide whatever . Don't own a business

ah but with every step we take we are coming closer to viewing corporations as people (people with huge benefits over normal humans for that matter), they have the same legal rights in court as regular people and now they have some (though limited) access to exercise religious rights. Of course the difference is that they can get away with massive shit that a normal person would get sent to jail for and come out the other side with only a relatively small fine.

see what I mean^

Despite the fact that a company's morals are, almost without exception, only shown when it benefits the company in some way people are coming over to the idea that companies not only have morals, but that they should be respected.

Doesn't Hobby Lobby cover 16 of the 20 birth control methods people believe they should cover?

Can someone make a compelling case for why anyone should offer any sort of birth control benefits? Secondly, why should the government have the power to force companies to provide the specific benefits relevant to this case?

Because as an employer it is in their best interest to provide their employees with the means to live a healthy lifestyle, which includes but is not limited to providing (particularly to women) easy access to the resources necessary to have a safe and healthy sex life as well as the ability to manage their fertility cycle

Since we have an employer-based health care system the government has no choice but to set standards/requirements for employers in relation to the health insurance they offer their employees when implementing health care reforms

I do not support the Supreme Courts decision on this case, it give the corporations too much power.

If that is the case, should men campaign for free condoms as a part of their health benefits? If a man wants to have safe and healthy sex, that's one way in which he could do so. He doesn't have a fertility cycle to manage, but safe sex, should he choose to pursue it, demands the use (in many cases) of a condom. Is this unreasonable because of the cost difference?

I would rather the power be spread among a large number of individuals and organizations than be concentrated in one ruling body. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The health benefits of the pill go far beyond simply allowing women to have sex without the fear of pregnancy. Off the top of my head they regulate periods, help fight ovarian cysts, can lower the chance of getting certain types of cancer, help against acne breakouts, and other stuff I can't be bothered to look up right now lol. Condoms are readily available everywhere and if this was the case for the pill, women wouldn't feel the need to have it covered under their health plan. A better example would be medicine or treatment to help with erectile dysfunction and I absolutely believe that should be covered as well.

Indeed, which is why I had mentioned that providing these items does more than just allow for safe sex. I would also agree that a company should want to, if they could reasonably afford to do so, provide benefits to enrich the lives of their employees. That being said, doesn't Hobby Lobby already cover the kinds of birth control benefits that would help them do things like regulate their cycle, fight ovarian cysts, lower the chances of certain types of caners, etc?

@Aljosa23:

And Hobby Lobby still offers those medications under their insurance plan...

No one is denying them non-birth control related medication. They can still get 16/20 that ACA mandates. They just can't get the morning after pill and IUDs.

Also, please tell me what else Plan B is used for besides birth control.

Not buying someone something isn't "oppressing" them or "forcing your views" on them. This isn't a battle in the war against woman. Give me a fucking break.

You're arguing with yourself, m8. I never said anything of that sort nor did I even mention Hobby Lobby. I don't know (or care) about what they do, I was simply replying to musicalmac's question.

Pretty much, it's not an apple to apples comparison in that regard. They're very cheap and they don't require a prescription, you can literally get them from vending machines.

For what it's worth though, Hobby Lobby does cover viagra.

As of now they do, the thing is though is that the supreme court just gave them and companies like them the power to not cover any birth control at all.

Let me see if I get this right, Employees in a company do not get contraception through whatever health realated coverage the company provides. Meaning People need to buy their own condoms rather then the workplace coving for them?

Is this essentially the issue?

I am so glad I created this thread. It is so amusing and entertaining to read. And I knew it would be non stop crying from this one. So worth posting.

@-Sun_Tzu-:

The morning after pill you can buy over the counter though. I had to buy Plan B before. I walked into Walgreens, went to the lady at the counter, asked for Plan B then walked out. It took me two minutes and $40 out of my pocket. No prescription necessary. That's the only one I find odd that the ACA is mandating be covered.

Comparing the morning after pill to viagra is precisely comparing apples to oranges. One is used for an actual medical issue, the other is used for a drunken mistake (usually).

I said that condoms were OTC and very cheap. Cost is where the comparison breaks down when it comes to Plan B.

And Plan B is certainly used for a medical issue, and I'd say that pregnancy is much more serious of a medical issue than erectile dysfunction is. But I was mostly just being facetious by bringing up viagra.

Nothing would make me happier than to get employers out of health insurance all together, but there's no political will to do that as of now. In the meantime if employers are going to get a nice fat tax deduction for offering their employees health insurance I think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to set requirements for the health insurance that's being offered.