Hobby Lobby Stones Gay Employee to Death

Jul 01, 2014

458682625Managers at a Hobby Lobby store in Arkansas stoned to death an employee today for being gay.

According to a report in the Ozark Post-Gazette, the store’s management decided to execute Jeremy Gleason, 43, in an alley behind the store in accordance with the Biblical verse Leviticus 20:13, which commands believers to kill homosexual men.

The assailants reportedly tied Gleason to a pole and threw large chunks of granite and whole bricks at his body. An autopsy later revealed the adoptive father of 2 young children died of blunt force trauma to the head.

Although Gleason’s family have called for Hobby Lobby’s managers to be charged with murder, police say they do not intend to make any arrests in the case because the store was simply exercising its religious beliefs.

“I don’t really see the problem here,” says Mark Patterson, Wilson County sheriff, “I mean stoning gays to death is in the Bible. And Hobby Lobby is a Christian company.

“What am I supposed to do? Arrest the people who killed him? Last I checked this was America. We don’t put people in jail for exercising their religion.”

Gleason’s unusual execution comes just days after the US Supreme Court ruled that his employer may be exempted from a federal law requiring employers to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees.

Although that ruling applied strictly to health care, some critics - including dissenting justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - have argued that it sets a dangerous precedent that may allow closely-held firms to exempt themselves from vast swaths of American law.

“We had known for a long time that Jeremy was a sinner,” says Justin Anderson, one of the Hobby Lobby managers who took part in the stoning, “But we didn’t have the power to do anything about it.

“But now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Christian companies can exempt themselves from any law that conflicts with their religious beliefs we can finally start enforcing biblical order.”

In a statement lawyers for Hobby Lobby say they believe their client bears no liability in the case.

“The Supreme Court decision is clear. Hobby Lobby was fully with their rights to execute Mr. Gleason.”

  • pragmastist

    On a serious note, why can’t you get out of paying taxes or being drafted into the military because you don’t believe in some of the things that are being done?

  • Cyrus McKinnley

    During Vietnam some of the draft dodgers actually used religion as a means to get out of being drafted

  • MarkCValdez

    Google is paying 80$ per hour! Work for few hours and have more time with

    friends & family! On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from

    having earned $4151 this last four weeks… Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve

    had. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it

    ——————————————————–

    Here ­­­­­­­­­is ­­­­­­­­­I ­­­­­­­­­started,————,, http://WWW.BUZZ37.COM...

    —————————————————–

    GO TO THE SITE AND CLICK NEXT TAB FOR MORE INFO AND HELP

  • Andrew Davidson

    Yeah, being a huge fan of the Onion (which was created in my home city), I like satire – but this is a bit too far I’m afraid.

    I think that Hobby Lobby might be able to sue for slander because of the content and the delivery; the headline is everywhere but the content needs further investigation to determine the pure poppycock of the story.

    That being said, while I thought it was funny – and I can appreciate good, dark humor – with the current political and social climate, the editors of Currant should have had the good sense to realize that this could be a tad too much.

    Offensive? I don’t know – everything is offensive to certain people…and, as one that doesn’t think he has ever been offended (I have a brain, common sense, high tolerance for stupidity, and a equally sadistic sense of humor) I really found nothing wrong with this article other than timing.

    While not offensive to me, I think it might be bordering on poor taste – like perhaps a little “too soon” to be really appreciated.

  • Scott Lane

    Actually many have avoided serving the military due to religious reasons during WW1 through Vietnam.
    Taxes? That’s a whole new issue but if you can object to complying with a portion of the law and it’s fiscal ramifications I don’t see why one couldn’t argue that they don’t believe in what a portion of their taxes go to and simply deduct 30 % or what ever portion of the budget is spent on issues that you don’t support. Don’t support the military? Social Services? Politicians Salaries? I’m good with that! I’m not going to be the first to try it though.

  • mgourley

    Yes, satire. I get it. How about pointing out that several countries where the Muslim religion, “The religion of peace”, is practiced, routinely kill homosexuals. Or, even Christians for that matter. Really poor taste. But you certainly do have the “right” to publish it.

  • Jimmy Sullivan

    hatemongers

  • Tony Meman

    Obviously you don’t get it. It is pointing out that the Supreme Courts ruling basically makes Religious companies exempt from the Law, if it contradicts their personal beliefs. This is like saying that I cannot be prosecuted for raping women because my Religion ‘Rapeallthewomenism’ says that I “Shalt rape all women, for this is how it should be”. I’m not sure what Islam has to do with the ruling.

  • Tony Meman

    The publishers of this article?

  • dcjohnny

    On a serious note, it’s an order of operations thing.

    Leftists love to reinvent the discussion and add their own flavor to it, but that doesn’t change the reality and history of what transpired. At least not in the minds of the sane 5 in the majority decision.

    Step 1) The Constitution long since protects the freedom of citizens with respect to their religious beliefs, as long as they don’t interfere with the reasonable rights of others.

    Step 2) Along comes the ACA, which for the first time in history, allows the federal government to compel one private group to purchase a good or service from another. This, like all other laws, is subject to (1) above.

    Step 3) Holes in (2) above spring up all over the place because of violations of (1) above. The federal government is clearly not able to “borrow” from the First Amendment rights to grant the ACA rights. That’s not how the Bill of Rights works.

    You can try to make the argument that paying taxes is contrary to your religious beliefs, but that is hardly a reasonable argument. Not to mention, the ship has sailed on that one long ago with the passage of several amendments regarding taxation which were deemed Constitutional.

  • dcjohnny

    No, it certainly doesn’t.

    You are reinventing the discussion and re-ordering the history of events to fit your narrative.

    The ACA was deemed unconstitutional because it violated the existing First Amendment rights of an individual who cannot be forced to engage in commerce that violates his religion.

    At no point in the discussion is the decision allowing one entity to violate law, or allowing one entity to seize from the rights of others, despite how many of you liberals post as such.

    The decision rightfully decrees that the government did not have the authority to force citizens to engage in commerce that violated their reasonable religious freedoms, not unlike how the government cannot compel certain individuals (say, crooked IRS personnel, for an amazingly pertinent example), from testifying against herself.

    Point to the exact part of the decision or the real discussion here that says religious entities are exempt from following the law.

    I don’t expect you to understand this, because it’s logical and based in history, and more often than not, rabid liberal commenters jump straight to hyperbole or rephrase the entire debate (as you did above) to suit their end.

  • Tony Meman

    You made some valid points, but you also made an assumption that is inaccurate. I am not a ‘Liberal’, as I am not a part of your politcal system (ie. I don’t live in the US), as such the title doesn’t apply to me. Iv’e pointed this out so that you can understand that my views are that of an outsider and therefor have nothing to gain either way.

    Maybe my opinion is different because I don’t believe Religion-specific views should be taken seriously. Call me prejudiced but I don’t think that any particular party should be given preferential treatment over any other, simply because they believe the right thing.

    However ‘reasonable’ the religious freedoms may be, it is still favouritism towards those religious parties. It opens the door for others to use this decision as a way to take advantage of the system. This article, while greatly exaggerated, raises a valid concern.

    But perhaps you’re right and I should learn more about the topic before I interject with my opinion.

  • pragmastist

    We live in a democracy where for the most part you have to obey the law even if you are in the minority that voted against it. The Hobby Lobby situation is a rare example of the right finding a way to circumvent what the writhing masses who support Obama are in favor of. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, I’m an equal opportunity naysayer. Saying one party is more moral than the other is like arguing the merits of the Bloods versus the Crips.

  • pragmastist

    Unless you were a certified member of groups such as the Amish or Quakers you had to go through a lot of trouble to get conscientious objector status and if you did you most likely had to perform some kind of non-combatant duty. I think the CEO’s of Hobby Lobby should have to work at an inner city day care since they don’t support birth control.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, even you opt to join the military, when it comes time to deploy, they ask you if you are a conscientious objector as part of determining your deployability status.

  • Franziska Fischer

    We don’t have a military draft in the United States. Duh. We have an all volunteer military.

  • Franziska Fischer

    Stupid ruling and stupid satire. Where are all of the adults in this country?

  • rboberg

    Where scarcely any volunteer-Less than 1% of those eligible.

  • Jimmy Sullivan

    exactly

  • MI Mitten

    but they do support birth control, 16 out of 20 mandated by the ACA – nonsensical ignorant comment

  • MI Mitten

    Main article: Executive Order 13535
    On March 21, 2010, Stupak made a deal with Obama whereby he and his bloc of Democrats would vote for the final bill if Obama signed an executive order barring federal funding of abortion under the bill.[29] The deal resulted in the final bill being passed in the House by a vote of 219-212.[30] The deal was condemned by both pro-life and pro-choice groups.[31]

  • JustAnotherSomeone

    actually we do have a military drift it just doesn’t go in effect until things go terribly wrong, but we do have one and by law we do have to sign it, if we are to get our driver license or buy a house or etc.

  • me

    this obviously isn’t true .-.

  • dcjohnny

    Oh, don’t get me wrong, I love well-intended sarcasm as a way to express political opinion. I found the article fascinating in that way, despite my vehement disagreement with its premise.

    And I apologize for wrongly classifying you, though the statement you made was directly in line with liberal sentiment on the issue, so I argue with them through you.

    The problem at hand is still the mis-representation of the actual issue. Nobody is preventing women from obtaining birth control, despite the rhetoric on the left. In fact, the company gladly pays for 80% of birth control methods. They simply refuse to contribute their own money to pay for after-conception methods, which they liken to abortion.

    We in America have a new issue with “rights” being fabricated and subsequently demanded, which are either ludicrously imagined or, in this case, clearly infringe upon the freedom of others.

    I’m all for gay marriage, which doesn’t really harm the rights of anyone else, for example. But in this case, the government steps in and demands that a privately held company “must” provide particular incentives for their employees (which is in itself a ludicrous decision), and that as part of the perks, it must include abortive birth control, as if pregnancy-control is somehow a right that must be honored in society.

    As stated previously, this recent decision in no way paves the way for companies to use religion to infringe the rights of others or perpetuate criminal acts. It only limits the laws that can be created in the future that do that very same thing.

  • dcjohnny

    Obviously, you’re not a golfer.

  • RMNCB

    How about we worry about our country?

  • Matt S

    I think those countries are against birth control, too.

  • zac

    that is still murder i dont care what your reglion is so people can kill other people and just says my reglion told me to do it

  • Jesse Faught

    dcjohnny, you are missing or glazing over some of the details, here. The right to separate birth control from other forms of health care was never a right recognized by law. The ACA specifically protected the right to have birth control (even what you’re mislabeling abortive) included in a health plan. It’s ridiculous to many of us, that birth control was ever separated from other healthcare in the first place. This is a religious invention, and should have NO place in our legislation, or court precedent. The fact that it ever did, is a testament that the USA has never had true separation of church and state. Most other industrialized nations have a true separation of church and state, and this isn’t a problem for them. I see nothing fabricated about the right of women to not have specific types of healthcare withheld from them, because their company owners believe in fairy tales.

    So, the ACA requires companies over a certain size to provide healthcare to employees, and that healthcare must include birth control coverage. It’s a stretch to call this “engaging in commerce”. The insurance is for the employee, not the owners. They are simply paying for it. It’s more accurate to see this as simply additional compensation for employees, who then choose what health services they need/want. Why should the employer get to choose what healthcare the employee uses?! There’s absolutely nothing reasonable about that.

  • Jesse Faught

    We live in a Democratic Republic. If we had a democracy, we’d all be voting on legislation, instead of electing representatives to do it.

  • philokun

    First of all…the ACA was NOT deemed unconstitutional. Next, it was a Conservative/Republican idea whole heartedly approved by the GOP until this President adopted and supported it. Finally IF a company provides health INSURANCE to their employees they are NOT providing ANY care themselves. So IF the employee wants/needs a procedure, even the insurance company does NOT provide that service, only the means to pay for it. This company (soon to be massively BOYCOTTED) buys CHEAPcrap from China where abortions are encouraged. They provide coverage for male contraception…clearly a violation of EQUAL PROTECTION under the law! So these hypocrites are DENYING HEALTH CARE to independent, free citizens in VIOLATION of THEIR constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Welcome to the Republican CONservative TaliBAN american style.

  • lisabaldwin

    I think the big question here is… Who gave them the right to judge anyone that is only god’s right people!!! I do believe the sixth commandment states “Thou shalt not kill”. Wrong is wrong and this is by far wrong!!! People like this make Christians look crazy. I’m a Christian and would never hurt anyone because of there race, sexual preference, or there religious beliefs. My thoughts and prayers are with the family.

  • Jesse Faught

    LoL, Way to frame your argument, dcjohnny. Start by claiming your opposition isn’t logical, and isn’t even attempting to make a fair argument. The irony of this, is that makes your argument look weaker, from a logical perspective. Why else would you need to make ad hominem attacks?

    1) The religious beliefs Hobby Lobby wishes to practice DO interfere with the reasonable rights of others.

    2) Why do you choose to see the ACA as forcing a company to purchase a good or service? I see it, as forcing a company to provide additional compensation for employment. The employee is the one that actually chooses which goods and services to purchase.

    3) Many laws have been passed that require us to contribute to all kinds of fees and taxes. Tags for your car, bridge tolls, additions to property taxes to build schools. Private contractors are hired to do most infrastructure improvements. Why draw such a huge distinction, because instead of the government funneling money to private companies, employers make payments directly to them? Seems you’re splitting hairs to bolster a point that you don’t want to contribute to people using birth control that you don’t agree with.

  • dcjohnny

    You are the one missing the details.

    This lawsuit is a direct assault on the legality of the ACA’s ability to include birth control in their mandate.

    You are jumping ahead of the argument and treating the ACA as law, and treating this case as some kind of new law that is unfairly violating the ACA.

    On the contrary. The ACA has been found to violate the oldest of laws on the books, not the other way around.

    And we can argue semantics about birth control forever, as we clearly have our positions staked.

    If you don’t see what differentiates birth control from medical pharmaceuticals, that’s on you. It certainly isn’t without debate, as you would claim. What about pharmaceuticals and “medical” procedures like nose jobs, or other vanity procedures? Should those be covered?

    Individual responsibility must be restored if we are going to survive. Forcing one group of people to pay for the so-called “right” for others to enjoy free birth control is a ludicrous, ludicrous position. It just simply is.

    Read that again: Forcing one group of people to pay for the so-called “right” for others to enjoy free birth control is a ludicrous, ludicrous position.

    Can you argue with that?

  • dcjohnny

    That is an unbelievably false position, entirely ignorant of our history and what rights we do enjoy here in America.

    The company refuses to pay for an abortion, and you scream that they are “denying rights”.

    Do you see how far you’ve come? How insane you sound?

    These pills cost between $5 and $10 at the local store, and because of our great and free society, these employees are free to go into that pharmacy and buy those drugs as needed.

    Don’t lecture me on how denying trivial coverage as part of a perk plan is a “violation of their constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. That’s a pathetic bastardization of the Constitution and the intent of our patriot fathers.

  • TheOpinionGuy

    I cannot keep a giraffe in my backyard and call it a greyhound to get around animal control laws.

    None of the four contraceptions that Hobby Lobby refused to offer are abortifacients. Their only connection to abortion is that they can prevent the need for one later.

    Even the morning after pill (i.e., Plan B) is not an abortifacient. It prevents ovulation before fertilization, not the implantation of a fertilized egg. Nevermind whether or not their claims are medically factual, according to the SCOTUS decision, so long as the belief is sincerely held, it allows a corporation to violate U.S. law. That’s nuts!

    That’s the same as me arguing that a giraffe is really a greyhound. Scientific classifications don’t matter. The fact that a dictionary or scientific paper would show that a giraffe is not a greyhound doesn’t matter. Simply that I *BELIEVE* that the giraffe is a greyhound is sufficient legal defense. Again, that’s nuts if we are to be a Land of Laws.

    Source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say

  • AJP

    Is that your answer -point at Muslims, how about illegal immigrants? We are talking about the loss of a fair free market in this country and like all conservatives you are just looking to point your finger anywhere but here.

  • Jim

    Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version): ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Okay…the key wording here is ‘as one does with a woman”. Let’s explore this for a moment shall we. Is this even physically possible? Does this require dinner and a movie first? Comments?

  • Jim

    The article is a joke people…(so far).

  • Jim

    Look at Leviticus 19:34. “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born.
    Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD
    your God.”

  • David Geoffrey Scotland

    So you believe in “thou shalt not kill” but you do kill.
    Jesus (the Christ) was not in the Old Testament.
    You believe in Jesus but evidently not “love ye one another.”

    By killing someone else because of your religious beliefs, you violate another’s religious beliefs of choosing not to kill YOU.
    READ THE BIBLE, YOU STUPID ILLITERATE FUCKTARDS!

  • aurelius

    Thank you for writing this!
    Also, who is going to decide what deeply held religious beliefs are? Just how much consistency or inconsistency in religious beliefs is allowed? If the Bible is the word of God, don’t all parts apply? All of those right wingers worried about death panels really should be worrying about religious test panels.

    The owners have no problems financially supporting companies in China that require women to take pregnancy tests at work so they can fire them, and force abortions.

  • David Geoffrey Scotland

    People who hate gays and kill gays are the victims of their own perceptions that are evidently based entirely on bodily (and not spiritual) notions. Besides, since when it is okay to continue following the Old Testament (The Torah) when Jesus came and fulfilled the law of LOVE which wiped out having to follow the laws of the old testament? Biblical illiterates are still doing (and will keep doing) what they’ve always done: live as complete idiots who will never understand John 10:10 “The thief comes only to kill, steal, and destroy; but I came that you may have and enjoy your life in abundance, to the full, until it overflows.” Obviously the murderer DOES need to be killed because he, according to the word of Jesus, IS the killer who killed! So, let’s round up a bunch of gun nuts and shoot the bastard(s)! KILL THE KILLERS!!!! YIPPEKAYE!!

  • lisabaldwin

    If it’s a joke it’s a horrible one!!!

  • KC Sunshine

    Goofy and Daffy,

  • Lawyer

    The Hobby Lobby case was not decided under the First Amendment law. It was decided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Under established First Amendment law, the plaintiff’s would likely have lost.

  • Acrimonious

    As much as I hate getting into these endless arguments, i must disagree with point 2 in the above comment: In order to legaly opperate a motor vehicle, we must purchase car insurance. I realize that the usual response to this is “don’t buy a car if you don’t want to buy insurance: not forcing you.” To that i would have to say “don’t run a for profit company if you don’t want to properly compensate your employees, make a non-profit!”

  • Craig Goeke

    No not really poor taste at all. Its not a joke but rather high lights whats wait for us at the end of this road the ruling has put us on.

  • Craig Goeke

    I really wish they’d have explained what that birth control does rather than say it causes abortions. Those pills don’t kill any more babies than a man not using the sperm his body has built up and woman having her period does. If preventing a combined sperm and egg cell from attaching to the wall of the uterus is an abortion pretty soon we’ll see women getting attacked for having their periods instead of using that egg.

  • Craig Goeke

    Just give them time. Those four are just a foot hold to test the waters on what they can get away with. This doesn’t end until women are degraded all the way back to their biblical standard of life.

  • Craig Goeke

    When its 5 out 9 we see just how meaningless the majority vote really is.if there were just 8 people voting it would have been a tie not the majority. When its an entire country full of people who have to live with it the decision should be up to a swing vote.

  • ahmiowa

    dcjohnny, you’re missing something critical – that this ruling interferes with the doctor-patient relationship, and limits the ability of a doctor to prescribe the best medical treatment for a patient.

    So – in the event you’re a woman becoming anemic due to excessive monthly bleeding, who ended up requiring a blood transfusion. Say that your doctor recommends the Mirena IUD to attempt to keep you from bleeding to death. Selected because it can be removed if necessary, rather than a hormonal treatment that affects you systemically and that would cause further risk because of other medical issues..

    If you haven’t been surgically sterilized, should you be allowed to have that prescription fulfilled under your medical coverage?

    (Yes, from personal experience…)

  • MI Mitten

    That’s an interesting theory, I’d like to check back in a couple of years. But something that has happened is the foot hold of ending back alley abortions Roe v Wade, devolving to putting botched late term abortion babies in broom closets to die.

  • KatieDancer

    But they erroneous label the 4 as causing abortions. They are not doctors, and neither is the SCOTUS. They’ve gotten an idea into their heads that is false. Besides, what do they care. Their employees pay ins. premiums so they ought to keep their noses out of others business.

  • KatieDancer

    Yup any period is a missed pregnancy opportunity.

  • malloci

    It’s called Selective Service. All men at or over the age of 18 must enroll, and are eligible to be drafted into the military if authorized by Congress and the President deem a draft necessary.

  • realist

    waaaaaaaaaahhhhhh i have no self-control so the company that already provides my livelihood has to pay for my bad choices. that is how you sound, libs.

  • Mike

    This article is satire. Do you know what satire is?

  • mgourleycannotthinkcritically

    Oh, your the victim, right? Your rights are being trampled because you can’t tell another human being what to do with their body? Oh, the humanity. Please, stop. It doesn’t work. We all know you are the villain, not the victim.

  • aefgasd

    These grapes are mighty sour but it sure is one helluva whine

  • Sheenna Budnik

    So… Anyone else want to start a new city some where?

  • Realist

    What the fuck? You do realize this article is (really bad) satire and has to do with the real Hobby Lobby case and has nothing to do with gay people, right?

  • thinkaboutit

    The issue with HL is not necessarily WHAT they are denying their employees but the how and why they were granted the right to do so. I read this comparison today “If HL were owned by a person that was a Jehovah Witness, based on the recent ruling, choose to not allow blood transfusions be covered” How would that set with everyone? I guarantee you we would see protests regarding their abuse of religious freedom at this point. Everyone has made the issue out to be about birth control but it’s about much more than that.

  • Realist

    A summary of the court ruling and outcry:

    Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to provide FOUR out of the TWENTY major contraceptives available on the market, because those four terminate pregnancies. Liberals can’t get something for free and don’t want any personal responsibility, so they whine about hating women and theocracies. Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby will continue to provide the other 16 contraceptives, the female employees are still allowed to buy the four contraceptives themselves, and nobody will understand anything about this case because libs have already twisted it into a feelings fest.

  • aurelius

    I think it is great satire!

  • aurelius

    Science disagrees with your description of the 4 contraceptives. By the way, Hobby Lobby owners are not consistent with their views of abortion. They financially support factories in China that force abortions after one chile and that require women to take pregnancy tests at work.

    Also, this satire shows the implications of this ruling by 5 male Roman Catholics who should have recused themselves.

  • aurelius

    I just can’t wait for the religious belief test panels!

  • aurelius

    Health insurance coverages should not be decided by employers religious beliefs. Health insurance is part of a compensation package that employees receive. Do you want your employer telling you how to spend the money you earned?

  • Word

    In response
    1. By not providing the 4 items they didn’t, they are not infringing on some Constitutional right. Birth control is NOT something to which one is entitled. Besides, they do provide most of the birth control listed required by Obamacare. They are in no way stopping women from acquiring things.

    Besides, want to be empowered ladies? Go buy it! Hobby Lobby pays the employees better than many.

  • dl

    HA HA HA!!! The shame is, you’re serious. Someone really did a number on you!!! LOL War on women right??? LOL You have no idea what a war on women is. You want me to link a serious, real war on women on here?? You’d vomit at that the photo’s, so I won’t. Grow up.

  • dl

    So, when they voted 5-4 for Obamacare, you were ok with that vote though, right??

  • dl

    That’s not a draft.

  • dl

    Socialism’s great………until you run out of other people’s money!! LMAO!!

  • Jean

    I only wish a line from someone saying, “If he didn’t like it, he could have gotten another job” had been included here somewhere. Otherwise, perfect!

  • dl

    Shouldn’t be an argument with a lot of you. You cheered and did the “na naa na naa na” thing when the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of Obamacare. I heard and read lot’s of people saying, “too bad, the Supreme Court upheld it, deal with it”. Well, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 on this, too bad, deal with it.

  • MI Mitten

    Are you a doctor? If they really do pay all of their ins. then they shouldn’t have a problem buying the 4 otc, right?

  • MI Mitten

    Health insurance coverages should be decided by employers, if they’re the one paying them or even part of them. Health insurance is part of a comp. package that prospective employees must weigh when deciding if they want to work there or not. The employer is not telling them how to spend their money, they are deciding how.

  • Lisarie Gleason

    Only 2 of the 4 are medications. The other 2 are IUDs. Those are birth control devices, that have tobe inserted by a doctor. They are commonly used by women over a certain age or women that can’t take pills/shots for interaction/side effect reasons. It is a medical procedure that can be pretty pricey. See, I’m sure the employees pay into the insurance, hobby lobby just pays out. And if you think of it that way, the employees are kind of paying for their own BC.

  • Jordan

    Incorrect assertions on Step 1. This case involved RFRA’s 1993 law interpretations with new applications from the Citizens United ruling of 2010. The original rights as interpreted in RFRA were not affirmed to belong to a for profit. Now they are…

    Step 2. Did not leave holes.. they already exempted religious orgs.. they NOW have to add closely held for profits now.

    Step 3 is just what you used to fill in the gaps, as you do not understand the ruling.

    Your anti-IRS claim at the bottom is known as a frivolous issue, and yes, it was settled a long time ago… as noted in this ruling, further exemptions could be applied to any federal NON-TAX law.. so not sure why you even brought it up.

    When your employer switches religions and you have dogma imposed on you, you may actually understand what just happened monday. ;)

  • Shjrley Clark

    The USA has NOT DRAFTED men for a number of years now…..all our military service people are volunteered enlistees. Where have you been, Pragmatist???? (women have never been drafted….always chose to enlist)

  • Bee man

    Hobby Lobby can put them all on part time and not pay any insurance for them, they can then get ACA on their own along with the cut in pay. Problem is, Hobby Lobby employees aren’t the ones doing all this foolish bitching.

  • Shjrley Clark

    You really don’t know what you are talking about…first you say the US should not draft for the military (the draft was abolished YEARS ago) and now you say Hobby Lobby is against “birth control”….no they aren’t…they ARE against abortion……have you ever read a newspaper or perhaps a book??? You obviously CAN read, since you can write…why don’t you try it?

  • Bonechips

    Sharia law. Just change the name of the religion.

  • Mfox

    The Amish don’t serve in the military, and they don’t get social security either if they are self employed, I.e. On the farm/ family business.
    They are pacifists.

  • Bonechips

    Kind of. It is more like representatives paid off by the likes of Monsanto, Exxon, GlaxoSmithKline, Halliburton etc.

  • Bonechips

    Hobby Lobby has no problem buying the crap they sell from slave labor factories in China. Only Christian when it saves them money.

  • ikoihil

    IUDs don’t cause abortion, and those were fought by Hobby Lobby.

    Perhaps you could read a book, like you suggested to pragmatist?

  • Michael Glasser

    Go to Hobby Lobby. Fill your cart with whatever you want. Then walk out, with your stuff, without paying. When they stop you tell them they have already argued that sincerely held beliefs are enough to get you out of obligations you would otherwise be held to and that you have such a belief about them going out of business.

    Somehow I bet they would very quickly say you have an obligation no matter what your sincerely held beliefs are. I hope someone tries this.

  • Michael Glasser

    They claim they are only against abortions – but the ruling is very clear that it applies *only* to contraception… therefore none of it should apply to their claims.

  • Jason Gagnon

    The people who posted this are idiots. After
    speaking with Hobby Lobby, and sharing my comments about the recent
    court ruling and this; I expressed to them my apologies on behalf of Freelance Digital Media, Ltd. They did nothing but exert their
    rights to what they believe – just as I do. I shared with them that I
    was an Atheist and that they have my full support behind the courts
    ruling. We both agreed that there will be people out there who will try
    to mar and make trouble for them. (You have to fight for the rights of
    others if you want people to fight for yours – even if you disagree.
    Please tell me people know and understand that.)

  • elizapar

    Doesn’t their Bible, state thou shall not kill. Maybe someone needs to put a bullet into Mark Patterson’s head.

  • Bonnie Raymond

    Actually, if they don’t know the real violence they can just keep saying “my religious leader would never do such a thing…”

  • Bonnie Raymond

    Insurance benefits are part of compensation for doing the job. Instead of money.
    It’s not the employer’s money that goes for insurance, it is agreed-upon pay in the form of insurance premium.

  • Bonnie Raymond

    Either they are ignorant of the medical action of these contraceptives, believing them to end pregnancy when none exists–or they are against these forms of contraception, as contraception.

  • Bonnie Raymond

    “Writhing masses”– you must be a joy to be around.

  • Mike Pohlable

    No, we live in a republican democracy.
    We’re just supposed to have a constutional democratic republic.
    Instead, we have corporatism and corruption leading to our democratically elected representatives being hand-chosen by companies and special interest groups…. that go on to make laws democratically – by mere majority, without adherence to the constitution.
    The power structure created by the Constitution has been inverted; people no longer have rights, they have privileges bestowed upon them by government.
    Government no longer has privileged powers – but insurmountable power that far exceeds the rights from which that power originated.
    We have crossed the “must be altered or abolished” threshold set forth in the declaration of independence – but as a people, we’re both blind to these abuses (willfully so in many cases), and have allowed too much usurpation of our fundamental inalienable rights. We no longer have the power to alter or abolish the criminal monstrosity that is the U.S. government.

  • eef

    I wonder if an Islam owned business then has the right to force female employees wear hijab or scarves even when off work, as that holds with there religious beliefs oh and men pray 5times a day.

  • Mike Pohlable

    I’d only comment that a “constitutional right” is a fictitious thing – much like centrifugal force… It is something we perceive, but does not actually exist. (Centrifugal force APPEARS due to inertia and centripetal force).
    A “constitutional right” APPEARS due to limitations on government’s privileged powers CREATED from the rights of the people. These rights are constitutionally PROTECTED (not created) by the “Bill of Rights” limitations on the federal government.
    Government is a subservient entity WITHOUT rights. It has far too often claimed that its “interests” exceed the rights of the people.
    When it does so, the government is operating criminally.

    Obama care has taken the privilege of healthcare and turned it into a quasi-right… which the government has an interest in protecting, but which CANNOT trespass upon any ACTUAL right.

    There is a bigger issue of a corporation (property) having rights. This is another fallacy that promotes governmental and corporate interests – at the expense of human rights.
    This fallacy is as great as the Government having rights. By the very definition of the federal government in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the government CANNOT possess, create, destroy, nor invent “rights.” Such power is beyond it, as the “rights” possessed by the people are the source of its authority. For the created to have powers greater than that which created it – allowing the creation to destroy its creator….
    Well… that’s Frankenstein. A horror story. The Federal Government has become a modern day horror story equivalent.

  • pragmastist

    Look what I started, probably a record for comments on a fictional article, thanks to all the special people that disagreed with me and special thanks to all the people that tried to inject some reason by disagreeing with them. I think I’ll head down to Hobby Lobby and get some airplane glue.

  • I_Own_Me

    “We had known for a long time that Jeremy was a sinner…”

    Looks like Hobby Lobby is gonna have to kill everyone now, including themselves, in order to stay consistent with their belief of killing sinners.

  • Guest

    I hope that you realized that daily current is just satirical news.

  • Joseph Cabahug

    About

    The Daily Currant is an English language online satirical newspaper that covers global politics, business, technology, entertainment, science, health and media. It is accessible from over 190 countries worldwide – now including South Sudan.

    Our mission is to ridicule the timid ignorance which obstructs our progress, and promote intelligence – which presses forward.

  • Joseph Cabahug

    It’s a fake news and it’s all satirical. I hope you all are not that gullible to believe that bullshit.

  • Niggle

    Scarily it’s becoming possible that having a miscarriage will get you investigated. There already are at least two women in the US in jail for miscarriages. In El Salvador a woman was charged with aggravated murder for a miscarriage and she didn’t even know she was pregnant. It took two emergency surgeries to save her life, she was too ill to attend trial, but she’s been sentenced to 10 years in jail because the judge ruled she should have saved her baby’s life.

  • snipies

    Yes, they say that the draft was abolished in 1972 but we all know it that’s a huge load of crap or they wouldn’t be forcing our boys to sign up for Selective Service just in case. Also, IUD’s are not abortions, they are a form of birth control and a medical procedure designed to treat various medical conditions like endometriosis.

  • I_Own_Me

    It is satire, but the scary part is that it’s not an entirely absurd premise. Oklahoma Republican candidate Scott Esk recently, unashamedly and on multiple occasions said he wouldn’t be against killing gays because God’s law approves of it. And the scary part isn’t just that a man like that is running for office, but that there are also a good number of evangelicals in this country who agree with him.

  • Nitrobucket

    Hobby Lobby doesn’t “gladly pay for 80% of birth control methods” They didn’t want to pay for ANY. The Supreme Court decided how much they would cover

  • BigGuy

    A corporation is not a citizen. It is a legal fiction. It is established practice that a corporation cannot be charged with a crime because “a corporation has no soul”. Corporations are obligated to follow all laws because they are created by law. By tradition, not law, corporations are NOT entitled to all the rights of citizens.

    In the 1890’s, the US Supreme Court ruled that a corporation could be construed a person under the law and ascribed to corporations some of the same rights previously only available to individual citizens. The Hobby Lobby ruling follows from that interpretation.

    Some people in Congress have proposed laws to specifically state that corporations are not citizens and are NOT entitled to ANY the rights granted to individual citizens by the USA constitution. Were that passed, then corporations would not have unlimited right to exercise their speech by spending their money, and would be obligated to comply with all US laws and regulations, whatever the religious beliefs of the corporation owners.

  • Michael Robinson

    Christians be trolling, hard.

  • Donnie Hawkins

    Jesus, and people say we “pagans” are heathens? If this is christianity, its a goddamned joke.

  • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

    That’ll show ‘em!

  • Queenie Kimberly

    Really? If they are so against abortion why are they purchasing products from China? Hobby Lobby is full of sh*t. They are hypocrites who won’t be getting another dollar from me.

  • BrotherRog

    ..the cruelest part is that they used styrofoam craft balls — it took a very long time.

  • Austin

    You seem to forget sir… We… are the government. They are merely Representatives of us.

  • Angela

    I am against the ruling. I think its stupid. BUT, an abortion defined by a Christian person is ANY fertilized egg being willfully destroyed. So sometimes birth control allows an egg to be fertilized and then prevents it from implanting. It happens rarely, but it’s possible. So yes, according to them, it is an abortion. This also includes invitro because some fertilized eggs are not used and are destroyed.

  • Teresa Frey

    The bigger point, five men…decided the future of how many women? Isn’t that what “We the people” should be scrutinizing…..something has to change.

  • BrotherRog

    Angela, not all Christian people agree with you. For instance, most Christians who are physicians or scientists disagree with what you are stating.

  • rcfrt

    For satire to be effective, it should have some smidgen of believability. This is so far off that it has ceased to be satire and moved to caricature.

  • George Patton

    stop whining , you liberal idiot

  • Bill evans

    Only liberal idiots actually believe this story! LOLOL brain dead zombies.
    Damn, and you guys vote!

  • MI Mitten

    The four include two “emergency contraceptives” — Plan B and ella — and two intrauterine devices (IUDs). Members of the Green family who own Hobby Lobby say those contraceptives are abortifacients — that they induce abortion. The point has led to some disputes in legal filings with the U.S. Supreme Court about the definitions of abortion and pregnancy. A group of obstetricians, gynecologists and other physicians told the justices that abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and the contraceptives at issue can’t induce abortion because they only work before pregnancy. The Greens counter that the contraceptives can prevent the implantation in the uterus of a fertilized egg. They say that is the destruction of life and that forcing them to offer those contraceptives makes them complicit in abortion.
    If the U.S. Supreme Court rules for Hobby Lobby, the argument over specific kinds of contraceptives may be irrelevant.

  • MI Mitten

    When you use words/phrases like commonly, I’m sure, kind of etc. it really shows it is just in your eyes. SCOTUS ruled on this so it is the “Law of the Land”.

  • MI Mitten

    SCOTUS ruled on this so it is the “Law of the Land”.

  • MI Mitten

    SCOTUS “Law of the Land”.

  • Ed

    I hope that thought process works for you because the idiots that pass rulings do NOT represent my beliefs.

  • Ed

    See what happens, the right will throw in another topic to take the focus off of the original debate and when that doesn’t they resort to childish name calling. You should be proud ” George Patton ” because I’m sure that your name sake is not…

  • King Douchebag

    I am absolutely disgusted by all you american trash, who sit here and debate abortion laws, and go on and on about your constitution, when the real story here is that a gay man was murdered in the name of religion. You homophobic, egocentric scumbags should be ashamed of yourselves. No wonder the rest of the world hates you and wants to see you all dead.

  • Nick Mordowanec

    fake

  • david

    i can see what you mean, although it is based on reality

  • david

    even though i know that this in particular is fake. its true that Christians do stone gay people to death. (among many other horrible things) im thankful the united states actually is not a christian nation (never was) or i wonder if we would actually see stonings. its already a fact for many christian nations in the world like uganda. (life in prison with out parole, ONLY because they were threatened by the UN for giving the death penalty) vigilantes taking matters into their own hands and giving public executions. you can use religion to justify anything, that is why we have separation of church and state. business cannot have religion, period. if your job violates your religion then get another one. civil law, not religious law, or you might find yourself smoking weed, covering your head and face, not be able to purchase or consume pork, there is an endless list of things that you might be subjected to based on “my religion, my business” that was never intended by the founders. its one thing to say “my rights, my religion” but anyone who knows ANYTHING about traditional American philosophy, knows the importance of A. Thomas Jefferson not being a christian, and his famous “wall of separation between church and state” and B. he was greatly influence by Thomas Paine, George and Ben Franklin- all of which were extremely outspoken about their distrust of religion and government manipulating each other. they were very clear about their intentions, and this is not what they intended

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Wow! Talk about Low Information Voters!!! The HL Supreme Court decision WAS NOT about the 16 OC’s that HL will cover in their healthplan – it was about the 4 abortifacients , which for Low Information Voters, ARE designed and used to terminate a pregnancy,if/when it has begun. You should search for clues before you post your blithering ignorance!!

  • Dan Luedke

    You’ve shown your own ignorance here. None of those birth control methods are abortificients. Maybe you should do your own research instead of just being a mouthpiece for a know nothing right wing activist preacher.

  • MeMyselfandI

    You can if you’re Amish.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Ohh, don’t be STUPID, dan – nor try top put lipstick on a pig. Yes the left is rushing out to say “Members of the Green family who own Hobby Lobby say those contraceptives are abortifacients — that they induce abortion.” , as if Hobby Lobby is inventing this out of whole cloth. BUT, if you look at the prescribing information, it states: “ella is not to be used as a regular form of daily, weekly, or monthly birth control.” Ummm, hardly an OC, eh comrade?? Further, the medical indication is, “Ella is a progesterone
    agonist/antagonist emergency contraceptive indicated for prevention of
    pregnancy following unprotected intercourse or a known or suspected
    contraceptive failure. Ella is not intended for routine use as a contraceptive.” Now, how’s that research, dan? You blithering idiot.

  • Phatcow07

    The fact that their are liberals thinking this is a real is a prime example of how they are a ignorant waste of space.

  • JackieKay

    men aren’t entitled to vasectomies either, but HL doesn’t cover that…

  • Jean

    I still see “prevention of pregnancy” in your quote, Think. I won’t be like you and call you a blithering idiot or an opposite-of-comrade (?).

  • eyemall

    Yes, much like when companies like Tommy Hilfiger and other” name” brands buy their stuff from China and other countries. They can claim all they want that the plants they buy from aren’t slave labor because they investigate them, but if they pay no more than a few dollars a day then that is slave labor. Isnt that what you say about the minimum wage here?

  • onezerofive

    For those that are confused, let me help…. this is fake. And no, the bible does not tell Christians to stone, judge, nor discriminate against homosexuals. In fact, it says exactly the opposite. Fascist have hijacked select bible versus (primarily from the old testament) to imply & enforce their personal views onto others, using the bible as a scapegoat… it’s happened in the past, and it will happen in the future; it, however, is not the message of the bible. Just like any ‘group’ of people, it’s compiled by a large portion of unique individuals (all with different behaviors & beliefs).. you can’t judge all Christians based on the actions of a few. If a Christian is judging or discriminating against you, he’s going against the message & purpose of the bible (it’s that simple).

    Needless to say, anyone who’s read the bible understands the VERY predominate message in the New Testament (the testament Christians are to follow); 1 John: 3:23: “This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded”. We should not discriminate, nor judge anyone. There will be some who break that rule, but that is not the true message of the bible.

  • Tom Wolf

    In all the whining from rightists that the OP is a satire, they ignore the real facts that these sentiments HAVE BEEN proudly stated by many rethugs in pandering to their base of religious fanatics.
    And not one rethug raised a voice in protest of this outrageous but sincere opinion from a look who is right ion the center of GOP dogma.

  • jen free

    Just an FYI, Plan B can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. Whether you call that an abortion or not is another discussion.

    “Depending upon where you are in your cycle, Plan B One-Step may work in one of these ways:

    It may prevent or delay ovulation.
    It may interfere with fertilization of an egg.

    It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.”

    http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/plan-b

  • Salil Maniktahla

    “Ohh, don’t be STUPID, dan – nor try top put lipstick on a pig.”

    This is my favorite comment (with misspellings and poor grammar and all) of the day.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    It’s a one-dose abortifacient. What do you fail to understand?

  • ThinkDontFeel

    You score the grammar points and I’ll score the fact points, TOOL.

  • Salil Maniktahla

    If your ability to count is anywhere like your ability to write, then of course you’ll win every time :D

  • Nancy Hall

    I think it’s ironic when people like you use the term “low information voters” as if you were talking about people other than yourselves. Are you aware that the term “prevention” means keeping something from happening and not undoing something that has already taken place?

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Oh dear. Ability is not a place found anywhere, the correct grammar would be anything. Thank you for making my favorite thread of the day!!

  • Salil Maniktahla

    “Ability is not a place found anywhere, the correct grammar would be anything.”

    …does this even make sense to you? When you read it to yourself, does it make *any* sense whatsoever?

    Please continue! I’m sharing with my friends. We are all enjoying this very much. :D

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Oh, nancy! It prevents pregnancy by killing (undoing) any links of sperm and egg in the past 24 hours.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    You’re an immigrant? English is your 2nd language??

  • http://www.thetechchat.com Mark Coppock

    The argument is endless because it ignores the central principle involved: that government has usurped powers that it is not allowed by the Constitution, including the building and control of our transportation system (the Postal clause being another, like the Interstate Commerce clause, that’s been perverted over the years to mean something it was never supposed to mean). The issue with the ACA, that it forces individuals into purchasing health insurance, isn’t mitigated simply because government initiates force in other areas. I’ll agree that the central issue with the ACA isn’t the First Amendment, but that doesn’t mean that the ACA isn’t an egregious violation of individual rights in general.

  • Patriot

    SCOTUS = right-wing douche-bags

  • Jesse Faught

    Mayday.us
    Lawrence Lessig agrees, and has a plan to change it.

  • Marijuana Mayor

    Whereas your inability to spell “there” correctly is a prime example of what?

  • Marijuana Mayor

    Leviticus 20:13New International Version (NIV)

    13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    Your mileage may vary.

  • Marijuana Mayor

    In a related announcement, Hobby Lobby says they will now accept first born daughters as payment at all locations.

  • Marijuana Mayor

    Which is the reason just any “Christian person” doesn’t get to define abortion for the rest of us.

  • Armageddon

    Actually, that is not accurate. They are merely representatives of the rich corporations who paid for their candidacies, and who put them in office to support the special interests of those corporations and of the two primary political parties.

  • onezerofive

    Old Testament… Does not apply. Christians should be following the new testament, by the word of Jesus Christ. In it, we are taught not to judge one another, to forgive, & love one another. We are taught to look inward to fix ourselves, not to scourge others for their sin.

    John 8:7 ASV
    But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

    1 John 3:23 ASV
    And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment.

    Matthew 7:1-5 ASV
    Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

  • longun45

    Since the premise is fallacious and the ruling only applies to democrats anyway. This is a non starter of a joke, remember Muslims HANG gays in public from cranes. Somehow I do not hear any thing from the gay lobby in protest, or from democrats either. They really seem to enjoy the bodies hanging around.

  • http://truckingmybluesaway.blogspot.com/ David Roche

    Well we don’t have a draft in the U.S. and the Tea Party already gets out of paying taxes. But I see your point.

    Suppose I determined that 50 percent of my tax money was spent on the military and I decided upon finding that out only to pay half my taxes and then only with the stipulation that none of my money be used to support war or war industries.

    Suppose I have a firmly held belief that war doesn’t help anyone but the military industrial complex and to support war is definitely not right.

  • pragmastist

    I’m not a liberal or conservative, I think the conservatives are a bunch of pimps and the liberals are perverted sunday school teachers. Libertarians, socialists, white supremists, and all the rest are totally bogus. I take everything at face value and make my own decisions.

  • Patriot

    SCOTUS = America’s Taliban

  • Peter Kay

    you liberals cant stand losing can you….

  • Roger

    If you’re going to mock christians, at least get your facts right. By quoting leviticus, you’re using the old testament. The core of Chrisitan faith is that Jesus died for our sins. In fact he says do not judge, lest me be judged.
    And I’m not even Christian. I’m just someone who knows some simple basics about religion.
    It’s interesting to note that the bible also says Christians will be mocked, persecuted, and it will get worse.
    But of course religion is all bad, isn’t it? Look at all the wars and deaths because of it. But try adding up the deaths by aethists, which in the 20th century alone surpass the preceding centuries:
    Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot – the list goes on.

    Of course, if a poor American can’t afford contraception or emergency treatment, she can always get it free from family planning clinics. So who’s rights are really being abused here?

  • I.Smith

    Jesus said do not think I have come to do away with the laws of Moses and teaching of the prophets.
    So this means all the old laws still apply and that Christians if they have sincerely held beliefs must follow all the laws including stoning and treating woman as property. You can not say any different and still be Christian.
    This is why the SCOTUS decision has now opened the flood gates to all kinds of Christian persecution of other people who they believe are sinners.

  • onezerofive

    Nope, sorry brother, you’re twisting words. Jesus clearly indicates to forgive & to love thy neighbor. It’s written all over the New Testament. His is a message of love. He indicates to follow the commandments (as in the 10 commandments Moses brought down from mount Sinai) as in, to take heed to live outside of sin. He message clearly indicates to forgive in the passages of John 7:8 & Matthew 7:1-5. Twist all you want; your confusion will not change the word of God, nor his son & therefore all the same, Christians are not to judge, nor discriminate others for their sin.

  • Nancy Hall

    You’re misinformed. Plan B prevents pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation. There’s a theory that it might prevent (there’s that word again) implantation of a fertilized egg, but that hasn’t been proven. It may also prevent (I sense a theme, here) fertilization if an egg is released. The term “undoing any links” is meaningless. The bottom is that morning after pills and IUDs don’t cause abortions.

  • Ryan Quinn

    Their employees get $14 an hour. My work doesn’t buy me lunch everyday. My work doesn’t provide me my medication I will have to take the rest of my life. So, why do all you guys care that 6 out of 20 BC aren’t covered? I’d rather make the $14 an hour.

  • I.Smith

    Jesus said love your neighbour as you love yourself which is probably his most famous saying and the one which his followers are meant to follow.

    Yet Jesus got this saying from Leviticus 19.18 and said it was the second greatest commandment. So Jesus said he is not here to do away with the old laws and says how important the old laws are even saying Leviticus is his second most important commandment.

    So to be a Christian means to follow all the old laws and commandments including stoning, you cant be a true sincere Christian if you pick and choose what to follow.

    I would also point out that God or Jesus said nothing about Abortion or anything about it being wrong, God even ordered his followers to smash new born babies against rocks, God killed the first born sons in Egypt even the young ones and most of all God flooded the earth wiping out mankind including new-born children and pregnant woman so explain how God is against Abortion.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Are you suggesting that because they pay their employees well this justifies letting them get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations merely because they have a strongly held belief? And why bring up lunches and the like – I do not think you mean to imply they have a legal obligation to provide those things. If not, though, the comments are not relevant.

    Let me re-direct you to the topic: Hobby Lobby is getting out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations by saying they have a “strongly held belief” – one that is contrary to known evidence. Using that same logic, why should I not be able to get out of what would otherwise be my legal obligation to pay them by noting my strongly held belief that they should go out of business?

    What is the difference? In both cases we are asking to get out of what would otherwise be our legal obligations based on our personal belief. Well, there is one difference: I am a *person* with beliefs… Hobby Lobby is a corporation, a fictitious legal entity which is lacking in beliefs. That means my case is a stronger one, right?

  • zakin

    Except paying for those four forms of contraception is not they’re legal obligation anymore. Try taking your example of filling up a shopping cart without paying to the Supreme Court (or any court) and see what they say.

  • noname

    Oh, here we go, more B.S. to incite ignorant liberals who will actually believe this crap. You Dems must thank President Clinton for signing the Religious Freedom act.

  • onezerofive

    You clearly do not understand the new testament, nor the message of Jesus Christ. Read John 8:3-11… It is there that the New Testament clearly addresses this exact discussion, and furthermore proves your understanding incorrect. The commandments given by Moses apply, but the punishment does not. Moses’s law required Jesus to stone the adulterous… But Jesus did not. He instead forgave her of her sin, and saved her. He clarified that we are all with sin through his response, and taught us to look within at our own sin; not that of others. This is later repeated in Mathew 7:1-5 in which we are told not to condemn others. I have provided the verses & therefore have proven my statements correct. Please read the verse below as supporting evidence. I see no room for discussion as it’s clearly proven that Jesus did not follow Moses’s punishment guidelines. I am off, and bid you blessings.

    John 8:3-11 ASV

    And the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst, they say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her? And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst. And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee? And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.

  • Bob

    Thanks for a constructive post.

    To answer your question, the requirement an unconstitutional legal obligation that required Hobby Lobby to engage in an act that violated their religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby does not forbid their employees from using the drugs in question but Hobby Lobby does not want to be a participant in a process they believe is akin to murder. Hobby Lobby is asking for a negative right (the right to not have an obligation imposed upon them.) The hypothetical you are proposing is one where someone would be asserting a positive right (a right to receive action from another person) because it would entail requiring Hobby Lobby to provide goods for free. In general, negative rights are considered higher order rights and positive rights can only be obtained contractually (formal or informal) from an ethical perspective.

    So in essence, Hobby Lobby felt that the law was an unjust violation of their god given (derived from nature, not a particular god) rights to not take a life. The Supreme Court agreed that such violations are not allowable under the Constitution. Note: I do not mean to imply that the Supreme Court agree that using post fertilization birth control methods are murder, they were silent on that. They merely affirmed that it was reasonable for a a company to not violate deeply held beliefs such as that.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You are right it is no longer their legal obligation – they have been granted an exception based on their “strongly held belief”. That is my point. So why not allow me to get out of my legal obligation to pay for goods I get from Hobby Lobby based on my “strongly held belief”? Why does the “belief” of a fictitious legal entity hold more weight than that of mine, an actual person?

  • BikerKitty

    Wait a minute….this could extend to the ‘killing’ of sperm…if it’s considered a “life”…oh no! EVERY GUY ON THE PLANET NEEDS TO GET LOCKED UP FOR MURDER!!!! …..he he he

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    OK, so it is only a sincerely held religious belief.

    Great: Based on my religion I should not have to pay for the goods I get from Hobby Lobby – thus my religious beliefs should allow me to get out of what would otherwise be my legal obligation.

    As far as a “negative” vs. a “positive” right: in both cases we are both getting something (labor / products) and not providing what we would otherwise be required to provide (health care to get tax benefits, money). I am not asking to get anything from Hobby Lobby others cannot get: products. I am not asking for their shelving units, for their workers to wash my car, or any other action outside of what they do for their general business.

    With their belief that these drugs lead to murder, if they are right then the decision does not apply – it is very clear in saying it applies *only* to contraceptives. It does not apply to abortion or any other health consideration. As such, the only way this benefits Hobby Lobby is for others to recognize that their “sincerely held beliefs” are wrong.

    By the way, while we disagree, you clearly put thought and reasoning behind your post… thank you. That is rarely seen online. :)

  • Dan

    You do realize there is not ONE anti-gay verse in the entirety of the new dispensation, right?

  • Dan

    Temporary setbacks only. You Sharia with a cross christo-fascists are dropping like flies. Meanwhile the under 25 crowd is the least religious generation in US history.

  • Dan

    you realize that ‘satire’ isn’t the same thing as ‘fake’, right?

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Uh-hmm (throat clearing). The definition of oc: pill that is taken daily to prevent conception, especially one that combines an estrogen and a progestogen). So, surely you must now see that you take an OC to PREVENT a pregnancy and you take ella (AFTER the copulation) to END one. Just what are you failing to grasp here?

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Oh, don’t be STUPID, Michael Glasser!!! ‘One (Belief) that is contrary to known evidence.’??? Please share that evidence, you stupid tool!! What do you fail to grasp in the decision that BACKS their RECOGNIZED (documented) religious belief and negates the leftist losers like you who wanted to claim out of conscript military duty in its day or now claim taxes, and in your case, stealing. Sorry, TOOL, it relates to the RFRA, and your filth will never be able to claim anything near that!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    What about a belief that is country to known evidence is confusing you? The “belief” is that these medications and devices lead to abortions – but they are used for contraception, not abortions.

    But let us assume this is wrong: that they are used for abortions – then they are not covered by this decision which applies only to contraceptive devices. The only way this can apply to these *claimed* abortions is for people to know these “strongly held beliefs” are incorrect!

    As far as their religious beliefs allowing them to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations, that is exactly what is happening… just as I should be able to get out of my legal obligation to pay for products I get from Hobby Lobby. How is it different… other than that I am an actual person *with* beliefs and Hobby Lobby is a fictional entity (a corporation) which by its very nature has no beliefs (it is a tool).

    And with your name calling, insults, etc… wow… I am going to assume you are Christian but are having a very hard time acting like one. Would Christ want you to sink to such a level or would he prefer you rise to my level and use reason and logic and evidence?

    I am betting he would want you to rise… after all, didn’t he? :)

  • ThinkDontFeel

    You’re still being terribly STUPID, Michael Glasser.
    NO, ella is NOT used as an oral contraceptive. Oral Contraceptives are used daily or monthly to PREVENT pregnancy, ella is used ONE DOSE AFTER copulation to END pregnancy or potential pregnancy.

    All of your PAP in the next two paragraphs is … well just PAP. Refer to my first post (OR the freaking Supreme Court Decision) about recognized and documented religion to make your stealing claim a loon’s claim.

    And you assumed I am a Christian because I am on the opposite side of your debate??? What kind of small minded bigot are you??

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ah, more name calling. How classy of you!

    Plan-B and the like are in class of drugs considered “emergency contraceptives”. They are not used for abortions. Here: http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html

    But let us say you are right and they are used for abortions – then they are not covered by this decision that applies *only* to contraception!

    Again, these are facts. Are you going to deny them?

    You also ignore the whole topic: the fact that Hobby Lobby is getting out of what would otherwise be their legal obligation by saying they have a strongly held belief. Can you give other examples where a strongly held belief gets one out of what you would otherwise be legally obligated to do? And if you accept that such beliefs should get you out of such obligations, why should I not be able to get out of my obligation to pay for good I get from Hobby Lobby if I merely do not believe I should pay.

    And, yes, I know you will have no reasonable answers – only dodges and name calling. You are not the first person to troll me online. :)

    By the way: if my assumption about you being Christian was incorrect I apologize… but I bet it is correct. If you are not you are the first non-Christian I have seen defending this utterly absurd SCOTUS decision.

  • randalltx

    Savvy employees will find ways to make HL pay via other expenses or will find alternative employment if necessary. It really is an intrusion, but nothing more than that. HL will end up regretting their pursuit of this case. A corporation with religious beliefs? Logically impossible. It cannot last.

  • randalltx

    Too bad HL’s “sincere beliefs” do not extend to their investments which contain shares of the manufacturers of the very drugs they objected to.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I hope Hobby Lobby pays for this nonsense – but with the SCOTUS backing them you can bet others will claim their beliefs should get them out of other obligations. Then again, religious organizations have been getting out of paying taxes for a very long time. No sense to that, either.

  • Logan GLT

    Most people who believe the bible have never fully read it. But to say that the New Testament doesn’t speak to homosexuality, is false. Romans 1 talks about how sinful mankind can get, and as an example of just how far down man can get, it talks about “males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.”

    Or consider 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, that says idolaters, adulterers and men who are effeminate will not go to heaven. Or consider 1 Timothy 1:9-10 which labels people as ungodly and sinful who are sexuallly immoral or that practice homosexuality.

    The problem though is that the bible is an ancient man-made book written by Bronze age desert people who lacked education. The gist of the bible story would be that God, who is omniscient, says: “I told you not to eat from the tree. You didn’t do what I told you to do even though I knew you were not going to. So now, take my son and kill him so that I can save you from what I will do to you for doing what I already knew you were going to do.” Or put in a simpler way, God sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself. It’s utter nonsense.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I was not. I was happy for it but found it appalling that it was that close.

  • Jasper Taylor

    What are they going to to about all the sinners wearing polyfiber. That is a PERVERSION and it goes against god and NATURE!!!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    From the decision, page 5-6:
    ——
    This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandate…
    ——

    If it is used for abortions and not contraception then this decision does not apply to it… so *if* you are right (and you are not: http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html) then you just shot down Hobby Lobby’s “rights” granted to them by the SCOTUS.

    It comes down to this: Hobby Lobby has been given the legal right to get out of what would otherwise be its legal obligations based on a *faulty* belief that, if true, would not be covered by the decision! They are getting this legal right because they are factually wrong.

    Which is just sick… the SCOTUS went insane on this one.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html

    It is a contraception.

    And keep in mind the decision applies *only* to contraception and not to anything else. So are you saying that the decision does not apply to Plan B and the like?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ignoring your grammar you made at least two significant mistakes:
    1) Claiming Plan B and the like lead to abortions when the fact is they are a form of contraception
    2) Not understanding that if you were right about them not being contraceptives it would mean they were not impacted by the SCOTUS decision.

    You cannot have it both ways: either Hobby Lobby’s sincerely held belief is wrong *or* these medications are not impacted by the decision.

    Insane how the only way Hobby Lobby gets any benefit by this decision is for people to realize their “sincerely held beliefs” are wrong.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    “Prevent conception” – not end it.

    Do you understand the difference?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Your points:

    1) Nobody is saying people should not be able to follow their religious beliefs. What is being said is that people should not be able to get out of what they would otherwise be legally obligated to do by using their religion as an excuse. To be specific: to get tax breaks you need to provide comprehensive health care insurance… but Hobby Lobby is now getting those tax breaks *without* providing such insurance.

    2) Nobody is being compelled to do anything. Companies get tax breaks for offering comprehensive health insurance. They can opt out (and many have).

    3) You speak of hole… but they are in your own straw men / misconceptions.

    Bottom line: Hobby Lobby has argued, and the SCOTUS agreed, that they can get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligation because it goes against their “sincerely held” but incorrect beliefs. Using this same logic, why should I not be able to get out of my obligation to pay them for art supplies if I sincerely believe they should go out of business? If anything, my beliefs should be more important because I am a person… Hobby Lobby is a fictional entity (a corporation) and has no actual beliefs!

    That last is not a rhetorical question: why should my sincerely held beliefs not *also* allow me to get out of what would otherwise be my legal obligation?

  • I Hate hobby lobby now

    Yeah the bible also says that thou shall not murder….the mother fuckers are going to HELL…well they will be stoned to death by satans cock….which is well deserved. :) see how homophobic they are then. LMAO

  • Nancy Hall

    One thing I’m grasping is that you’re someone who can’t listen to reason or accept evidence that you’re wrong…you’re a low information voter, in other words, and a annoyingly tedious one at that.

  • john

    dont bother replying them when they attack you personally, like calling out your grammar when they cant produce facts … typical lefties

  • http://www.stephenjardent.com/ Stephen J. Ardent

    Well…not funny, but bigoted in a very asinine manner. 1/2 star.

  • bsebree

    Murder is mureder and there is nothing cristian about it. I will go elsewhere for my supplies and hope that justice is brought to both the individuals involved and Hobby Lobby for supporting this. I am a Christian and do not believe in causing harm to anyone. Amen.

  • Bsebree

    Amen!

  • Nikki Hitze

    The morning after pill stops ovulation, which means fertilization never occurs. Tell me how that is an abortion?

  • Jimmy

    Your name is my favorite comment (with misspellings and poor grammar and all) of the day.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Murder is both wrong and irrelevant.

  • Ashlee

    I will no longer be shopping at Hobby Lobby, I spend more money in that store that I do anywhere else. Murder is murder no matter how u look at it! I am a christian but that does NOT give me the right to judge someone else for the way the look, dress or live their life, that is up to God himself! oh and by the way Justin Anderson, when u said “We had known for a long time that Jeremy was a sinner,” how are u any different from him? No, u might not be gay but ur not perfect either, we have all committed some type of sin in our lives! Why don’t u so called christian managers stop playing God and leave the judging up to him! As for the Wilson County Sheriff Dept, only reason u have not made any arrests and are backing the managers up is because u and ur deputies are too stupid to do ur damn jobs! Grow the f*ck up, grow a pair of f*ckin balls and DO UR DAMN JOBS!

  • CorporationsNotPeople

    IMPEACH The ‘Hobby Lobby 5′ & Boycott Hobby Lobby & Watch them close down across America!

  • Me

    …but driving a car is not covered in the constitution, Bill of Rights, etc….

  • Colton Russell

    THIS IS NOT OKAY. Im a Christian and attend church and play in the band sometimes, and love the church and can confidently say that this is not the right thing to do. THIS is why people hate Christians! We need to be know for what we are for not against!. We need to be loving to our nieghbors no matter what race, sexuality, or other choices they have made, we need to show them so much love that they want to know who jesus is. It is our job as Christians to welcome everyone into the church, let all the sinners regardless of their sin(s) be in the church, in Gods eyes lying, murdering, homosexuality, and disobeying your parents are all equal sins! John 8:7 “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” (when speaking of a cheater). Matthew 7:3 “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own?” As Christians, we must be loving and some things were not meant to be taken this litterally. We should not stone people just for a sin, because we all have sinned, we should welcome them into the church and introduce them to God, God will handle the rest.
    James 4:12 “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge,the One who is able to save and destroy, but who are you to judge your neighbor?”
    Also, just because something is in the bible doesnt make it okay. Just because stoning people who were homosexual happened in the bible doesnt make it okay. Jesus doesnt say “now go my brothers and stone all homosexuals!”.. Also, the “God hates homosexuality” thing is completely misused. He doesnt hate the people, He hates the idea of homosexuality. He hates the sin! God loves everyone. Absolutely everyone.

    There
    is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to
    destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor? – See more at:
    http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God,-As-Judge#sthash.QHEJ8gM5.dpuf
    There
    is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to
    destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor? – See more at:
    http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God,-As-Judge#sthash.QHEJ8gM5.dpuf

  • A Concerned Atheist

    This is horrifying. No matter what your religion says, murder is murder, and we should not excuse such behavior under ANY circumstance.

  • ladygeisha

    This is NOT FUNNY — in any way. Extremely POOR TASTE. Perhaps The Daily Currant should consider having even the slightest degree of ethics.

  • Rich-D

    People who believe this story is fact, need to see a mental health specialist!

  • J. Anderson
  • Justin

    This definately claims how intolerant the tolerant are.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    non-patriot= libturd ascwipe

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Geezuz, Michael Glasser – Surgical Abortion is contraception!! Maybe you should look up the word contraception??

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or EMBRYO before viability. An embryo is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization.
    Thanks for playing.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Ohh, nancy. I’ll repeat from above for you: Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion
    from the uterus of a fetus or EMBRYO before viability. An embryo is a
    multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development,
    from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or
    germination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks
    after fertilization. The fact that ella and Plan B are COMMONLY known as ABORTIFACIENTS should perhaps help you buy a clue as to who is wrong here. Stay classy and ill-informed!

  • ThinkDontFeel

    OC’s prevent conception. Abortifacients terminate pregancy. All pharmaceutical abortifacients are OC’s, but not all OC’s are abortifacients. Do you understand the difference??

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Perhaps you should look at the decision being discussed. Nowhere is the term “surgical abortion” mentioned, but it *does* say: “In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate.”

    This ruling has not impact on abortions of any kind – it is concerned *solely with the contraception mandate*. Solely.

    The fact Hobby Lobby calls some of these contraceptive measures “abortion” based on their “sincerely” held belief does not change that. They only way they are able to exclude these things they deem to be “abortions” is to be *wrong* about it… if they truly were abortions they would not be covered by the ruling.

    Which is utterly insane, but it is currently the law of the land.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Michael Glasser – you DO understand that surgical abortion is a form of contraception???

    While Plan B and Ella are pharmaceutical oral contraceptives, their use is LIMITED to emergency contraception following a known or suspected contraceptive failure ONLY. NOT for daily use prevention like the 16 other OC’s on the HL health plan. While Plan B and Ella are Oral Contraceptives, they are Abortifacient Oral Contraceptives and cannot be interchanged with the 16 other oral contraceptives. Thos 16 OC’s ARE NOT Abortifacient OC’s.
    Do you think your skooling is complete, or do you need some more facts?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    He seems to share the “sincerely” held views of those who run Hobby Lobby – incorrect but still deemed important enough to allow them to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligation.

  • jerryfriedman

    Even if FeelDon’tThink is right, what does it matter? When does a corporation or court have any business telling people if they can kill a few cells? Even the Bible believes life begins at birth (Exodus 21:22). Does Hobby Lobby disagree with the Bible and science too?

  • Introbulus

    I really wish I didn’t have to check this site to make sure this was a fake news story. Because this. Really. Happens. Today.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    What do you fail to grasp here, einstein?? The 4 abortifacients are oral contraceptives, but none of the 16 oc’s are abortifacients. Surgical abortion is a contraception, so the discussion of the 4 abortifacients falls within the decisions ‘contraceptive mandate’. Try to keep up, dummy.

  • Adam

    time to create my own religion that specifically states it’s my godly duty to kill the haters and the authoritarians.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Hey ninny – you are arguing that the supremes limited their decision to contraceptives, and I point out that the 2 pharmaceutical abortifacients, and the two iud’s ARE CONTRACEPTIVE ABORTIFACIENTS. You seem to think that contraceptives and abortifacients are different and I am saying they are the same. The point to it’s end limit is that Surgical Abortion IS a contraception which is merely “the intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of
    various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical
    procedures.” Surgical Abortion has NOTHING to do with the HL decision. I use it to help you learn the definition of Contraceptives. You should pay me a headmaster fee for all this skooling! BTW- it is NOT reversely true that the other 16 HL health plan OC’s are abortifacients.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    What do I fail to grasp? Great question: I fail to grasp how you can ignore everything that has been shown to you:

    1) The SCOTUS decision applies only to contraception.
    2) Plan B is a form of contraception, not abortion.

    If you can understand those concepts please make it clear in your response… somewhere between the name calling which shows you as being so insecure in your views. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    What is sad is that it does not matter that Hobby Lobby’s owners’ views are wrong based on both science and the Bible, all that mattered was that they had a “sincerely held belief”.

    Using this same logic I should be able to get out of what would otherwise by my legal obligations to pay Hobby Lobby for products… anyone who sincerely thinks they should go out of business should be entitled to get as much product as they want for free. :)

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Showing me your 1) suggests you are badly informed. The definition of contraception includes OC’s, Abortifacients, IUD’s and even Surgical Abortion. If you are implying that contraception mandate could not include the 4 abortifacients then you are wrong. Obviously. Because we have the SCOTUS decision with the contraceptive mandate to allow the exclusion of the 4 abortifacients.
    2) Yes and No. See 1) above: ALL of these pregnancy prevention methods INCLUDING Surgical Abortion are contraception, by definition. But Surgical Abortion CERTAINLY is abortion and so are IUD’s and PlanB/Ella. Because Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or EMBRYO BEFORE VIABILITY

    If you want to argue this, show me that the definitions of contraception and abortion are incorrect!

  • ThinkDontFeel

    You went stupid, michael. ALL abortion methods including surgical removal of the fetus are contraception, so the abortifacient pharmaceuticals and IUD’s CERTAINLY fall within the mandate. You can’t possibly be suggesting that 5 Supreme Court Justices, an army of lawyers and a nation of journalists allowed a ‘ factually wrong fault’ that only michael glasser can see?!?!? There is a ton of angst on this decision, but I don’t see anyone but you saying the 4 abortifacients do not fall within the contraceptive mandate

  • blaw

    The only thing I’ll comment on is your view of separation of church and state. Why should a religious view not be able to be represented in politics in any form? How is a religious ideal different than any other ideal we see represented, such as environmentalism? Don’t forget what the first amendment actually says, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Why do people always forget that second part? Furthermore it would be an abridgment of the freedom of speech.

    Example:
    “Oh, your beliefs against abortion are based on freedom of religion and a belief in God? Well get out of here, we have separation of church and state. Who let a religious person in here anyway? This is a government building, they can’t be in here.”
    Or,
    “Oh, your beliefs supporting abortion are based on the right to choose and a belief that God doesn’t exist? Please continue!”

    Let’s be frank. Forbidding an opinion on the basis that is has anything to do with a person’s religious beliefs would be the murder and desecration of representation and this country and will certainly destroy this country, whether you agree with religion or not. It’s a very tiny step from taking the first right spelled out in the Bill of Rights to taking away all first amendment rights, with the rest following.

    And cut out that ‘sincerely-held beliefs can let you get away with anything’ stuff. People aren’t like that (I mean 99.99999% of people). If someone robs or murders and then tries to justify it based on a “sincerely-held belief,” then let them try to get SCOTUS to accept their case and just try and convince them it’s a “sincerely-held belief.” They’ll fail.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    1) Hmmm….website definitions….http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacient#Pharmaceutical_abortifacients http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
    2)Certaily abortifacients are covered under the contraceptive mandate. You fail to understand the definition of contraception: Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of
    various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical
    procedures.
    3) Wow, seems like your ‘facts’ wither upon examination, huh?
    4)examples where a strongly held belief gets one out: a)the right of some members of religious groups to refrain from paying into Social Security, b) for individuals who wish to refuse certain types of medical treatment, c) who do not wish to comply with compulsory school attendance laws., d) who can establish a position of conscientious military objector, e)individuals have been able to successfully challenge dress codes and
    standards in a variety of institutions, including workplaces and
    schools.
    5) yes, I know you will have no reasonable answers.
    but I bet (my being a Christian) is correct.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    In this case, michael glasser, would you not agree that Pompous Bigot fits like a glove??

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Undoing was your word. I try to stay on the plane of the Low Information Voters I converse with.

  • blaw

    This country has long been on a road towards the end of the freedom of religion, and eventually the end of all freedom (I have a long, boring explanation about that if you really want to hear it). This is just one ruling reversing that trend.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Your *claim* that they lead to abortion does not change the facts:

    1) The term “abortifacients” does not appear in the decision,

    2) None of the devices / medicines Hobby Lobby has been allowed to exclude in their insurance cause abortions (http://goo.gl/9ZAIZP). They work through these mechanisms: ”
    * Many prevent a woman from releasing eggs (ovulation);
    * Many prevent sperm from reaching or fertilizing the egg;
    * A few interfere with a fertilized egg attaching (implanting) in the womb (uterus), which is essential for a viable pregnancy.”

    Of note, not one of these ends a pregnancy – each prevents a pregnancy (is a contraceptive method). Yes, the owners of Hobby Lobby *believe* otherwise but they are simply wrong. There is no support for their view. They have none. You have none.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Remember:
    1) None of the procedures blocked *end* a pregnancy – they all *prevent* pregnancies.
    2) The decision applies only to contraceptives, not abortions.
    3) Your claim that the decision is being said to not apply to the *contraceptive* measures because Hobby Lobby (and you) incorrect think they cause abortions is a claim nobody has said – you are pushing a straw man.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Abortions end a pregnancy.
    Contraceptive measures prevent a pregnancy.

    Not complex.

    Sure, you and the owners of Hobby Lobby are confused by this, but that does not change the facts about it.

    Oh, and your nonsense about lawyers is another straw man – nobody suggested the lawyers and Justices did not understand that the “sincerely held beliefs” were wrong.

  • QueenieOdabobo

    I hate illiteracy and you’re making me mad.

  • QueenieOdabobo

    No one needs “Skooling” from someone who doesn’t know it’s from its. People are so lazy on the internet.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    1) You bring up Mifeprex:
    http://goo.gl/IbMBKl “RU486, or Mifeprex … isn’t considered a contraceptive and isn’t covered by the new insurance requirements.”
    Oops. :)

    2) You keep missing that the ruling only applies to contraceptive devices and medications – not abortions of any form.

    3) You keep making claims contrary to fact.

    4) Good examples – all apply to *people*, not corporations, and none impact the health or benefits of people not in the religion. Still, I commend you for list.

    5) No reasonable answer for what? As far as you being a Christian, I am not but notice I am not sinking to the name calling and use of logical fallacies you are. Would Jesus back your doing so? Of course not – I, as an atheist, am *behaving* as a better Christian than you are. :)

  • ThinkDontFeel

    1) Right, Mifeprex is an abortifacient, But you’re WRONG – it IS a contraceptive, by definition. Surgical Abortion IS a contraceptive, by definition. You are right, Mifeprex is not covered by the new insurance requirements and now Plan B and Ella are not covered by SOME of the new insurance requirements.

    2) You keep missing that the very definition of abortion (Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus OR EMBRYO BEFORE VIABILITY) CERTAINLY does apply to the 4 pharmaceutical and IUD abortifacients

    3) You keep stating ‘facts’ that are easily refuted.

    4) Thank you michael glasser for the compliment on my list. Note that it ANSWERED YOUR comment, “where a strongly held belief gets ONE out of…” To your brand new qualifier of ‘corporations':
    From the decision (pg 3) Nothing in RFRA suggests a congressional intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition of “person,” which “include[s] corporations, . . . as well as individuals.” The Court has entertained RFRA and free-exercise claims brought by nonprofit corporations. See, e.g., Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficiente União do Vegetal, 546 U. S. 418. And HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; noconceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.

    You saw that? HHSCONCEDED THAT A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CAN BE A PERSON!!

    5) I was mocking YOUR statement that “yes, I know you will have no reasonable answers” as I met and continue to meet every one of your points with opposing answers.
    What do I care if you are more Christian than me?? Sounds like you still ASSUME that I am a Christian when I was simply pointing out that bigots form a frame of reference that an entire group is homogenous – That all in support of the HL decision are Christians. That is terribly vacuous thinking on par with Latinos are lazy or Blacks are less intelligent! NO Group can or should be marginalized by a one-size-fits-all label, wouldn’t you now agree?

  • vito33

    Oh, my. There are people posting comments on here who believe this story is true!!!
    We are doomed!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    1) I already showed you where it does not apply and is not a contraceptive medicine (see the link). Denial without counter evidence, which is all you provide, is of no value.

    2) The definition of abortion is not relevant. The definition of contraception is. Contraceptives do not cause abortions (end pregnancies) they prevent them. Contraceptive:
    http://goo.gl/Clgp61 [Oxford]: A device or drug serving to prevent pregnancy.
    http://goo.gl/4Jisn8 [Webster]: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation

    Abortions are not included.

    3) Your empty claims are not refutations.

    4) I think the SCOTUS is wrong about non-profit corporations being people (it is a stupid claim) but it is the law. But it does not apply to Hobby Lobby which is for a for-profit corporation. So, again, great list… can you find any other example of a for-profit corporation getting out of what would otherwise be a legal obligation based on a religious exception? I cannot think of any but am open to seeing some.

    5) You have yet to show me wrong on anything, though you did show a list I requested (but had not denied existed). I did not assume you were Christian – you claimed to be one. But with your name calling, denial of facts, and other poor behavior you are not acting as a *good* Christian. Ironically I, an atheist, am acting as a better Christian than you. I find that funny – but sincerely hope you rise to my level… as you did with the list you provided (thanks yet again… it was a sign you *can* be reasonable!).

  • Colleen Mitchell

    Hobby Lobby DOES provide birth control 16 different kinds – they just objected to the 4 that can cause the destruction of a fertilized egg.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Nonsense.
    1) So?
    2) Emergency contraceptives may prevent an already fertilized egg from implanting. A fertilized egg is an embryo. Removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo before viability is abortion.

    HL and I have the support of the majority of SCOTUS. It is now the law of the land.

  • Colleen Mitchell

    the four types in question CAN cause the destruction of a fertilized egg. Because of the way they work. Sperm lives inside a woman for up to three days. The egg may or may not be fertilized when the drug gets to it but there is no way to know if it has been fertilized before it does its work. Because of this it is considered an abortant.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    1) This matters because you keep using the term and claiming the decision allows applies to them. It does not. It applies *only* to contraception, as has been proved to you. You have also been shown that contraception is the prevention of a pregnancy, not the ending of one (not abortion).

    2) You have made this claim repeatedly – but been shown evidence you are incorrect. Do you have anything to back your view? So far – no. But here is the thing: if you / Hobby Lobby folks were right about this then the decision would not apply to the items they want it to. Remember, you have already been shown that it applies *only* to contraception, *not* abortion. They can get their way only be being *wrong* but still having a “sincerely held belief”. Utterly insane, but that is currently the law of the land.

    Nobody has denied this is the law of the land – I and others have merely noted how absurd the laws is.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    You are really, really THICK on these points,michael.PLEASE forget that I have posted to you several times and LOOK UP THE DEFINITIONS FOR THE WORDS ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION. As the Supreme Court ruled, as the dictionary states ,THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TERMS. Once again, a surgical abortion IS a contraceptive method by definition.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Don’t be STUPID, michael. The lawyers and the Justices also understand that there is no fault or error or any other of your attempts to characterize this ruling as a mistake of science and religion, because apparently every one of them understands that the definition of contraception includes abortion and the definition of abortion includes an embryo BEFORE VIABILITY ( afertilized egg for the Low Information Voters). Just because your post and repost your same take on the decision does not make your take correct, and does not change the dictionary derfinitions of the words you use partially or outright incorrectly.

  • Peter Kay

    i cant wait to read the headlines of how many liberals had strokes over this. good riddens

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Remember: you have been shown:

    1) The decision applies only to contraceptives.

    2) Contraceptives do not abort a pregnancy, they prevent a pregnancy – these are two different concepts. While there may be medications / procedures that do either, Plan B and Mifeprex do not do both (Plan B is a contraceptive, Mifeprex lead to abortion).

    2) Mifeprex and the like lead to abortions and are not covered by the decision.

    3) Hobby Lobby owners *claim* that Plan B, etc. lead to abortions but they are incorrect. The SCOTUS deemed this unimportant and specifically note that these things do not legally lead to abortions (and you have been shown the science that backs this, too) – what matters is if their belief is “sincerely held”.

    By all means, though, if you think I am wrong then *show* it. Screaming (using ALL CAPS) and repetitively repeating yourself over and over in a redundant way does not help to support your claims. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You just pushed a straw man. While the dissent did show Justices who thought the decision was in error, nobody has claimed that the error was based on the *Justices* or lawyers not understanding that Hobby Lobby was wrong in their claim about these things leading to abortions. In fact, the decision itself notes that these things, at least legally, are not abortions! What mattered, though, was not what they *actually* are, but what the owners of Hobby Lobby had a “sincerely held belief” that they were.

    Remember: you have already been shown that Plan B does not lead to abortions, and that medications that do lead to abortions – such as Mifeprex are not covered by this decision based on them leading to abortions and not being contraceptives.

    Wow… you are working very hard to not understand this simple concept. :)

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Then maybe you should STFU and take a hike?

  • Angela

    Well I’ve been to several churches and raised Catholic, the fact that SOME Christians don’t believe that doesn’t change what they are taught. The fact is, most Christian churches teach that conception is the moment where life begins. Conception happens before implantation. Protestants don’t like to mention it because they’re afraid of losing followers but if you go to their marriage classes, they’ll tell you that using birth control is wrong.

  • Sherry_Baker

    How uneducated on the female reproductive system can one person *BE*??

    It’s not an embryo until it implants. MILLIONS of eggs over the course of women’s lives get fertilized and *naturally* never implant in the wall of the uterus… BECAUSE THEY ARE UNVIABLE. Do you know what Unviable means???

    The female body NATURALLY washes out the fertilized yet unviable egg with menstruation… are you saying that women who bleed are all guilty of their bodies aborting?

    You freaking IDIOT.

    The ruling is wrong. The “logic” behind the ruling is wrong. Employers can’t tell us how we are to spend our paychecks. They can’t tell us where to go on vacation or what we can spend our 10% discount on… this is NO different. It’s NONE of their business what we do when we are NOT on the clock. Our method of birth control or ANY OTHER LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE is between us and our doctors.

    Now, back to the original article … it’s showing how slippery this slope is… how this ONE VERY STUPID DECISION can lead to even crazier interpretations of the alleged personhood of businesses over the rights of individuals.

    Right now it’s our ovaries. Just wait till the SCOTUS calls for giving you a bit of a probe and reach-around and see how quickly this is repealed.

  • ddd

    commandment was to the ancient jewish people, is considered by none to be a christian mandate. this poke is lazy.

  • fifthdentist
  • Bryon Sparks

    SCOTUS has set a dangerous precedent where corporations can now make decisions for their employees based on religious beliefs. Where will it end?
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

  • fifthdentist
  • ThinkDontFeel

    1) How and Why did HL and the Supreme Court separate 2 oral contraceptives and 2 IUD devices from the pack of 16 oral contraceptives that are covered under the HL health plan and are NOT contested??? Hmmm, the 16 oral contraceptives are taken daily weekly or monthy to prevent pregnancy and the 2 oc’s will STOP pregnancy on one or two doses AFTER the egg has been fertilized (embryo). The definition of abortion is he termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before viability.
    2) Surgical abortion is itself a contraception so your point #2 is poppycock babble. See point# 1 on what coulod possibly separate 2 oc’s from 16 other oc’s in the HL health plan.
    3) (not 2). Hey! You got one right!! Good Job!
    4) Why/How could SCOTUS set into law a premise that was incorrect???? That just cannot happen. That is VERY STUPID thinking. Even ‘beliefs’ could not justify a premise that was incorrect. You need to buy a clue on this point!
    4) You say “The SCOTUS deemed this unimportant ” FALSE. SCOTUS Decision specifically addresses: including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.

    So do you understand yet, the words you type: repetitively repeating yourself over and over in a redundant way does not help to support your claims. :)

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Well sure, in libturdworld. Remember pal, THINK, don’t just Feel your ideas are the only correct ones.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser
  • ThinkDontFeel

    OHHH, don’t be SO STUPID, sherry baker!! Geezuz, FIRST look up the definition of embryo you twit!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo.

    I really do understand the intense desire of you leftist libturds to now try to change the dictionary definitions to make your losing case seem like a no-brainer, but I’m sorry, that just ain’t gonna happen. That’s why the ruling is right and the logic is right, no matter what your scientist, jon stewart tells you. You freaking idiot.

    And BTW, twit: Your employer DID decide how much to put in your paycheck. Your employer DID decide how much vacation time you will get, and your employer DOES decide what health plan you will get. NOW you can take your employer’s offerings and spend it as you wish, vacation as you wish, and abort as you wish with YOUR time and money!!

  • Raven Rushing-Kuntz

    If it wasn’t already glaringly obvious (it was) this would be the point where it was obvious that you’d hit a wall and had nothing left to say. And yet…

  • ThinkDontFeel

    …here you are. STFU.

  • Snuffy

    Bullshit. Plan B, ella, and the 2 IUDs are not “abortifacients.”

  • Sezwick Kaige

    Too many comments about miscarriages. Not enough comments about murder.

  • Snuffy

    Sure. Contraception means “prevent pregnancy.” Pregnancy is an embryo implanting in the uterus or elsewhere. If you try and claim that it is simply a fertilized egg, then there are millions being flushed out of the uterus every day. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the prevention of a pregnancy. Although if they keep up this anti-choice forced-birth nonsense, we may have to go back to menstrual extraction, which is a suction curettage prior to a positive pregnancy test. Try and ban that. Or try and prevent the spread of black-market progesterone antagonists such as mifepristone. You will lose, and when enough women die, all this crap will get reversed. And the New Testament STILL won’t say a word about abortion.

  • Snuffy

    There’s no apostrophe in “its” when used as a possessive. And an IUD is NOT an abortifacient – it does not interrupt a pregnancy. A pregnancy is an embryo implanted in the uterus or elsewhere.

  • Snuffy

    Plan B does not “stop” pregnancy. It prevents ovulation, period. End of story.

  • Snuffy

    You are dead wrong. It prevents ovulation. Do you know what ovulation is?

  • Snuffy

    You are extremely low-information, Bub.

  • Snuffy

    No. Just because you can take it after “copulation”, it still prevents OVULATION. If ovulation has already happened, Plan B WILL NOT WORK. If the embryo has already implanted, PLAN B DOES NOTHING.

  • Snuffy

    They are only “commonly known” as that to ignorant hillbillies like you.

  • Snuffy

    Surgical abortion is not contraception. Conception has already occurred, by definition.

  • Snuffy

    It doesn’t matter when life begins. Sperm is also alive, as is the egg. They are both human, not some other species. Plus, the woman has a right to remove it from her body whether it is alive or not, and human or not.

  • Snuffy

    Surgical abortion is not contraception. It prevents birth, but not pregnancy. Pregnancy obviously has already occurred. How can you be so stupid as to not see that?

  • fifthdentist

    Ridden is the past participle of ride. I don’t know why you added an “s” to it nor why you think horse riding is relevant to this thread.

  • Mary Tilley

    Christ was pretty clear in the Bible as well…in the NEW testament, “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” John 8:7. … Hobby Lobby, when you choose ONLY passages which suit your crazed notions and beliefs, you spit in Almighty’s face. Who the eff do you think you are? You really think you are above biblical law? That you are perfect? You are a disgusting representation of Christianity! Shame on you Modern day Pharisees!!!

  • fifthdentist

    Since the Supreme Court has ruled on abortion, and it is the law of the land I’m sure that Christians will accept that decision and move on.

  • KIKI

    Hmmm…I don’t know which is worse. This story or the continuation of hate in the comments. Thinking about the 2 little children that he had taken in. They already lost their parents and now they have lost their adoptive father through ignorance and hate.

  • KIKI
  • fifthdentist

    Actually, the Old Testament still applies, at least according the literary character Jesus:

    “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:17-19

  • John

    It’s against my religion to pay for anything, legally does that mean I can walk out with anything I want?…..

  • fifthdentist

    I wish more people of your religion were more, well, human and called out the screaming zealots who have become the public face of the faith.
    It’s interesting to me as a serious reader of religions that Jesus told people to not judge others and to help the poor many, many times more than the Bible mentions homosexuality. But the fundamentalists ignore those admonitions in favor of the Old Testament blood, gore and tribal hatreds.

  • fifthdentist

    Yep, that’s why conservatives have accepted Roe v. Wade and never talk about abortion or blow up clinics or kill doctors.

  • LetItGo

    Bro, I don’t know about you, but my dictionary says something is only an embryo after implantation.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/embryo?show=0&t=1404544703

    All four of the items in question (and probably only two, but for the sake of argument, all four) prevent implantation, and therefore prevent an embryo from forming. And since abortion means getting rid of an embryo, as you’ve so kindly taught us, none of them are abortifacients.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Don’t be such a stupid ascwipe, snuffy.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Contraception-(kŏn’trə-sĕp’shən) n.

    Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of
    various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or SURGICAL PROCEDURES

    Thanks for playin’ dumb asc!

  • ThinkDontFeel

    So, you totally ignore the first definition in your look up, that other dictionaries, such as mine, reference? How conveeeeenient!

  • J.r. Landry

    Is this a real story? The cops won’t arrest them because its a Christian company. WTF. How can that be?

  • Peter Kay

    understandably you wouldnt know youre not from Brooklyn
    the proper written term would be “good riddance” you can take a person out of Bklyn, but you can never take Bklyn out of a person…

  • Anthony Witt

    “What am I supposed to do? Arrest the people who killed him? Last I checked this was America. We don’t put people in jail for exercising their religion.” but they put people in jail for sacrificing people during cults gatherings…

  • Snuffy

    Surgical procedures such as TUBAL LIGATION or VASECTOMY, dumbass. Those prevent pregnancy. Not suction curettage or hysterotomy. Give up – you are wrong and refuse to learn the correct information.

  • ThinkDontFeel

    Yeah, I think everybody can find a definition to fit their cause: The event of fertilization is sometimes used as a mark of the initiation of pregnancy, The fusion of male and female gametes usually occurs following the act of sexual intercourse, resulting in spontaneous pregnancy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

    As to IUD’s, Christians (HL) believe that life begins when fertilization
    occurs, so many Christians would consider the IUD an unacceptable
    method of birth control as it poses a risk to pre-born life, i.e. the
    potential to cause a very early abortion.

    Now I’m VERY CERTAIN that you NAZI-LIBS want to burn all the books and material that reference Christian beliefs, but for right now, this is still America, so maybe suck it up and grow some respect for the other side .

    Thanks for playin’.

  • Snuffy

    So tell us where in the New Testament, or anything else that claims to quote Jesus, there is anything about life beginning at conception, or what abortion is, or whether abortion is forbidden. There can’t be, because when that was written, the writers did not even know anything about egg and sperm, fertilization, or implantation.

  • Snuffy

    You’re just too stubborn to admit you have it wrong about surgical abortion being a “contraceptive.” “Ceptive” has already occurred – can’t contra it, Chief. Maybe you don’t actually understand how conception and pregnancy work? Plan B is nothing more than a high dose of oral contraceptive, a progestin. For decades, we prescribed high doses of regular oral contraceptives (birth control pills) for women who had unprotected mid cycle intercourse and either were not on the Pill or had missed a pill or two. It prevents ovulation, period – nothing else. If the egg is already released, then the Plan B does nothing.

  • Snuffy

    Plan B is NOT an abortifacient. Try it yourself – get pregnant, and then take it. Nothing will happen.

  • Snuffy

    What “4 abortifacients” are you claiming are oral contraceptives? Are you calling IUDs “oral contraceptives?”

  • Snuffy

    The drug prevents ovulation. It does not affect an egg, fertilized or not, after it has been ovulated from the ovary. We know this from looking at hormone levels in the days around ovulation, and also from looking at the rate of pregnancies in those who had already ovulated by the time they took the Plan B.

  • Snuffy

    Or just fill the cart and leave it in the aisle and rush out. If they stop you, say you heard that an IVF clinic was on fire and you are rushing to help save the embryos.

  • Snuffy

    Because the government and society has a valid interest in providing preventative health services, which overrides HL’s owners’ so-called “beliefs” (which apparently they don’t hold when it comes to investing in their retirement portfolios).

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Excellent idea!

  • LetItGo

    …the one with the “archaic” label in front of it?

  • JanetMermaid

    I realize this particular story is satire, but..

    A) Hobby Lobby is wrong about the science — for example, IUDs do not destroy fertilized eggs. An IUD is an alternative prevention method for women who cannot take oral contraceptives
    B) You sound as if you support a corporation controlling the options a doctor may offer a woman patient. And before you start with the “she can pay for it herself” BS, have you PRICED an IUD? If a single mother doesn’t want another child, and cannot take oral contraceptives, she may have no other options than an expensive IUD.
    C) You REALLY think this isn’t a slippery slope to corporations imposing their religious beliefs on all types of people for all types of care?

  • jian

    You folks ought to know not to argue with a male chauvinist…especially in an already grossly over populated world.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Oh, I know he will never change his mind… nor will he stop to consider how he is completely unable to back his views nor refute the evidence he is shown. I still get some weird pleasure out of it. :)

  • Sherry_Baker

    So you rely on wikipedia for your medical facts? Oh, good grief… that would be comical if it weren’t so pathetic.

    As for the rest of your caterwauling, it only emphasizes your inability to follow a conversation. Were there too many words for you to follow all at once? Let me break it down for you, cupcake.

    I never said that employers didn’t decide on pay or other benefits. Now, to clarify… What I actually said was:

    “Employers can’t tell us how we are to spend our paychecks.”

    This is still true.

    “They can’t tell us where to go on vacation or what we can spend our 10% discount on…”

    Really… they can’t.

    So what is the logistics of presuming it “okay” to tell us what we can do with our other benefits?

    It’s not logical. If they are going to provide them, they have to follow the rules of the ACA because they are NOT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. Their employees never agreed to adhere to a religious code of conduct upon hire. Hobby Lobby is in violation of the ACA AND breach of contract with their employees.

    Once again,
    “Our method of birth control or ANY OTHER LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE is between us and our doctors.”

    Not our employers. Not you.

    And guess what? When this becomes your business is the day you spontaneously sprout a vagina and can actually speak with a smidgen of knowledge on the subject.

    Amazing that corporations are convinced they are now people… but I have YET to see one accomplish that trick.

    And incidentally… when a debater has reduced himself to “STFU” it is fairly obvious to everyone that he’s completely exhausted every avenue of legitimate debate and has resorted to personal attacks. You lost any credibility you may have thought you had after your first few posts.

  • Sherry_Baker

    NAZI-LIBS?

    ::laughing::

    Invoking Godwin’s Law.

    You forfeit.

  • Sherry_Baker

    Actually… if you are wanting biblical reference… I believe they don’t consider a zygote to be a baby until it draws breath.

    In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine; it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.

    Yeah. Christians love that one.

  • AlanInFlorida

    My dad always said, “If you have to yell, then you need a better argument.” (Should I have written that in ALL CAPS?) lol Michael– thanks for being a voice of reason. I commend you. I’m afraid I don’t have patience when it comes to obnoxious idiots. And ThinkDontFeel– sorry about your penis.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I have a lot of patience dealing with people who cannot back their views, refute contrary views, quickly sink to name calling, and will clearly never change their minds. Call it an odd hobby. :)

  • zommy

    You mad bro?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    For the sake of argument, let us say Hobby Lobby and ThinkDon’tFeel are right and these things do not lead to the prevention of a pregnancy (contraception) but to the ending of one (an abortion). If that is the case (which it certainly is not) then this ruling – which applies only to contraception – does not apply to these things.

    One of the most idiotic things about this decision is for it to benefit Hobby Lobby in any way, they have to “sincerely” believe things that prevent a pregnancy (contraceptives) are really ending a pregnancy (aborting)… they *have* to be wrong to get any benefit at all.

    Where else are you required to get to hold an incorrect view in order to get out of what would otherwise be your legal obligations? Truly insane.

  • AlanInFlorida

    Michael– I sincerely applaud your efforts, but I’m sure I don’t have to tell you or the others– this conversation is NOT about ThinkDontFeel trying to educate everyone on the Supreme Court’s decision. This long, drawn-out conversation is about ThinkDontFeel trying to IMPRESS everyone with his knowledge (incorrect and misguided as it may be though.) Of course, he achieves the exact opposite. But then again, vainglorious, braggadocios like him never do “get it.” They make great characters in comedies though.

  • AlanInFlorida

    Carry on, then! Full speed ahead. (This is better than going to the movies.)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    If anyone gets into these types of conversations thinking they are going to educate their “opponent” they are sadly mistaken – at least in the vast majority of times. People have their minds made up before they post. Few others bother to read the threads.

    Still, I find it entertaining and it sometimes does lead to me either learning something or doing research to better refute arguments. So I have some harmless fun and get to learn more – even if not the lessons folks such as “ThinkDontFeel” wants to teach. :)

  • AlanInFlorida

    No doubt, people already have their minds made up when they come into these types of conversations. I just find it interesting as to WHY they come into these types of conversations in the FIRST place. What’s their motivation? Please, carry on. I enjoy your debating skills! (Wish I had them myself.)

  • Steve Rogers

    An IUD is not an abortificient, you ignorant animal.

  • Kevin Andrew Pinkel

    Abortifacient- it’s a medical term that deals with termination of life. There are two competing theories of thought, more religious biologist state that life would start at conception while there is another theory of thought that it starts on implanting. The four listed do not ALWAYS act in that manner, but they sometimes do, which is the gripe that hobby lobby has with it.

  • Will Zimmerman

    It’s adorable to me that, when push comes to shove, people who otherwise feign ignorance of certain important legal concepts (such as precedence established by rulings) appeal to those very concepts at the point at which they become liabilities to their notions. However, to make the leap from “We will not force an employer to supply certain post-conception contraceptives because such would conflict with that employer’s religious beliefs,” to “We will not take action whatsoever against an employer for any action that he takes, or apparently that his employees take, so long as those actions are consistent with his religious beliefs,” not only does not conform to the definition of legal precedence, but is logically absurd. In this case, the court will now make similar rulings on cases involving very similar circumstances: Employers being forced to supply certain health care benefits that conflict with their religious convictions.

    You’re all so silly. ^^

  • Sherry_Baker

    Very true.

    But I think you, and most sane people, will agree that this never was about religion or beliefs. It was about a company getting out of paying for something. It’s always about the money.

  • Sherry_Baker

    Hate to be the bearer of bad news… but even if you ARE right… (and you aren’t…) and some contraceptives could actually terminate a pregnancy…

    So what. It doesn’t matter.

    Why?

    Abortion is legal.

    What this ruling did was contradict a law already in place and therefore, needs to be corrected. And it will be.

    If Hobby Lobby’s owners can give their Corporation religion, their religion gives Hobby Lobby’s owners–and any other owner, shareholder, officer, whatever–liability for the actions of the corporation.

    That separation is what legal and business scholars call the “corporate veil,” and it’s fundamental to the entire operation. Now, thanks to the Hobby Lobby case, it’s in question. By letting Hobby Lobby’s owners assert their personal religious rights over an entire corporation, the Supreme Court has poked a major hole in the veil. In other words, if a company is not truly separate from its owners, the owners could be made responsible for its debts and other burdens.

    For example… a worker harmed or killed while on duty is no longer a workman’s comp claim… it could be considered a manslaughter case. If a company goes bankrupt, they could go after shareholder’s homes and other personal property. The veil no longer protects them.

    See how badly SCOTUS broke the system?
    It *will* be fixed.

  • catiekitten

    Where have you been? Failbook.com has proven we are a doomed race a long time before now! :) And yes, I still find it sad.

  • catiekitten

    I don’t think it’s meant to BE funny. I think it’s meant as politic satire to illustrate why some of us see the recent precedent set by the S. Court as very dangerous.

  • catiekitten

    Wow – Are you saying you thought this was True??

  • catiekitten

    Nor have they ever complained about the current president, right?

  • catiekitten

    Dan, I do so love your answer.

  • catiekitten

    You spelled Conservatives wrong, It doesnt start with an L at all.

  • catiekitten

    Caricature is a type of satire.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I think there is no doubt that comes into play. If they really had such strong morals they would make sure the products they sell are human-rights and environmentally friendly, for example, and they do not.

    Still, I think they do sincerely believe the incorrect beliefs they claim to. Would be interesting, though, if some video of them acknowledging their error were to surface. Once their claimed beliefs were shown to not be “sincere” would they stop getting this preferential treatment?

  • Snuffy

    Godwin invoked. You lost the argument automatically by Godwin’s Law.

  • Snuffy

    Where in the New Testament does it say that “Christians believe that life begins when fertilization occurs?” If it doesn’t say that (and it doesn’t), then why do “Christians believe” it?

  • Snuffy

    Actually, it IS pretty much proven that Plan B does not affect implantation. We can tell this by analyzing hormones around the time Plan B is taken, and comparing to women who already ovulated before taking Plan B. The result is that if you already ovulated, Plan B does not decrease the chance of getting pregnant. If you have NOT ovulated, it does decrease it. So that means that the way it works is by preventing ovulation.

    But as you say, even if it did that, it’s irrelevant because it is not abortion. And even if it was abortion, abortion is legal.

  • Jess

    If you actually -read- the wikipedia page you just posted, you would see that it says the cells do not become an embryo until 5-7 days after fertilization.

    “5–7 days after fertilization, the blastocyst attaches to the wall of the uterus (endometrium). When it comes into contact with the endometrium it performs implantation. Implantation connections between the mother and the embryo will begin to form, including the umbilical cord. The embryo’s growth centers around an axis, which will become the spine and spinal cord. The brain, spinal cord, heart, and gastrointestinal tract begin to form.”

    So, the only definitions that support your and Hobby Lobby’s claim that these contraceptives are ‘abortifacients’ are either misunderstood or understood to be archaic. Your whole belief system is archaic, and that’s totally okay! You are allowed to be as dimwitted as you like to be! It’s America, that’s kind of the whole point. However, once your archaic beliefs impose on my body, then that’s where there is a problem. These contraceptives do not terminate an embryo, these contraceptives do not prevent a formed embryo from implanting itself, these contraceptives prevent an embryo from actually forming by stopping ovulation (just like a regular, daily contraceptive pill). Here are a bunch of different dictionaries that define what an embryo is:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/embryo?show=0&t=1404544703

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/embryo (note the part where it talks about humans specifically, the others are irrelevant)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo#Human (specifically where it says that the embryo is created only AFTER implantation, which occurs 5-7 days after fertilization)

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/embryo (once again, after implantation, which according to you and your reference occurs 5-7 days after fertiliazation, which means that the morning after pill is effective before the zygote becomes an embryo and thus a pregnancy).

    There is no difference between these contraceptives and the other contraceptives that were deemed okay. They prevent a pregnancy, they prevent cells from implanting which would cause an embryo which would then be considered a pregnancy. They do not cause intentional miscarriages, they do not terminate a pregnancy, they just make the conditions in the womb unable to sustain a pregnancy.

    Read your own source. Educate yourself. Keep your right-wing, misinformed Christian agenda propaganda away from my uterus.

    -mic drop-

  • Icon

    First cell division, cleavage, happens five days after conception. These devices stopped the zygote before implanting and would be before cleave happens.

  • Icon

    It said it prevents a pregnancy, it did not say it terminates one. In fact, a huge portion of this case said that it doesn’t matter that Hobby Lobby was wrong about these methods causing abortions, but it didn’t matter because religion.

  • Lily Crisp

    Sweet Mother of God! Since it’s not April Fool’s day, I guess I have to believe this. I can’t wrap my head around this. It opens up the right to kill others with no consequences. No! This cannot be true! This is a joke, right?

  • kyunggwilliams

    My Uncle
    Riley got an almost new red GMC Canyon just by some parttime working online
    with a laptop. visit their website F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  • MI Mitten

    You can disagree with the SCOTUS decision, and/or the implementation of it. The libs argument when obamacare was changed to a tax in order to make it fly was “it’s the law of the land”, however when a ruling doesn’t go their way they mischaracterize it, and don’t want to hear the same reply they gave.

  • MI Mitten

    Wrong again, HL does not want to pay for insurance that mandates drugs/procedures that could destroy a fertilized egg… therefore you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.

  • MI Mitten

    Patriot = douche-bag

  • Jesse Faught

    I appreciate you responding with objectivity. However, I disagree that I’m forbidding any opinion on any basis what-so-ever. I also reject your argument about sincerely held beliefs.

    I’ll assume you’re aware of the concept that one person’s right to swing their arm ends where another person’s nose begins? Everyone’s rights must be balanced where their intersect with another’s rights. In this case, your right to practice religion ends where someone’s right to choose type of healthcare begins.

    I’m not forbidding anyone from having or expressing any opinion. Let’s just clear that nonsense from the table. Express away, my friend! Where I have a problem, is when legislation or a court decision is written, with clear bias towards a group because of their religious beliefs. I believe the Hobby Lobby case is an example of this. The majority of the SCOTUS felt it was more important for a group of people to have zero involvement in something that their religion strongly disagrees with, than it was for their employees to be able to make their own decisions about their birth control. THIS is a modern tragedy among court decisions.

    Yes, many here are making hyperbolic jokes about the sincerely held belief part of the decision. But, I think they are obviously hyperbolic to point out how ridiculous it is to use a standard as simple as a “sincerely held belief”, because there are a million “sincerely held belief”s that would not be considered with high regard, like the Christian beliefs the court sided with. The point of all this, is that the court clearly has a Christian bias, and lacks a proper separation of church and state.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    What do you think I am wrong about?

  • MI Mitten

    Your understanding of the ruling. Where exactly does the ruling “very clearly” say it applies only to contraception?

  • MI Mitten

    Inner city daycare? what exactly are you referring to? and what does that have to do with the ruling?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Really? You think I misunderstood it to say it the decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate? I think this shows you do not understand the decision. Here, some direct quotes from it:
    ——
    “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandate…”
    ——
    That right there is pretty solid evidence that it applies only to contraception *given that it specifically says so*… but there is a lot more in the decision.

    I suggest you download it and, if you are not going to read it all, simply do a search for the terms “mandate” and “contraception”.

  • pragmastist

    It refers to the hypocrisy of people who want to interfere with other people’s reproductive rights but are totally apathetic towards unwanted pregnancies. This is a humor site, lighten up.

  • MI Mitten

    There is a huge difference in contraceptives vs. the contraceptive mandate. The ruling applies to the Contraception Mandate, you say it very clearly applies to contraception… – WRONG – it applies to the mandate.
    ____
    I suggest you keep things in context and refer to them correctly when you state something is very clear.
    ____

  • MI Mitten

    Where do “they” claim they are only against abortions?

  • Bob Hasell

    What’s wrong with good old Knitting Needles and whisky?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    The affected products are contraceptives. It applies to them and only to them. It speaks not just of the “mandate” but of the “contraceptive methods”. Here, more quotes:

    ——
    Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that [are being argued about]
    ——
    “In these cases, the owners of three closely held for-profit corporations have sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point.”
    ——
    Also speaks of the complaints “insofar as it requires them to provide health coverage for the four objectionable contraceptives.”
    ——

    And on and on and on. It applies to contraceptives, only, and even then not to all of them. If you have some counter evidence I am open to it, but the decision itself seems a very strong source to say what the decision says!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Again, from the decision:


    “The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.”

    Might I suggest you look at the actual decision and not just keep asking me what is in it?

  • MI Mitten

    you gave the evidence yourself –

    “…devices that operate after that point.”

  • MI Mitten

    Again, you make my point for me – “….the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.”
    You incorrectly assert they are against contraceptives.

  • MI Mitten

    How are they interfering with reproductive rights?
    What are reproductive rights? :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    What do you think that is evidence of? Really – I have no idea what point you are trying to make. There is no debate about the contraceptives working “after that point” and before pregnancy.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    There is not a question that Hobby Lobby incorrectly believes these contraceptives are leading to abortions. Again, what point are you trying to make? Are you saying you agree with Hobby Lobby’s incorrect position? Both the law and scientific evidence disagree (pregnancy is not present until the implantation of the fertilized egg).

    But let us pretend that Hobby Lobby is right – while you are not clear it seems that is what you are doing. If so, then we get to pretend that these things are leading to abortions (the ending of a pregnancy) and *not* contraception (the prevention of a pregnancy)… and in which case the decision, which only applies to “contraceptive measures”, does not apply to these things which (we are pretending) cause a pregnancy to be aborted.

    It really is bizarre: the only way Hobby Lobby gets any benefit from this is by having a “sincerely held belief” that is contrary to legal definitions (and, also happens to be contrary to science, but that is secondary in the legal question). But it comes down to them having to be “sincere” in their incorrect belief to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations.

  • marjorierhosmer

    Josiah . although Jacqueline `s stori is surprising,
    last week I bought themselves a Chrysler from having made $5060 thiss month
    and-in excess of, 10/k last-month . it’s realy the easiest-work I have ever done
    . I started this 4 months ago and pretty much straight away was bringin in at
    least $78 per-hour . why not look here C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  • Sal Paradise .

    This is all about bringing religious issues into the public discussion to polarize distract and divide the voting public and stir up religious extremists. Forget that we took your job, and brought your government to a standstill, bankrupted the country -hey look at the CEO who hates birth control!! He is establishing his own little plutocrat ministry!!

  • jackiecsharp

    Josiah . although Jacqueline `s stori is surprising,
    last week I bought themselves a Chrysler from having made $5060 thiss month
    and-in excess of, 10/k last-month . it’s realy the easiest-work I have ever done
    . I started this 4 months ago and pretty much straight away was bringin in at
    least $78 per-hour . why not look here C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  • MI Mitten

    There is a question whether HL is incorrect or not in these contraceptives (as you call them) leading to abortions or not, all have the possibility of allowing a fertilized egg to not take hold. THe whole point of the case is the RFRA and whether it applies to companies beliefs. My point is you’re talking out you a$$ when you speak as a representative of HL. The law and scientific evidence are not settled on this, hence the case.

    HL is right, they won. SCOTUS agreed that HL has a right not to pay insurance to cover these contraceptive measures.

    It’s really bizarre that the government would, through the ACA intentionally mandate measures, exempt religious organizations from having to abide by them yet force privately held companies to. That is truly what is bizarre. As far as your legal and scientific evidence that is obviously not settled until now, SCOTUS took care of that correctly.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    > There is a question whether HL is incorrect or
    > not in these contraceptives (as you call them)
    > leading to abortions or not, all have the
    > possibility of allowing a fertilized egg to not
    > take hold.

    There is no legal or scientific question. These things prevent a pregnancy (are contraceptives) and do not end them (do not abort).

    > THe whole point of the case is the RFRA and
    > whether it applies to companies beliefs.

    Right: Hobby Lobby has an incorrect belief. If they were correct then these things would not be contraceptives and would not be covered by the ruling. They *must* be wrong to get any benefit. Which is just idiotic.

    > My point is you’re talking out you a$$ when you
    > speak as a representative of HL.

    I never did this. I quoted from the decision.

    > The law and scientific evidence are not settled
    > on this, hence the case.

    By the law and scientific evidence, these things are contraceptives. Even if science finds otherwise, the law is the more important of these things for this case – because if they are not legally contraceptives they are not relevant to this case.

    > HL is right, they won. SCOTUS agreed that HL
    > has a right not to pay insurance to cover these
    > contraceptive measures.

    Hobby Lobby won the right to get full tax breaks without doing what would otherwise be their legal obligation. Yes. As absurd as it is that is the law. Not in debate.

    > It’s really bizarre that the government would,
    > through the ACA intentionally mandate
    > measures, exempt religious organizations
    > from having to abide by them yet force
    > privately held companies to.

    Religious organizations get all sorts of special privileges… they even get out of paying taxes. Another insane thing… but the fact it is the law is not in question.

    > That is truly what is bizarre. As far as your legal
    > and scientific evidence that is obviously not
    > settled until now, SCOTUS took care of that
    > correctly.

    Nothing in this decision changed the legal status of these contraceptives – no less the scientific understanding of them.

  • MI Mitten

    So let’s go back to your original statement:

    “They claim they are only against abortions”

    The four include two “emergency contraceptives” — Plan B and ella — and two intrauterine devices (IUDs). Members of the Green family who own Hobby Lobby say those contraceptives are abortifacients — that they induce abortion.

    – Here is where you go off track-

    – but the ruling is very clear that it applies *only* to contraception… therefore none of it should apply to their claims.”

    The point has led to some disputes in legal filings with the U.S. Supreme Court about the definitions of abortion and pregnancy. A group of obstetricians, gynecologists and other physicians told the justices that abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and the contraceptives at issue can’t induce abortion because they only work before pregnancy. The Greens counter that the contraceptives can prevent the implantation in the uterus of a fertilized egg. They say that is the destruction of life and that forcing them to offer those contraceptives makes them complicit in abortion.

    And we know who won, therefore either the “group” of doctors was wrong, lying, or didn’t really apply to the case.

    Either way the ruling isn’t-
    “very clear that it applies *only* to contraception”

    and therefore
    it should (and does) apply to their claims.
    Sounds like you got caught up in that Hopey-Changey wishing.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    This is not hard: The owners of Hobby Lobby are against these contraceptive measures based on their false belief they lead to abortions. The SCOTUS has agreed that as long as they are sincere in their mistaken beliefs they can get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations.

    Plan B and Ella are contraceptives. They do not end pregnancies. This is agreed upon by the law and the scientific community. More than that, if the law did not agree, given how this decision applies only to contraceptives, then they would not be covered by the decision.

    You claim this means doctors or others are lying. If you have evidence of this I am open to it – but I have not seen it. But keep in mind I have quoted the decision to you and shown that it applies only to contraception and more.

  • MI Mitten

    Plan B and Ella are contraceptives. They do not end pregnancies.
    Yes they do.
    Plan B can prevent a fertilized egg form attaching (from the printing on the label on the box).
    FDA http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm109795.htm

    This is agreed upon by the law and the scientific community.
    Where? What disagreements from the same community are there?

    THE DECISION DOES NOT APPLY TO CONTRACEPTIVES. IT APPLIES TO THE CONTRACEPTION MANDATE. Quit saying otherwise.

    “You claim this means doctors or others are lying”

    No, I didn’t say that. It’s was just one of the possibilities.
    And we know who won, therefore either the “group” of doctors was wrong, lying, or didn’t really apply to the case.

    Thanks for contradicting yourself –
    “this decision applies only to contraceptives”
    then
    “it applies only to contraception and more”

    Do you know what the word ‘only’ means?
    Definition of only (adv)
    Bing Dictionary
    on·ly
    solely: used to indicate the one thing or person that solely or exclusively happens or is involved in a situation

  • MI Mitten
  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Good grief. Point by point… there there is a lot of repetition here.

    1) Plan B and Ella are contracepties. They do not end pregnancies. You back this with your link which notes that Plan B is an “emergency contraceptive” used for “preventing pregnancies”. Even notes it “works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy”. You keep insisting I am wrong about this even as you post a link supporting it.

    2) You insist this decision does not apply to contraceptives but to the “contraceptive mandate” – which applies only to contraceptive medications and devices. Not sure what your point even is. Heck, even the decision repeatedly notes it is about the “contraceptive measures”. It applies to contraceptive measures and not abortive measures. You seem to disagree but have no evidence.

    3) You make a big deal out of who won – as if that is in question. Again I think you are convinced you are making a point but I have no clue what point you think you are making.

    Really, this is *not* complex. You keep going around and around … and I am sure you think you have made some point. Maybe you even think you have made it well. But remember you have been repeatedly wrong:

    1) You said: “HL does not want to pay for insurance that mandates drugs/procedures that could destroy a fertilized egg”. But there is no mandate to provide insurance at all. You were wrong about there being one.

    2) You did not know the ruling applied only to contraception.

    3) You did not know that Hobby Lobby was only arguing about contraceptive medications/devices they claimed lead to abortions.

    4) You claimed that I somehow showed an error when I spoke of “devices that operate after that point”, as if there was a question as to when these contraceptive devices (and meds) work. There was not.

    5) You incorrectly claim there is a legal or scientific debate about these contraceptive methods. There is not… or of there is one it has not been shown.

    6) You took a comment out of context. I did not say that “none of it should apply to their claims” in a vacuum – I noted *if they were correct* about these things being something outside of what the ruling applies to: contraceptive medications/devices. That is one thing that is so bizarre and idiotic about this ruling: they have to sincerely hold an incorrect belief to get any benefit from it.

    Oh, and on your claim I contradicted myself: I have shown you it applies only to contraceptives – and I have shown you more. Sorry for the poor wording.

    ——

    Really… after all this back and forth I really do not even know what your view is. Please be clear. Do you believe this decision that states it applies only to contraceptive measures actually applies to other things? Do you believe these things which legally and scientifically are considered to be contraceptive measures are actually something else? What is it you are even arguing?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Right: they are contraception, as that link says and describes, and do not lead to abortions.

    What is crazy is how the owners of Hobby Lobby not only believe otherwise but *must* “sincerely” believe otherwise to get any benefit from this decision. They must “sincerely” have a belief that is contrary to legal definitions and to to scientific evidence to get any benefit. Just madness.

  • MI Mitten

    Finally, your using the proper phrasing.

    I believe this decision only applies to the 4 contraceptive MEASURES HL objected to. (when I use only I mean only)
    —-
    When you change your statement to contraceptive measures instead of contraceptives you make this much easier.

    The FDA says:
    If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg (zygote) from attaching to the womb. same is true for IUD (haven’t checked on ELLA).
    —-
    In multicellular organisms, a zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism’s development….. zygotes contain DNA derived from both parents, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual

    My argument is with you when you say: “They claim they are only against abortions – but the ruling is very clear that it applies *only* to contraception… therefore none of it should apply to their claims”

    1. They don’t claim they are only against abortions
    they claim(ed) that these 4 methods could cause destruction of a fertilized egg.
    2. The ruling is very clear – their beliefs were upheld. NOT it applies only to contraception.
    3.therefore all of it should and does apply to their claims.
    Do you know where I stand now? You are wrong on your statement.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Sounds like you are trying to argue that the contraceptive measures lead to abortions – though there is no legal or scientific backing for this. You then go off topic and speak about how the pregnancy is blocked (contraception) – but do not show how any pregnancy is ended (aborted).

    To each of your points:

    1) “The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.” It is their belief that these things lead to abortions which they used to in their argument to avoid what would otherwise be their legal obligations.

    2) The decision is clear that it applies *only* to contraceptive measures covered in the contraceptive mandate. From the decision:

    “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates…”

    “Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 [being debated]”

    And it also speaks of the complaints “insofar as it requires them to provide health coverage for the four objectionable contraceptives.”

    It is very clear in this.

    3) You say “therefore all if should and does apply” – as if someone is arguing that the decision does not apply to Hobby Lobby! It does. As long as they have – or claim to have – a “sincerely” held belief that these contraceptive measures do something contrary to what the law and the scientific evidence shows, then they get special privileges.

    Some questions for you:

    1) Do you see, yet, how these contraceptive measures are that – contraceptive measures and not things that lead to abortions? If not, what makes you think otherwise?

    2) Do you understand that Hobby Lobby’s claims that these things lead to abortions is contrary to both what they law defines them to be and what scientific evidence shows? If so, do you have any evidence?

  • MI Mitten

    1)They do lead to abortions, hence the FDA link. What do you call it when a fertilized egg is prevented by a drug or device from adhering to the uterine wall? HL and SCOTUS agree.

    2) Therefore, no I don’t understand that HL claims are contrary – again hence the “scientific” FDA link. The “law” as to how SCOTUS sees the 4 is truly unknown, they ruled as to RFRA, and as how some scientists see it (FDA) is known, they admit it can cause an abortion.

    The link is pretty clear evidence –

    If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb

  • MI Mitten

    What started this argument is your initial comment – I know you’re sorry, but you want to know my position yet you don’t really explain yours.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    My position is simple:

    * Contraception is the prevention of a pregnancy.

    * Abortion is the termination of pregnancy.

    * Contraceptive measures work to prevent a pregnancy (including Plan B).

    * Abortive measures or abortifacients work to end a pregnancy.

    * A ruling applying only to contraceptive measures does not apply to abortifacients (unless one measure did both).

    * The decision says Hobby Lobby does not have to pay for insurance to cover contraceptive measures they sincerely believe lead to abortions.

    This is really not that hard!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    My views are simple and pretty much irrefutable:

    * Contraception is the prevention of a pregnancy.

    * Abortion is the termination of pregnancy.

    * Contraceptive measures work to prevent a pregnancy (including Plan B).

    * Abortive measures or abortifacients work to end a pregnancy.

    * A ruling applying only to contraceptive measures does not apply to abortifacients (unless one measure did both).

    * The decision says Hobby Lobby does not have to pay for insurance to cover contraceptive measures they sincerely believe lead to abortions.

  • MI Mitten

    My views are simple and pretty much irrefutable:

    * Contraception is the prevention of a pregnancy.
    Yup
    * Abortion is the termination of pregnancy.
    Yup
    * Contraceptive measures work to prevent a pregnancy (including Plan B)
    Nope – The 4 in dispute can end a pregnancy.
    * Abortive measures or abortifacients work to end a pregnancy.
    Yup – like the 4 in dispute
    * A ruling applying only to contraceptive measures does not apply to abortifacients (unless one measure did both).
    Which the 4 can do.
    the whole point of the case was that 4 of the drugs devices are abortifacients.
    Yup and they are.

    * The decision says Hobby Lobby does not have to pay for insurance to cover contraceptive measures they sincerely believe lead to abortions.

    Yup

    So then it really doesn’t explain your initial comment does it?

  • margaretgang

    just before I looked at the receipt ov $8130 , I
    didn’t believe that my sister woz like actualy bringing in money part-time from
    there pretty old laptop. . there aunts neighbour has been doing this 4 only
    about 22 months and at present repayed the mortgage on their appartment and
    bought themselves a Chrysler . see here C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  • rozellajbrook

    My Uncle
    Riley got an almost new red GMC Canyon just by some parttime working online
    with a laptop. visit their website C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  • Acrimonious

    The freedom of religion of the employees of HL is, however, covered in the Bill of Rights. Something that the SC just decided was less important than the same right of the company of which they are employed. Companies are now more important than individuals according to the SC.

  • 02Dave12345

    This article is simply pointing out the absurdity of defending the religious rights of a for-profit employer over the rights of workers. It’s humor, nothing more. Ginsburg is right, what’s to stop a Muslim employer from requiring all women to cover their heads? A Christian firing an unwed pregnant woman. An employee who commits adultery. The Hobby Lobby case has established a solid precedent for allowing all kinds of personal beliefs to interfere with the rights of workers.

  • 02Dave12345

    You just equated the loving relationship I have with my husband to murder. I don’t ‘hate’ you, I pity you.

  • 02Dave12345

    What can I say, whenever I read the latest antics of Tea Party fanatics, I always check to make sure it’s not coming from The Onion.

  • Guest

    .

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Still waiting for your evidence that Plan B and the other contraceptive measures end pregnancies (cause an abortion after implantation of the egg). So far you have nothing. I have done a bit of research and there is *speculation* that some of the three *might*, but the idea you will find strong support for all four is pretty slim.

  • Robyn

    Anyone else take a look at this and realize instantly that this is a hoax? It is really sickening to see people write fake articles like this just to get people riled up over disagreements over policies. I have no doubt that murder is murder regardless. There is no way that this would have been acceptable OR openly broadcasted so ambivalently. HOAX is written all over this article.

  • MI Mitten

    Do you understand the meaning of no?
    You say:
    “Sounds like you are trying to argue that the contraceptive measures lead to abortions – though there is NO legal or scientific backing for this.”
    Then you say:
    “.. there is speculation that some of the three might, but the idea you will find strong support for all four is pretty slim.

    This takes care of your “no legal or scientific backing BS –
    “Despite the clear and long-standing medical consensus (CONSENSUS IS NOT SETTLED FACT) that pregnancy is not established until implantation, 18 states have enacted provisions premised on the notion that pregnancy begins at fertilization or conception”

    Plan B in it’s own literature and the FDA’s analysis of the drug both say it can prevent the implant of a fertilized egg.

    I see you had an earlier comment that didn’t post asking specifically about Plan B, so we can concentrate on just that for now (keep in mind the states differ in definition and that not all medical professionals agree with your implantation definition)

    In fact the way I see it SCOTUS settled that HL exemption to ACA via RFRA is justified for just that very reason. Boy thats a lot of acronyms.

  • MI Mitten

    By the way, while we disagree, you clearly put thought and reasoning behind your post… thank you. That is rarely seen online. :) – And you didn’t, it’s just stupid to make the stealing analogy.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    At this point you have gone into ignoring what the decision says. You keep repeating the same claim but ignoring the facts. Remember, these have all be proved to you:

    * Contraception is the prevention of a pregnancy.

    * Abortion is the termination of pregnancy.

    * Contraceptive measures work to prevent a pregnancy (including Plan B).

    * Abortive measures or abortifacients work to end a pregnancy.

    * A ruling applying only to contraceptive measures does not apply to abortifacients (unless one measure did both – AND NONE HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE).

    * The decision says Hobby Lobby does not have to pay for insurance to cover contraceptive measures they sincerely believe lead to abortions.

    Thus, in order to get any benefit from this decision, Hobby Lobby must be sincere in being wrong. But, like you, they cannot actually defend this position.

    All you can do is insist that: pregnancy starts before implantation – something which is contrary to the evidence, that this decision applies to something other than contraceptive measures (including abortions) even though it directly says it applies only to contraceptive measures, and otherwise ignore data.

  • MI Mitten

    They haven’t been *proved*

    As for *legal* –
    I agree with the *18* states that say pregnancy begins at conception and/or fertilization, *you* haven’t *proved* otherwise.

    As for *medical* –
    Some of the world’s most prominent *scientists* and *physicians* testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at *conception*:

    *Professor* Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the *moment* of conception.”

    Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, *Harvard* University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is *scientifically* correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our *laws*, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate *scientific* data.”

    The *FDA* states-
    If *fertilization* does occur, Plan B may prevent a *fertilized* egg from attaching to the womb (implantation).

    You can stick your head in the sand and *pretend* the other *legal* and *scientific* facts don’t exist and HL is *wrong* and can’t defend, but I can, and have, they can, and have (*SCOTUS* agreed with them remember).

    *Really liking using the *asterisks* for no apparent reason, you may be on to *something* there.

  • MI Mitten

    *SHOWN*

  • MI Mitten

    *Rhymes* with?

  • MI Mitten

    *OWN*

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Not proved – just heavily supported with no reasoned refutation from you.

    I can accept that. :)

    Now to your points:

    * Federal law is not superseded by state law. This was a federal decision.

    * If an egg is fertilized but expelled do you consider that a still born child?

    * If we did not want to end any life then antibiotics would be illegal. It is about when we value a life as a human. This is a moral question, not a scientific one. But legally, which is what counts for the SCOTUS, federal law considers Plan B and the rest to be contraceptives… not ending pregnancies but preventing them.

    But here is the biggie: the decision is very clearly applicable only to contraceptive measures. Only. Not to anything else. This is very clear and has been quoted to you… but you repeatedly ignore it.

    If you count Plan B as something other than a contraceptive then it no longer is covered by the decision. Of course, it is a contraceptive, so it is covered, but only if Hobby Lobby has a sincere but incorrect belief that it is something else.

    Why do you keep ignoring that?

  • MI Mitten

    Fed law – SCOTUS was careful not to wade into the determination as to when life starts.
    You and I differ as to when it does, and we both have legal and scientific backing.

    If an egg is fertilized and expelled (I assuming without the ‘help’ of a drug or device), I consider that a loss of a unique life.

    The decision is applicable only to contraceptive measures – I brought up this point when you kept referring to contraceptives, and I’m not ignoring it.

    If you count Plan B as…..
    You don’t seem to be able to get your head around HL’s reasoning, that doesn’t make them wrong (or you for that matter) it is a difference of opinion. That’s why we have courts to decide.
    HL obviously counts Plan B (and the rest) as more than a contraceptive hence the suit.
    It is obviously covered by the decision SCOTUS made as an objectionable contraceptive measure. HL is not incorrect in their belief, it’s just that there opinion differs from yours.

    Why do you keep ignoring that?

  • MI Mitten

    It would be different if HL said –

    We just don’t like those 4 drugs/devices as a contraceptives.

    vs

    We believe those 4 drugs/devices can act as an abortifacient.

    Yes the second is their opinion, which I share, some doctors share (not all), some states share (again not all).

    That is exactly why it went to SCOTUS.

    To mischaracterize or dismiss the decision and HL’s beliefs (which is what you do when you insert your opinion that Plan B is just a contraceptive) is where I think you go off track.

    (had to go back a long way to get this)

    “They claim they are only against abortions – but the ruling is very clear that it applies *only* to contraception… therefore none of it should apply to their claims”

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You are right in that it does not change the legal definition of when a pregnancy begins. It does say it applies only to contraceptives. The four items affected are contraceptives – if they were not they would not be affected.

    Not complex.

    You claim I do not understand the reasoning: but I am the one who has noted how it applies to contraceptives only and that Hobby Lobby merely needs to have a sincere but incorrect belief to get a benefit. Quick check: do you understand that?

  • MI Mitten

    It does affirm HL’s definition of when a pregnancy begins in so far as RFRA is concerned.

    It doesn’t say it only applies to contraceptives – we’ve had this discussion before.

    The four items affected are contraceptive measures that also in HL’s view, my view, some doctors and states views can act as abortifacients.

    If they were not they would not be affected.

    Not complex.

    Again it does not apply to contraceptives only, and in HL’s opinion SCOTUS has ruled they don’t have to go against their beliefs (nothing to do with your beliefs, some doctors beliefs, and some past legal decisions).

    Quick check: do you *understand* that?

    It is obviously covered by the decision SCOTUS made as an objectionable contraceptive measure. HL is not incorrect in their belief, it’s just that there opinion differs from yours.

    Why do you keep ignoring that?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    This decision does not in any way change the legal definition of when a pregnancy starts. The four contraceptive measures lead to – get this – contraception. That is not the same thing as abortion. If they did lead to abortion and not contraception then they would not be covered.

    Really, how hard is that to understand?

    As far as you trying to twist things so a decision that specifically states it applies only to contraceptive measures into saying it applies to other things – I get that very well. It is, in fact, how I know you are wrong. :)

    Anyway, this is getting boring. Let’s mix things up a bit. Since the SCOTUS has now decided that merely having strongly held beliefs allows one to get out of what would otherwise be a legal obligation, as long as I strongly believe Hobby Lobby should go out of business (right or wrong), then I should be able to walk out with a cart fill of art supplies but not pay (something that would otherwise be my legal obligation). Makes as much sense as this decision.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    There are two possibilities about this decision that covers contraceptive methods and nothing else:

    1) We count pregnancy from fertilization. If we do this then Plan B is not a contraceptive and is not covered by this decision.

    2) We count pregnancy from implantation. If we do this then Plan B, being a contraceptive, is covered by this decision.

    You want it both ways: the definition form 1 but the result of 2. This is irrational of you.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    There are two possibilities about this decision that covers contraceptive methods and nothing else:

    1) We count pregnancy from fertilization. If we do this then Plan B is not a contraceptive and is not covered by this decision.

    2) We count pregnancy from implantation. If we do this then Plan B, being a contraceptive, is covered by this decision.

    You want it both ways: the definition form 1 but the result of 2. This is irrational of you.

    What is sad, though, is the only way Hobby Lobby benefits from the decision is if 2 is correct but they “sincerely” believe the definition in 1. It is utter madness – they have to be wrong to get any benefit. Not sure how to make this more clear for you.

  • MI Mitten

    Definition of opinion (n)
    Bing Dictionary
    o·pin·ion
    [ ə pínnyən ]
    personal view: the view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment

    There are two possibilities about this decision that covers contraceptive methods and nothing else:
    WRONG – THIS IS JUST YOUR OPINION

    1) We count pregnancy from fertilization. If we do this then Plan B is not a contraceptive and is not covered by this decision. – WRONG –
    Have you ever heard of the words *EITHER*, *BOTH* or *CAN*? Plan B and the other 3 under this pretense CAN in HL’s opinion act as an abortifacient.

    The “utter madness” is your refusal to acknowledge HL’s opinion – which for days you have said has no legal or scientific standing, then when the legal and scientific standings differing from your own have been shown you keep babbling on with more of your opinions stated as facts.

    You should premise everything you say with “in my opinion” when applicable (doesn’t have the same impact/effect, but is accurate).
    I would like to ask a myriad of questions to you but you refuse to answer and just state more of your *only*’s, *nothing*’s, etc. that are opinions.

  • MI Mitten

    I wished people would accurately phrase HL’s opinion and their own arguments. “Those pills” have the possibilty (from the FDA website) of blocking a fertilized egg (much different than a period) from implanting. “a combined sperm and egg” – in their view is the start of pregnancy.

    When does pregnancy start?
    66% (1154) of the doctors responded to the questionnaire
    57% answered – at conception
    28% answered – at implantation
    16% answered – not sure

    “pretty soon…”
    Definition of hyperbole (n)
    Bing Dictionary
    hy·per·bo·le
    [ hī púrbəlee ]
    exaggeration: deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect, e.g. “I could eat a million of these”

  • MI Mitten

    Definition of hyperbole (n)
    Bing Dictionary
    hy·per·bo·le
    [ hī púrbəlee ]

    exaggeration: deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect, e.g. “I could eat a million of these”

  • MI Mitten

    Does pregnancy start at conception – when the sperm fertilizes the egg? Or does it begin one week later when the embryo implants in the uterus? According to a survey carried out by researchers from the University of Chicago and published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, not even doctors appear to agree.

    Dr. Farr A. Curlin and team set out to determine what Ob/Gyns (obstetrician-gynecologists) thought regarding the beginning of pregnancy. They also wanted to know what measure characteristics were linked to the belief that pregnancy started at implantation instead of conception.

    The researchers posted a questionnaire to 1,800 Ob-Gyns in the USA, all of them practicing their profession at that time. Their main focus was when they thought pregnancy started.

    The questionnaire gave the following response options:

    At conception (the union of the sperm and the egg, also known as fertilization)

    When the embryo is implanted in the uterus

    Not sure

    The authors wrote that:

    “Primary predictors were religious affiliation, importance of religion, and having a moral objection to abortion.”

    Below are some highlighted data from their findings:

    66% (1154) of the doctors responded to the questionnaire

    57% answered – at conception

    28% answered – at implantation

    16% answered – not sure

  • MI Mitten

    Does pregnancy start at conception – when the sperm fertilizes the egg? Or does it begin one week later when the embryo implants in the uterus? According to a survey carried out by researchers from the University of Chicago and published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, not even doctors appear to agree.

    Dr. Farr A. Curlin and team set out to determine what Ob/Gyns (obstetrician-gynecologists) thought regarding the beginning of pregnancy. They also wanted to know what measure characteristics were linked to the belief that pregnancy started at implantation instead of conception.

    The researchers posted a questionnaire to 1,800 Ob-Gyns in the USA, all of them practicing their profession at that time. Their main focus was when they thought pregnancy started.

    The questionnaire gave the following response options:
    At conception (the union of the sperm and the egg, also known as fertilization)
    When the embryo is implanted in the uterus
    Not sure

    Below are some highlighted data from their findings:

    66% (1154) of the doctors responded to the questionnaire

    57% answered – at conception

    28% answered – at implantation

    16% answered – not sure

  • MI Mitten

    66% (1154) of the doctors responded to the questionnaire

    57% answered – at conception

    28% answered – at implantation

    16% answered – not sure

  • MI Mitten

    Does pregnancy start at conception – when the sperm fertilizes the egg? Or does it begin one week later when the embryo implants in the uterus? According to a survey carried out by researchers from the University of Chicago and published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, not even doctors appear to agree.
    Dr. Farr A. Curlin and team set out to determine what Ob/Gyns (obstetrician-gynecologists) thought regarding the beginning of pregnancy. They also wanted to know what measure characteristics were linked to the belief that pregnancy started at implantation instead of conception.
    The researchers posted a questionnaire to 1,800 Ob-Gyns in the USA, all of them practicing their profession at that time. Their main focus was when they thought pregnancy started.
    The questionnaire gave the following response options:
    At conception (the union of the sperm and the egg, also known as fertilization)
    When the embryo is implanted in the uterus
    Not sure
    Below are some highlighted data from their findings:
    66% (1154) of the doctors responded to the questionnaire
    57% answered – at conception
    28% answered – at implantation
    16% answered – not sure

    Keep your uterus to yourself.
    BAM

  • MI Mitten

    Been busy with the BS huh? Posting for Planned Parenthood must pay well.
    Misrepresenting the decision is almost a full time job for ya?
    MANDATE RFRA

  • MI Mitten

    REMEMBER YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN

  • MI Mitten

    Does pregnancy start at conception – when the sperm fertilizes the egg? Or does it begin one week later when the embryo implants in the uterus? According to a survey carried out by researchers from the University of Chicago and published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, not even doctors appear to agree.

    Below are some highlighted data from their findings:

    66% (1154) of the doctors responded to the questionnaire

    57% answered – at conception

    28% answered – at implantation

    16% answered – not sure

  • MI Mitten

    Really depends on your definition/opinion of when a pregnancy starts, doesn’t it?
    Does pregnancy start at conception – when the sperm fertilizes the egg? Or does it begin one week later when the embryo implants in the uterus? According to a survey carried out by researchers from the University of Chicago and published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, not even doctors appear to agree.

    Below are some highlighted data from their findings:
    66% (1154) of the doctors responded to the questionnaire
    57% answered – at conception
    28% answered – at implantation
    16% answered – not sure

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    If you think I am wrong then offer a third option… not whining. You then go off as if I am saying you cannot have a different opinion, when that is not at all what I am saying. Again, the two options (if you have a third by all means let me know what it is!):

    1) We count pregnancy from fertilization. If we do this then Plan B is not a contraceptive and is not covered by this decision.

    2) We count pregnancy from implantation. If we do this then Plan B, being a contraceptive, is covered by this decision.

    You want it both ways: the definition form 1 but the result of 2. This is irrational of you.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    As I said, you are going with option 1 here:

    1) We count pregnancy from fertilization. If we do this then Plan B is not a contraceptive and is not covered by this decision.

    2) We count pregnancy from implantation. If we do this then Plan B, being a contraceptive, is covered by this decision.

    But you want it both ways: the definition form 1 but the result of 2. This is irrational of you.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser
  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    So you have no reasoned response. OK. I accept your white flag.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Fully responded to here: http://dailycurrant.com/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-stones-gay-employee-to-death/#comment-1483121402

    Keep in mind you are taking an irrational point of view: wanting to use one definition but get the results of another. But this is what Hobby Lobby got – they get a benefit only being wrong. It is utter madness. Sort of like trying to get you to understand reason and logic. :)

  • IsaacLHawk

    Google is paying 80$ per hour! Work for few hours>>CLICK NEXT TAB FOR MORE INFO AND HELP

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    At this point the conversation is over. MI Mitten, like Hobby Lobby, insisting on using one definition for pregnancy but then getting the results of a different definition. Faced with this absurdity he waved his white flag.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Nobody has questions that only 4 of the contraceptive measures were impacted by this. Your rant is completely off topic.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    If we count Plan B as something other than a contraceptive then it is not covered by the decision – which is very clear in covering contraceptive measures and nothing else.

    Remember: the only way Hobby Lobby gets any benefit from this decision is if Plan B (and the other contraceptives covered) are in deed contraceptives but Hobby Lobby “sincerely” believes otherwise.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Based on that view Plan B is not covered by a decision that is applicable *only* to contraceptive measures and nothing else.

    You keep shooting yourself in the foot.

  • MI Mitten

    Are you familiar with bizarro world from superman comics?

  • MI Mitten

    The only way HL gets any benefit is if SCOTUS agrees to their objection that Plan B can act as an abortifacient in HL’s opinion. AND THEY DID.

  • MI Mitten

    Keep in mind in Michael’s world irrational is rational…..

  • MI Mitten

    “There are two possibilities about this decision that covers contraceptive methods and nothing else:”

    “If you think I am wrong then offer a third option…” (so there’s not just two?)

    3) Plan B in HL’s opinion can be both a contraceptive or an arbortifacient, they believe pregnancy counts at fertilization – so when Plan B keeps the egg from being released it would be a contraceptive, however when Plan B kept a fertilized egg from being implanted it would act like an abortifacient.

    Follow along now skippy –

    Plan B one step site:
    It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. CONTRACEPTIVE

    It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) CONTRACEPTIVE

    or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).ABORTIFACIENT (in some peoples/doctors/scientist/states and HL’s opinion)

    The decision covers the 4 contraceptive measures, the 4 can in HL’s and many others beliefs act as both a C and an A.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Show where all four can be both and you might actually be getting around to a point (though one with a pretty big hole in it – but let’s get you moving one step at a time).

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Iam very familiar with your white flag. It is quite tattered by now.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    From the decision itself: the word “abortifacient” is used once and only to note “the owners of the business” believe this…

    But it gets worse for you when it says: The owners of the companies involved in these cases and others who believe that life begins at conception regard these four methods as causing abortions, but federal regulations, which define pregnancy as beginning at implantation … do not so classify them.”

    I expect we shall be seeing your white flag again. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Empty insults… but you are the one who says that although the SCUTUS decision specifically notes that legally pregnancy starts at implantation, somehow in your bizarro world that means they agree with Hobby Lobby that it begins at fertilization.

    They did not. They agreed Hobby Lobby has a right to see it this way – to not only see things differently than how federal regulations define things but still get special treatment based on their disagreement.

    Why can’t I use this same logic to say I disagree with the laws that say I should have to pay Hobby Lobby for goods – and based on my “sincerely” held views I should be able to walk out with a cart full of art supplies for free?

    Comes down to this: should “sincerely” held beliefs allow one to get out of what would otherwise be not only their otherwise legal obligations but do so when it has a direct impact on the finances of another? I say no: but the SCOTUS decided with Hobby Lobby the answer was yes.

  • MI Mitten

    So in bizarro world that’s my victory flag? Darn it!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Your white flag is your victory flag? Um, OK.

  • MI Mitten

    I pasted a quote that SCOTUS did not wade into when pregnancy starts (but in bizarro world I said it).

    Special treatment in bizarro world, RFRA protection in real world.

    In bizarro world you can – it’s full of hyperbole and flawed logic.

    Comes down to this: ” I say no: but the SCOTUS decided with Hobby Lobby the answer was yes.” you answered your own question with a yes (but since you’re from bizarro you believe no).

    As for the “direct financial impact” ~$30 Plan B, if you are a broke HL employee (I hear HL pays well) go to a Planned Parenthood, I’m sure they’ll take good care of you.

  • MI Mitten

    From the decision PDF

    Hobby Lobby and Mardel will be required, contrary
    to the applicants’ religious beliefs, to provide insurance coverage for certain drugs and devices that the applicants believe can cause abortions.

    It doesn’t get worse for me, SCOTUS backed my belief, yes federal law was cited, but this isn’t about when pregnancy begins it’s about RFRA and how it applies to these mandates.

    You haven’t and won’t see a white flag from me.

  • MI Mitten

    Nope (in bizarro world that means yes).

  • MI Mitten

    Show where all four CAN”T be both and you might actually have a reason for your holey original post (one down three to go).

  • MI Mitten

    Plan B in HL’s opinion can be both a contraceptive or an arbortifacient, they believe pregnancy counts at fertilization – so when Plan B keeps the egg from being released it would be a contraceptive, however when Plan B kept a fertilized egg from being implanted it would act like an abortifacient.

    Follow along now skippy –

    Plan B one step site:
    It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. CONTRACEPTIVE

    It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) CONTRACEPTIVE

    or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).ABORTIFACIENT (in some peoples/doctors/scientist/states and HL’s opinion)

    The decision covers the 4 contraceptive measures, the 4 can in HL’s and many others beliefs act as both a C and an A.

  • MI Mitten

    Follow along now skippy –

    Plan B one step site:
    It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. CONTRACEPTIVE

    It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) CONTRACEPTIVE

    or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).ABORTIFACIENT (in some peoples/doctors/scientist/states and HL’s opinion)

    The decision covers the 4 contraceptive measures, the 4 can in HL’s and many others beliefs act as both a C and an A.

  • MI Mitten

    Madness

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Before you claimed the SCOTUS agreed with Hobby Lobby about when pregnancy begins… even though you have been shown this from the decision:

    ——
    “The owners of the companies involved in these cases and others who believe that life begins at conception regard these four methods as causing abortions, but federal regulations, which define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, see, e.g., 62 Fed. Reg. 8611 (1997); 45 CFR §46.202(f) (2013), do not so classify them.”
    ——

    Are you now admitting Hobby Lobby is disagreeing with federal regulations? And why not answer the question about if sincerely held beliefs should allow you to get out of what would otherwise be your legal obligation, including what those obligations impact someone else in a direct financial way.

    Yes, I know you will respond with your white flag, insults, and the like… at this point even you know you have no honest answer.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Right: without this decision Hobby Lobby would not be able to get full tax breaks without providing full coverage based on their “sincerely” held beliefs – even though those beliefs are contrary to federal regulation.

    As far as your white flag – it is completely tattered and torn. You run from simple questions such as if you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of legal obligations (including ones with a direct financial impact on others).

    This is fun. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    And there goes your white flag again.

    But let’s get back to the topic. You insist the SCOTUS agreed Plan B and the like can lead to abortions, but the actual decision notes that federal regulation does not classify them that way.

    Who is right about what the SCOTUS said: you or the actual decision. I go with the actual decision.

    And I bet we are about the see your white flag again. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ah, so you cannot show where they are each both, even though that is your claim. Meanwhile I showed you where the actual decision notes they are *not* classified as causing abortions.

    Not.

    Got it yet?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Right: in Hobby Lobby’s view they can be both – though when asked to back they each are you waved your white flag and tried to turn things around asking me to show how they are not. Funny given how I have already shown you a link specifically noting how Plan B is not and you rejected it.

    Based on federal regulation they are *not*. This is specifically noted in the decision. I have quoted it for you repeatedly.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    It is madness – the whole decision is just insane. It makes no sense at all and is widely seen as a huge mistake. If nothing else it opens up a whole can of worms – as you know, hence the reasons you run from simple questions. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ah, how cute – more grade school name calling and repetition of a claim that is not in contention (the fact some people claim Plan B leads to abortions):

    But you refuse to answer a simple question. From you: “The only way HL gets any benefit is if SCOTUS agrees to their objection that Plan B can act as an abortifacient in HL’s opinion. AND THEY DID.”

    Here you insist the SCOTUS agrees that Plan B can lead to abortions. But the actual decision says: “… federal regulations, which define pregnancy as beginning at implantation … do not so classify them [as causing abortions].”

    Who do you think people should believe – you or the actual decision?

    [Hint: I believe the actual decision and happily note your error.]

  • QueenieOdabobo

    Ha!

  • QueenieOdabobo

    I’m surprised you managed to spell STFU.

  • Redhotchilli Pepper

    The Daily Currant is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within The Daily Currant are fiction, and presumably fake news.

    Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.

  • MI Mitten

    1)I agree it’s not in contention, and it’s been proved to you I do.

    2)the lack of logic and leaps here are incredulous –

    I say “…Scotus agrees to their OBJECTION…”(meaning their objection to the 4/20 in the ACA as it pertains to their RFRA rights)

    You somehow twist this to “…you insist the SCOTUS agrees Plan B can lead to abortions” no I don’t, I’m only insisting that SCOTUS agreed to their objections to the 4/20 in the ACA as it pertains to their RFRA rights)

    No, no and no, SCOTUS does not agree that Plan B can lead to abortions.

    SCOTUS agreed to HL’s objection because of HL’s belief not SCOTUS’s (that’s why I noted “in HL’s opinion)

    3)People should believe me, because I actually agree with the decision.

    When you assume you make an a$$ out of U.

  • MI Mitten

    I never claimed SCOTUS agreed with HL about when a pregnancy begins, that is just your misterpetation, therefore the rest of you response is moot.

    The lack of honesty is mastered by you, I’m really at a loss to you referencing a *white flag* (starting to miss your silly asterisk usage).

  • MI Mitten

    Tax breaks, or exemption from a Tax penalty?

    And so what if someones religious beliefs are contrary to federal regulation (is a fed reg the do all end all?), I think that is one of the reasons the RFRA was passed.

    Again with the “white flag” reference?
    I see you’ve now switched to needless “quotes” – #Bringbackthegratuitousastreisks

    I’m having a blast!

  • MI Mitten

    Again you are wrong, I NEVER “*insisted*” (maybe you should try combining needless quotes and gratuitous asterisks) SCOTUS agreed Plan B and the like can lead to abortions.
    I bet we aren’t going to see your “NQ”‘s or *GA*’s again.

  • MI Mitten

    Are you admitting I showed you how one can?

  • MI Mitten

    I could easily do that, but what would be the *point*? You’ll just continue to misrepresent my *claim*.
    #gratuitousasterisks
    The decision notes that HL has an exemption from a portion of the ACA via the RFRA because of their beliefs.

  • MI Mitten

    You said Plan B couldn’t and I showed you how it could. Then I think you admitted you were wrong (on Plan B) in asking to show the other three.

    “though when asked to back they each are you waved your white flag” ?????

    Still missing the *white flag* (gratuitous asterisks) reference maybe this-
    Another common forum for projection is in internet arguments, where it is usually pathetically obvious to everyone except the projector. In that context, the phenomenon may be called mirror-imaging

    Funny given how I have already shown you why SCOTUS has upheld HL’s objection to the ACA you reject it.

    Federal Regulation –

    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993… is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion….passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate…signed into law by President Bill Clinton. …it continues to be applied to the federal government…because Congress has broad authority to CARVE OUT EXEMPTIONS FROM FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS (caps added to clarify point) that it itself has authorized.

  • MI Mitten

    No, again you’re twisting the meaning of what I said.

    “..the whole decision is just insane. It makes no sense at all and is widely seen as a huge mistake.”

    Again from Psychological Projection –
    A telltale sign of this is when a speaker says that “Everybody knows that…

    I don’t run from *simple* (#gratuitousasterisks) questions, you just raise your white flag and project.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    “No, no and no, SCOTUS does not agree that Plan B can lead to abortions.”

    Good to see you drop your silly claim that they had agreed:

    “The only way HL gets any benefit is if SCOTUS agrees to their objection that Plan B can act as an abortifacient in HL’s opinion. AND THEY DID.”

    And that is key. Now that you know the SCOTUS and the law never agreed that Plan B and the like lead to abortions you should be able to drop the claim that they do, right?

    I mean, sure, some people might *think* they do, but in the context we are speaking of – the legal context – they do not. You get that, right?

    Not to mention the evidence I have shown you that they do not. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    LOL! You are now flip flopping quite a bit here. Remember, I quoted you not just saying that the SCOTUS agreed with Hobby Lobby, but “shouting” it:

    “AND THEY DID”.

    But the SCOTUS never agreed – and now you know it. Good!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Good you are having fun. Now stop side-stepping the question: Do you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)?

    Oh, and the quotes have a meaning… even if it goes over your head. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I *quoted* your claim.

    Now *you* flip flop.

    Funny. :) *****

    Anyway, back to the other question that has you waving your white flag:

    Do you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I am asking you to back your claim that all can.

    But we both know you are going to run away waving your white flag. Poor thing is so tattered you should get a new one. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    LOL! You could “easily” back your claims – you just do not want to.

    Really… I am beginning to feel bad for you. :)

    Face it, at this point you have taken to cowering in a corner, crying but between sobs insisting you are right. It is sorta pathetic.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You still are working to turn things around and not back your claim. You say these four contraceptives, specifically noted to *not* lead to abortions (based on federal regulations, which is what is relevant here) do somehow lead to abortions.

    You cannot show this, support this, or back this in any way… but you want me to take your word.

    Meanwhile you keep running from simple questions such as if you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)?

    Yeah, I know – the question makes you run off crying. Oh well.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I twisted nothing. You are merely flip flopping like a fish out of water.

    Keep in mind, the basis of your argument was that the contraceptives could also lead to abortions – but now you have completely backed off of that and accept that the federal regulations deem them to *not* lead to abortions.

    They are contraceptives measures… not forms of abortion. This is directly from the decision.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    One can disagree with the SCOTUS decision but still recognize it as the law. Who do you think has not done this?

    But it is an idiotic ruling. By merely claiming to have “sincere” beliefs Hobby Lobby has gotten out of what would otherwise be their legal obligation to others – including something that directly impact others financially.

    It makes no more sense than to say that since I have a sincere belief Hobby Lobby should go out of business I can walk out with a cart full of art supplies without paying (merely a legal obligation to another – something one can get out of based on their sincere beliefs).

  • 4 little hearts

    I feel the managers at hobby lobby should read their bible with understanding we are not God. IS 56:1-2 Maintain justice and do what is right,for my salvation’ is close at hand and my righteousness will soon be revealed. (2) Blessed is the man who do this,the man who holds it fast,Who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.

  • MI Mitten

    1)”silly claim…”

    Never claimed they did.

    2)I knew all along “..SCOTUS and the law never agreed that Plan B and the like lead to abortions..”

    3) Here’s where you lose it “you should be able to drop the claim that they do, right?”

    I mean, sure, some people might *think* (#gratuitousasterisks) they do, but in the context we are speaking of – THE LEGAL CONTEXT – (we’re speaking in the legal context? since when? did it start when you said “They claim they are only against abortions – but the ruling is very clear that it applies *only* to contraception… therefore none of it should apply to their claims.” – that was in the legal context?) What law are you making reference to there?

    You get that, right?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Federal regulation “define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, see, e.g., 62 Fed. Reg. 8611 (1997); 45 CFR §46.202(f) (2013)”. If I believe pregnancy begins only on Thursdays can I get laws to benefit me based on that?

    As far you being “certain” that liberals want to burn books – which ones? Nobody is saying people cannot have their own religion. The decision is not even about that – it is about if one can get out of what would otherwise be your legal obligation to compensate someone based on your religion. And the SCOTUS has said yes. This is, of course, idiotic in that using the exact same logic my personal beliefs should allow me to get out of paying for goods at Hobby Lobby. After all, paying is merely a legal obligation that impacts them financially… my beliefs are more important than that!

  • MI Mitten

    “I twisted nothing… the basis of your argument…”
    OK, now your explaining my argument to me?

    Keep in mind you don’t understand the basis of my argument.

    In HL’s opinion per their beliefs (and mine and others) the contraceptive measures could also lead to an abortion.

    “…the federal regulations deem them to *not* lead to abortions. They are contraceptives measures… not forms of abortion. This is directly from the decision.”

    And the RFRA allows exemption from federal regulations that violate beliefs.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    What if my religion believes bacteria and human cancer cells are as important as humans – can I still get tax breaks for providing health insurance but not cover things that would kill any life?

    Of course not. This is a pro-Christian decision… but you are right that many of the “Christian” beliefs are not all all based on the Bible. This is good – if one really were to base their morality on the Bible one would be grossly immoral. The only way to use it as a moral guild is to *heavily* pick and choose and re-interpret.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    He does tend to wave his white flag a lot.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    And oddly enough there is no sign God did either. Wow… almost like he is a made up construct based on the knowledge and beliefs of people at the time. Weird!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Excellent.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Why not actually try to support your claims? At this point you have been shot down by a number of people very well. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Do you think the Supreme Court agreed that life begins at conception? If not what makes you think this has any legal relevance?

  • MI Mitten

    “.. *not* lead to abortions (based on federal regulations, which is what is relevant HERE)….” Here? on this discussion? this is federally regulated? is someone from the feds reading this now?

    The relevancy of the federal regulations and whether a closely held company is exempt from said regulations is exactly what HL challenged.

    Now the name calling starts, I’m not “*running*” from “*anything*”

    “.. as if..” a form of projection

    You’ve mentioned these “*”*legal obligations*”*” what exactly in your eyes are there legal obligations?

    Yeah, I know – the question makes you run off crying. Oh well.(not running or crying or projecting for that matter)

  • MI Mitten

    love all the projection:

    “Face it, at this point you have taken to cowering in a corner, crying but between sobs insisting you are right. It is sorta pathetic”

    Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

  • MI Mitten

    Still waiting for an answer……

    “But we both know (more projecting) you are going to run away waving your white flag. Poor thing is so tattered you should get a new one.”
    do you have a shortcut key for that lame retort? sure seem to use it alot.

  • MI Mitten

    Quote it again

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    When you get to the point where you have nothing but insults you are doing nothing but waving your white flag. Let’s give you another chance: what points do you think you have made? What support have you shown?

  • MI Mitten

    Copy and pasting that one all over aren’t we?

    Do you (do I or does SCOTUS?)
    believe “sincere” (#quotes) beliefs (like the beliefs RFRA addresses?) should allow someone (who specifically?) to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (by who’s definition “legal obligations”?)
    including those that have a direct financial impact (define please) on others(again define please)?

  • MI Mitten

    Who did SCOTUS rule for?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Sigh. OK, from the start.

    1) Providing comprehensive health care to your employees allows employers to get tax breaks.

    2) If you do not provide these benefits you do not get these tax breaks.

    3) Well, except now – if you have a “sincere” belief (a belief you claim to accept) then you can offer lesser benefits (to women, not to men!) but still get the same tax breaks.

    Do you agree that “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)?

    I do not. I believe Hobby Lobby should be held accountable to the same legal obligations as others and that their religion should not allow them to get benefits others would not get.

  • MI Mitten

    So then you disagree with RFRA?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You cannot figure out how a SCOTUS decision is about a legal context? Wow!

    In any case, good to see you no longer pushing the idea that Plan B and the like lead to abortions.

    As far as what law I am referring to – I have been talking about a SCUTUS decision… that impacts the law but it is not a law itself. If you need it I can explain this to you in more detail – the difference between court decisions and laws.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ah, so my beliefs should be able to get me out of federal regulations, even if they directly impact the finances of someone else.

    Excellent. So you support the idea that I can go to Hobby Lobby, get a cart load of art supplies, and walk out without paying – given how my beliefs allow me to avoid the laws saying I am required to pay.

    I smell another of your flip flops coming… or maybe you will just run away waving your white flag. Either way, you will never actually address the point I just made. Yeah, you are quite predictable. :)

  • MI Mitten

    “…SCOTUS agreed …” No

    “…legal relevance?” Because it’s the point of the case?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    If I was wrong you would actually back your points and not behave so predictably incapable. :)

    Why not just answer my question as to if you believe “sincere” beliefs should be able to get you out of legal obligations to financially compensate someone?

    Don’t trip on your laces!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I have about 10 times.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Well, you do run a lot. The current question you are running from is if you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others).

    Check and mate. :)

  • MI Mitten

    Exactly – you said it not me.
    This decision is on an exemption from a portion of the ACA not a referendum on pregnancy.

    To make it anything else is irrational.

  • MI Mitten

    RFRA, dreamer.

  • MI Mitten

    And your a teacher? Poor kids.

  • MI Mitten

    I can’t figure out how a computer repairman is a legal expert.

    In my opinion and HL’s opinion and many others opinion Plan B and the like can lead to an abortion.

    And the difference between SCOTUS rulings and personal opinions.

  • MI Mitten

    1) prevents you from getting a tax penalty

    2)penalty

    3)that was why RFRA was passed.

    I agree with a unanimous congress, a nearly unanimous senate, (i can’t believe i’m saying this) Bill Clinton, and SCOTUS.

    I do, I believe religious organizations, non-profits, for profits, and closely held corporations have defense from objectionable legal regulations.

  • MI Mitten

    Where and when have I ran?

    I believe SCOTUS was correct in their decision.

    “The current question you are running from is if you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others).”
    So if I don’t want to waste my time on a rhetorical slanted question I’m running? I think not.

    The issue as I see it is that HL believed through the RFRA that portions of the ACA shouldn’t apply to them and SCOTUS agreed.

    Check and mate. I think not.

    I think we both know where each other stands the differences lie in how we phrase our stances, I know that mine are opinion. If you don’t agree with my opinion, fine. As far as the white flag/running/whining comments thats all you man.

  • MI Mitten

    It really doesn’t matter what I *believe*, it matters what SCOTUS ruled.

  • MI Mitten

    “Why not just answer my question as to if you believe “sincere” beliefs should be able to get you out of legal obligations to financially compensate someone?

    I take it (correct me if I’m wrong) you believe HL shouldn’t be able to get out of their *legal obligation* to financially compensate someone (they have a legal obligation to pay for the 4 drugs/procedure coverage for their employees) because of their beliefs?

  • MI Mitten

    Still not “running” from anything, to suggest that would be disingenuous at best.

    My version of your question would be
    Do you believe a closely held corporation should have to sacrifice their religious beliefs by including objectionable parts of a mandate ?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I repeat questions you run from. Poor guy… I am not letting you get away with your cowardly responses so easily.

    In any case, do you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)?

    A simple question… and all you can do is run.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    That “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)… but only for certain *Christian* beliefs.

    Hence once reason the decision was absolutely insane.

    Got it yet?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Nice attempt to change the topic! I was noting it was wrong to claim people are denying this idiotic ruling is now the law of the land. It is. It is stupid but it is the law.

    And you also dodge the whole point about my being able to get product from Hobby Lobby for free.

    Your white flag is flapping again. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    The point of the case is not about when life begins.

    You are getting more and more amusing. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Well, you have since tried to come up with a third option – one that is in direct contradiction to the federal regulations noted in the decision.

    Has anyone ever told you how unintentionally funny you are?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Of course you are running. You refuse to answer if you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others).

    You, like the SCOTUS, know the huge can of worms this opens… this decision was clearly a huge mistakes, decided upon by male, Catholic justices who were pushing their own anti-female, Catholic views.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Being here and responding with nonsense is not the same as actually giving reasoned responses. You cannot do so – hence why you will *never* say if you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)?

    By the way, you have a right to your own opinion – I am fine with that… but when you show your opinion is poorly thought out and contradictory to itself and the law do not be surprised when I call you out on it. I find that fun. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I have shown you where by federal regulation none of the four lead to abortions. You claim all four do but show *no* support for them.

    In other words: you have opinion, I have data and facts.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    “You’re a teacher”. You’re welcome.

    In any case, where did I say I was a teacher, and what is the relevance to this discussion? Oh, none. You simply are unable to back your points so you are working to move goal posts. Again.

    Come on, why are you so afraid to say if you believe “sincere” beliefs should be able to get you out of legal obligations to financially compensate someone.

    The reason is clear: you know it is a completely indefensible stand… you know the SCOTUS case is completely absurd.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You cannot figure out many things. Fine. You also work to pull in as many irrelevant things as you can as you try to deal with your humiliation. I am find with that, too… and you see, to be.

    But no matter what your *opinion* is, by federal regulation Plan B is a contraceptive and does not lead to abortion. This is even noted in the decision. It is not under debate that some people disagree with the legal standing.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Individuals must have health care or get a tax penalty. Corporations get a tax credit for providing comprehensive health benefits. There is no penalty for not providing this benefit.

    And you still have not answered the question: Do you agree that “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)?

    You keep weaseling out of it. Running. Waving your white flag.

    But let us just go with what you said as you weaseled out of it: if my religion finds it objectionable to have to pay Hobby Lobby for goods then I should be able to get out of paying for those goods, right, and should be able to get whatever I want from their stores for free.

    But why a religious “organization”? Why do I need others to organize to have my religious beliefs respected? And what if my religion believes your rights are objectionable? Any reason why my religion cannot prevent you from having free speech or owning a gun?

    And you shot yourself in the foot again. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    True: it does not matter what you believe. And the SCOTUS ruling is the law of the land.

    But it is funny how before you seemed to think your views were correct and defendable – and have now completely backed off even pretending that is the case. This is fun. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You still did not answer the question. It is really fun watching you squirm.

    But I will happily answer yours (I am far more confident in my views than you are in yours): I do not believe Hobby Lobby should get special privileges based on their religion. Government should not back any religion, and when they make exceptions for Christianity they are wrong to do so. Even when they include other religions, it is wrong for the government to back religions. There should be no tax breaks, no special rules for them, no legal benefits at all. Now there can be for helping the community, such as food banks, and it should not matter if the group running such a thing is tied to a religion or not.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You claim to not be running but you refuse to say if you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others).

    The reason is clear: you know in general the answer is a strong and solid *no*. But you and the SCOTUS believe it is fine to do in this one case which benefits Christianity and is anti-female.

    As far as your question: corporations have no beliefs at all. None. But religious views should not ever be an excuse to discriminate against others or to get tax breaks others would not. Ever. Period. No exceptions.

    Pretty simple, really.

    Now personal beliefs might be used to get out of things like killing others in a draft and the like – but those are not discriminating against others.

  • MI Mitten

    Nice attempt to change the topic!
    Not changing the topic in my view SCOTUS’s ruling is all about the RFRA.

    I was noting it was wrong to claim people are denying this idiotic ruling is now the law of the land.
    I didn’t claim people are denying it’s the law of the land. I was pointing out the hypocrisy.

    It is stupid but it is the law (your opinion)

    And you also dodge the whole point about my being able to get product from Hobby Lobby for free.
    I don’t dodge the whole point because it’s senseless. It’s not apples to apples.

    Still no white flag you projectionist.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I asked you a simple question. You ran. I keep asking. You keep running.

    Do you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)?

    Why does this question frighten you so much?

    And you refuse to speak about my getting free supplies from Hobby Lobby – even though it used the *exact* same logic.

    Your white flag is mighty tattered!

  • MI Mitten

    “There is no penalty…”
    Penalty for not providing insurance: Employers with over 50 employees that do not provide insurance must pay a penalty of $2,000 for every employee in the company if even one employee opts to obtain insurance through an exchange.

    And you still have not answered the question: Do you agree that “sincere” beliefs….
    A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument. [3] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

    You keep weaseling out of it. Running. Waving your white flag.
    Every time I see you’ve typed white flag I have to laugh, projection in the highest.

    ARE YOU REALLY THAT IGNORANT?
    But why a religious “organization”?
    In this case because HL’s asking for RFRA protection.

    Why do I need others to organize to have my religious beliefs respected?
    Read RFRA

    And what if my religion believes your rights are objectionable?
    Read RFRA

    Any reason why my religion cannot prevent you from having free speech or owning a gun?
    Read RFRA

  • MI Mitten

    Watching? do you have access to my web cam and get off on that kind of stuff?

    I do not believe Hobby Lobby should get special privileges based on their religion. So you don’t believe in the RFRA, or just it’s application to HL?

    Government should not back any religion, and when they make exceptions for Christianity they are wrong to do so. Even when they include other religions, it is wrong for the government to back religions. There should be no tax breaks, no special rules for them, no legal benefits at all. Now there can be for helping the community, such as food banks, and it should not matter if the group running such a thing is tied to a religion or not.

    Wow, that’s quite a belief system.

    Does the same hold true for public universities?
    Should anyone/business get tax breaks?
    I’m glad you showed your in the minority in your thinking on tax breaks, I can’t believe you are so against legal regulations (don’t they give the tax exempt statuses ?)

  • MI Mitten

    You frame the question your way I’ll frame it mine.

    The RFRA and the ruling are very clear to me and I agree with the majority on this one.

    Now personal beliefs might be used to get out of things like killing others in a draft and the like – but those are not discriminating against others.(Aren’t they, what if a platoon is forced to fight with only 10 instead of 100 because of objectors?)

  • MI Mitten

    “Do you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)?”

    **********STRAW MAN ALERT**********
    ******
    ** x x **
    ** **
    ******
    |
    | /
    | /
    |
    |
    /
    /

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    No employer is mandated to provide insurance. They get tax breaks if they do.

    And my question is not a straw man – it is a simple question that assumes nothing about your position.

    You also failed to answer why someone’s religious rights should be dependent on how many people are in their religion and how organized they are.

    Bottom line: you are back to waving your white flag.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    One does not need a web cam to watch your responses on here, but if it fits your twisted world view I will tell you that I have tapped into the cameras in the light bulbs in your house. :)

    When I say I do not believe Hobby Lobby or any religious organization should get special privileges based on their beliefs I mean just that. Yes, I know the law does give these groups special privileges and I find it absurd. No, I do not worship the law and think it is flawless.

    If a university is trying to use a religious exception I think they should be denied it as well. Applies to them as much as anyone else.

    Why you would tie this to all tax breaks I do not know – but since you have change the topic (again) I will say I find many tax breaks to be absurd. Why should we give tax breaks / housing assistance to home owners and not renters? And why is this housing assistance more for expensive houses? It is absurd to give more housing assistance to the wealthy than to the poor.

    But this is all off topic – which I guess is fine given how you have given up even trying to make sense on the actual topic. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You refuse to answer the question… and now you are dishonestly claiming it is a straw man. It is not.

    You really are in over your head. Just so you know. :)

  • MI Mitten

    Characterize my responses/view anyway you want, your white panties went from being bunched up over your loss to torn and tattered now.

  • MI Mitten

    “no employer is mandated”? so you disagree with this?

    The Employer Mandate Fee / Employer Shared Responsibility Payment
    The annual employer mandate fee (officially called an Employer Shared Responsibility Payment) is a per employee fee for employers with over 50 full-time equivalent employees who don’t offer health coverage to full-time employees.
    • The employer mandate is based on full-time equivalent employees, not just full-time employees.
    • The fee is based on whether or not you offer affordable health insurance to your employees that provides minimum value (explained below).
    • In 2015 employers with more than 100 FTEs will need to cover 70% of their full-time employees. By 2016 employers with more than 50 FTEs will need to provide coverage to “substantially all” (95%)their full-time employees.
    • The annual fee is $2,000 per employee if insurance isn’t offered (the first 30 full-time employees are exempt).

    As far as you straw man questions go – don’t ask me, ask SCOTUS they decide right?
    Those tattered white panties of yours are about to blow away.

  • MI Mitten

    It is.
    And your tattered white panties are showing.

  • MI Mitten

    Do you believe “sincere” beliefs (if your talking about in the context of the RFRA, yes)
    should allow someone (an individual or a closely held corporation/company, yes)
    to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (to not to be forced to go against their religious beliefs, yes)
    including those that have a direct financial impact on others (by direct financial – impact to the female employees who want the 4 drugs/procedures covered by the ruling, yes)

    It is funny you think your views are correct, they are just your views – “””***as I have showed you***””” .
    Those tattered white panties of yours are blowing in the wind…..

  • Snuffy

    What’s the difference between these 2 things?
    1. Giving you a tax rebate if you buy an energy-saving water heater, storm windows, or electric car (this implies, of course, that you DON’T get the rebate, i.e. you pay a tax, if you DON’T buy those things). Or have a child, support a parent, etc, etc, etc.

    and

    2. Waiving the ACA penalty (tax) if you buy insurance (this implies, of course, that you DON’T get the rebate, i.e. you pay a tax, if you DON’T buy the insurance).

    Either way, you get a tax credit if you buy the thing, and pay more tax if you don’t.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    False accusations… which you are using to avoid the topic and run from questions.

    Meanwhile I have happily answered all of yours.

    Hey, let’s try *again*: Do you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    https://www.healthcare.gov/do-i-have-to-offer-health-coverage-to-my-employees/
    “While no employer must offer coverage …”

    Nobody is being forced to offer coverage.

    And you *still* refuse to answer a simple question: Do you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)?

    Notice how I back my views, answer questions, and otherwise respond in a reasonable way – while you make false accusations and run scared of questions. This is fun. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Do you believe “sincere” beliefs should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)?

    And, yes, I know you will run. Even you know your position is unsupportable. Note, you could answer the question with “It depends” and then explain what it depends on. There is no straw man, no false dichotomy, nor any other logical fallacy in that question nor implied by it. There is simply a question. One that has you running scared.

    Meaning at this point even you know you have an unsupportable position.

  • MI Mitten

    “..based on federal regulations, which is what is relevant here..”

    The RFRA is relevant here, and how it applies to the federal regulation.

    I’ve shown you Plan B.

    Here’s Ella (again from FDA)
    How does ella work?
    ella is thought to work for emergency contraception primarily by stopping or delaying the release of an egg
    from the ovary. It is possible that ella may also work by preventing attachment (implantation) to the
    uterus.

    IUD’s

    How does ParaGard® work?
    “… preventing the egg from attaching (implanting) in the uterus.”

    Go gather up your tattered white panties – I’m not running.

    Meanwhile you keep running from simple “questions” (what are your other straw man questions?) such as if you believe “sincere” beliefs (should allow someone to get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations (including those that have a direct financial impact on others)? asked and answered.

  • MI Mitten

    Asked and answered.

    Gather up your white pantie tatters now.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    OK, so the Sherbert test. Got it! I easily fit the criteria! Based on your answer you back my getting of art supplies from Hobby Lobby without paying!

    Thank you.

    But, of course, you will very predictably back pedal and add more criteria or try to re-define things. Quick, go look up the Sherbert test!

  • MI Mitten

    “Do you believe” asked and answered in detail.

    And, yes, I know you will run. – another example of you being wrong, not running.

    Even you know your position is unsupportable. – projection.

    I have shown my position it is very supportable.

    Meaning at this point even you know you have an unsupportable position. – Obviously you’re in denial,
    Now gather up your white panty tatters and go home.

  • MI Mitten

    OK, so the Sherbert test. Got it!
    Not the Sherbert test, the RFRA – thats the whole point of this discussion.

    I easily fit the criteria! – Really? What ruling do you have to prove that – did you get your fictitious straw man case in front of a judge? Or is it just again your opinion that your stating as fact. Please give a link to the ruling.

    Based on your answer you back my getting of art supplies from Hobby Lobby without paying!
    Um, no I don’t see above.

    Thank you.
    You’re not welcome.

    But, of course, you will very predictably back pedal and add more criteria or try to re-define things.
    Nope
    Quick, go look up the Sherbert test!

    No need to, familiar with it already.

    Quick, go gather up your white panty tatters and go home.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    If you are going to go by federal regulations then Plan B does *not* cause abortions. This is directly from the decision. But you claim to go by federal regulation then immediately flip flop and go with content *contrary* to federal regulation.

    Ah, this is fun. :)

    Even more fun is when you said that all I need to do is follow RFRA (the Sherbert test) to not have to pay Hobby Lobby for cartfuls of art supplies! Can I hire you as my lawyer when I am arrested for doing so? I am sure you will defend me well!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Yes, after about the 10th time you finally answered. Thanks. And your answer shows support for me getting whatever supplies I want from Hobby Lobby for free.

    Thanks!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Yes: you finally did answer (took you a couple days and over a dozen times being asked – but maybe you just had to consider all the aspects very carefully)… and your answer, clearly well considered and thought out, shows complete and total support for my getting art supplies from Hobby Lobby for free.

    Glad you think this is so supportable – I might call on your to help me in court if I get arrested for what some might call “stealing”. Silly people – they do not understand things as well as you do.

    Thanks!

  • MI Mitten

    You said “There is no penalty…”
    Now you’re switching it to
    “Nobody is being forced to offer coverage”?

    Nice try white panty tatters.

    “And you *still* refuse to answer a simple question”

    Asked and answered, WPT.

    Notice how I back my views (by changing them?)
    answer questions(with opinions)
    and otherwise respond in a reasonable way (references to whining, crying, white flag, scared (see below) etc.)
    – while you make false accusations(like I’m running scared?) and run scared of questions. This is fun. :)

    It sure is WPT go look that up it stands for “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””************WHITE PANTY TATTERS******************
    “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

  • MI Mitten

    Yes: you finally did answer (took you a couple days and over a dozen times being asked – but maybe you just had to consider all the aspects very carefully)… and your answer, clearly well considered and thought out, shows complete and total support for my getting art supplies from Hobby Lobby for free.
    Wow! a new record leap for psychological projection.

    “Glad you think this is so supportable”
    Dream on

    “I might call on your to help me in court if I get arrested for what some (all since it is a nonsensical straw man argument)
    might call stealing”.

    “Silly people – they do not understand things as well as you do.”
    Wait, more projection.

    Thanks!

    No thank you for your blatant projection WTP.

  • MI Mitten

    “Yes, after about the 10th time you finally answered. Thanks. And your answer shows support for me getting whatever supplies I want from Hobby Lobby for free.”
    And your answer shows your psychotic projection.

    “Thanks!”
    Your welcome WTP.

  • Ozark Ranger

    Where is the actual solid proof of this event? If it happened, I as a Christian am HORRIFIED, and DO NOT condone the “stoning” of this man, Nor would Jesus. Sick! (btw I do not agree with homosexuality and choose to hate the sin but NOT the sinner…because I am a sinner too. I just sin differently.)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Do you understand the connection between the Sherbert test and RFRA? In any case, based on your comments you back my not having to pay Hobby Lobby for whatever products I get from them.

    Thanks!

    Wait… but as predicted you back pedaled. OK, what part of RFRA do you think I do not fulfill?

    And off you go running – again!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You are the one who said as long as there are no parts of RFRA missing you think one should get special considerations from the law. Why exclude me from that?

    Try to use reason and logic. You might want to find someone to help you with that. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    A bunch of nonsense from you – but not a word as to why RFRA does not apply to my religion and why I should not be able to get free supplies from Hobby Lobby.

    Don’t trip on those laces!

    LOL! Took you a couple days and a dozen posts – at least – to answer the question. My guess: it will take you just as long or longer to even *try* to find a reason why my claim is not as valid as that of Hobby Lobby.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    If you think I am wrong then show it… do not just engage in ad hominem attacks.

    Oh, this is so much fun. You shot yourself in the foot and I am laughing quite a bit. Hey, in a day or two you will actually try to show where I am wrong – after much research, consulting others, and doing whatever else you did when you ran from my question for days.

    Have a great day!

  • MI Mitten

    “If you are going to go by federal regulations”
    (I’m not “going by fed. regs.” as you say, I’m going by SCOTUS’s decision that HL has a valid objection to those regs.)

    Therefore this is moot and mischaracterized- “then Plan B does *not* cause abortions. This is directly from the decision.”
    What’s directly from the decision is HL’s exemption from the 4.

    “But you claim (there you go again) to go by federal regulation then immediately flip flop and go with content *contrary* to federal regulation.”
    No I don’t, you can’t seem to grasp the concept of exemption from federal regulations based on religious beliefs.

    “Ah, this is fun. :)”
    What happened to all of your “you’re running” accusations?

    Even more fun is when you said that all I need to do is follow RFRA (the Sherbert test)
    There are differences in RFRA and Sherbert, so I wouldn’t act as if they are interchangeable.

    “to not have to pay Hobby Lobby for cartfuls of art supplies! Can I hire you as my lawyer when I am arrested for doing so? I am sure you will defend me well!”
    more projection……

  • MI Mitten

    Asked and answered.

  • MI Mitten

    asked and answered

  • MI Mitten

    “Do you understand the connection between the Sherbert test and RFRA? ”

    Yes

    “In any case, based on your comments you back my not having to pay Hobby Lobby for whatever products I get from them. Thanks!”
    Still apples and oranges –
    The court declared that generally applicable laws can incidentally burden religious practices without violating the First Amendment, and that the government does not need to provide any special justification for such laws.

    Wait… but as predicted you back pedaled. OK, what part of RFRA do you think I do not fulfill?
    See above, BTW it’s not what “I” think (I’m not SCOTUS)

    And off you go running – again!

    WPT, do you mean running away? Because you don’t have an instance of that.

  • MI Mitten

    You are the one who said as long as there are no parts of RFRA missing you think one should get special considerations from the law. Why exclude me from that?
    Nice leap WTP, but I’m not falling for it.
    Cry on baby, you don’t like the decision, I think anybody reading gets that.

    Try to use reason and logic. You might want to find someone to help you with that.

    And continue to cast me anyway you want, you’re entitled to your opinion, as am I.

  • MI Mitten

    “If you think I am wrong then show it… do not just engage in ad hominem attacks.”
    Like you when you say I’m running and whining?

    “Oh, this is so much fun. You shot yourself in the foot and I am laughing quite a bit. Hey, in a day or two you will actually try to show where I am wrong – after much research, consulting others, and doing whatever else you did when you ran from my question for days.”
    Gross mischaracterization WPT, I will pick one of your myriad of posts and step by step show any reader your delusional projections.

    No running here, now go gather up your white panty tatters.

  • MI Mitten

    “A bunch of nonsense from you – but not a word as to why RFRA does not apply to my religion and why I should not be able to get free supplies from Hobby Lobby.”
    Asked and answered.

    Don’t trip on those laces!
    Don’t choke on your White panty tatters.

    LOL! Took you a couple days and a dozen posts – at least – to answer the question. My guess: it will take you just as long or longer to even *try* to find a reason why my claim is not as valid as that of Hobby Lobby.
    ROFL, your guess as usual is wrong.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Please quote the part of the the SCOTUS declared that Hobby Lobby has a valid objection to federal regulations.

    Also: you with all your whining you have yet to say why your own ruled would not permit me to get cartloads of art supplies from Hobby Lobby without paying a dime. If you think your view does not allow for this please explain why.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser
  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser
  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Please demonstrate you understand the connection between the Sherbert test and RFRA.

    You claim my getting out of legal obligations is “apples and oranges” to Hobby Lobby doing so but never explain why. Bottom line: you cannot.

    And that is my point. You cannot point to any reason why I should not be able to get cartloads of supplies from Hobby Lobby for free.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    My opinion of the decision is irrelevant here. You are the one claiming I cannot use the same logic to get free products from Hobby Lobby – but you cannot defend your position.

    Again: you cannot find a logical reason where I am wrong. Fun to watch you squirm. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    My noting your running is not an ad hominem. I am very specific as to what you are running from: any logical reason, given what you have shown support for, that I should not be able to get free art supplies from Hobby Lobby.

    You have simply folded. You have no reasoned explanation as to why I should not. So now you whine. So be it.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Well, I have not counted but I am sure we are at least coming close to a dozen posts with you just screeching and not explaining why, based on your own argument, I should not be able to get free art supplies from Hobby Lobby.

    In other words: my guess is proving 100% correct. But, hey, in a day or two more of your screeching and me re-directing you back to the topic you will likely make an effort.

    And then fail. :)

    See… very predictable.

  • MI Mitten

    First off, I refuse to go all over this disqus board to reply to each of your questions. I am not “running” as you say (not whining either) I am deciding in the interest of time to have it out in one place, this is the place.

    “Please quote the part of the the
    (the the?)
    SCOTUS declared (grammar?)
    that Hobby Lobby has a valid objection to federal regulations.”
    “We doubt that the Congress that enacted [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] — or, for that matter, ACA – would have believed it a tolerable result to put family-run businesses to the choice of violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or making all of their employees lose their existing healthcare plans,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.

    “Also: you with all your whining ”
    (take it easy there WPT)

    “you have yet to say why your own ruled”
    (grammar again?)

    “would not permit me to get cartloads of art supplies from Hobby Lobby without paying a dime.”
    Well if you’re taking on the Ginsberg argument it’s just conjecture. If you look at SCOTUS’s decisions and previous cases and laws it does not allow your premise.

    If you think your view does not allow for this please explain why.
    Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the second level of deciding issues using judicial review. The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review (least rigorous) and strict scrutiny (most rigorous). Your cartloads of art supplies….. wouldn’t pass any (can’t believe I really wasted the time to show how wrong you are in your “shopping cart” straw man).

  • MI Mitten

    First off, I refuse to go all over this disqus board to reply to each of your questions. I am not “running” as you say (not whining either) I am deciding in the interest of time to have it out in one place.

  • MI Mitten

    I refuse to go all over this disqus board to reply to each of your questions. I am not “running” as you say (not whining either) I am deciding in the interest of time to have it out in one place.

  • MI Mitten

    First off, I refuse to go all over this disqus board to reply to each of your questions. I am not “running” as you say (not whining either) I am deciding in the interest of time to have it out in one place.

  • MI Mitten

    First off, I refuse to go all over this disqus board to reply to each of your questions. I am not “running” as you say (not whining or squirming either WPT – thats white panty tatters for those of you that just joined us) I am deciding in the interest of time to have it out in one place.

  • MI Mitten

    First off, I refuse to go all over this disqus board to reply to each of your questions. I am not “running” as you say (not whining either) I am deciding in the interest of time to have it out in one place

    http://dailycurrant.com/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-stones-gay-employee-to-death/#comment-1488626297

  • MI Mitten
  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I am asking you one primary question: based on your own comments, why should I not be able to get free good from Hobby Lobby.

    I have also asked you some questions about your off-topic rants you have used to avoid that question, but if you are feeling overwhelmed let’s stick to just that one. I will keep asking you in all your many, many responses until you stop waving your white flag… or one of us gets too bored for this.

    At this point it is pretty clear you are not capable of answering the question but not secure enough to admit to that.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    No need for you to look all over – just answer the question. Based on your own stated views, why should I not be able to use my religion to get free art supplies from Hobby Lobby? You claim it would not pass review – well, of course not unless I had 5 of the 9 Justices as a part of my religion who were biased for me and made an idiotic ruling! That is sorta the point.

    But you cannot show any part I fail to meet as well as Hobby Lobby. You know, using logic and reason. As if you could. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Yeah, clicking a link is so hard for you. LOL! The bottom line: at this point you have completely given up trying to find any reason your own “logic” would not allow me to get free art supplies from Hobby Lobby based on my religion.

    Hmmm, really you gave up immediately. Should be clear about that. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    So still no reason from you why your own logic does not allow me to get free art supplies from Hobby Lobby. OK.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    My this is repetitive… I repeat questions and you repeatedly run. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    So still no answer from you. Got it. At this point it is clear you have no answer why, using your logic, I should not get free art supplies from Hobby Lobby… it is now just a waiting game to see if I get bored asking you the same question or if you get bored running.

    How fun!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I predicted your running from why your own logic does not allow me to get free art supplies from Hobby Lobby.

    And I was right.

    Have a great day!

  • MI Mitten

    Asked and answered WPT, another reason
    SCOTUS’s decision on HL’s ACA exemption via RFRA – exemption from federal regulations – “free art supplies” do not fall under Federal Regulation.
    If ignorance is bliss as they say, it’s no wonder why you’re so happy.

  • MI Mitten

    Asked and answered WPT,
    here’s another reason:
    SCOTUS’s decision on HL’s ACA exemption via RFRA – exemption from federal regulations – “free art supplies” do not fall under Federal Regulation.

    If ignorance is bliss as they say, it’s no wonder why you’re so happy.

  • MI Mitten

    As for the “same logic” argument

    Asked and answered WPT
    but here’s another reason
    SCOTUS’s decision on HL’s ACA exemption via RFRA – exemption from federal regulations – “free art supplies” do not fall under Federal Regulation.
    If ignorance is bliss as they say, it’s no wonder why you’re so happy.

  • MI Mitten

    Asked and answered WPT
    another reason:
    SCOTUS’s decision on HL’s ACA exemption via RFRA – exemption from federal regulations – “free art supplies” do not fall under Federal Regulation.
    If ignorance is bliss as they say, it’s no wonder why you’re so happy.

    Now gather up your tatters.

  • MI Mitten

    Asked and answered WPT, another reason
    SCOTUS’s decision on HL’s ACA exemption via RFRA – exemption from federal regulations – “free art supplies” do not fall under Federal Regulation.
    If ignorance is bliss as they say, it’s no wonder why you’re so happy. ROFL

  • MI Mitten

    “No need for you to look all over – just answer the question.” Asked and answered.

    “You claim it would not pass review…”
    So I did answer yet you repeat “just answer the question?”
    DENIAL
    is a major north-flowing river in northeastern Africa, generally regarded as the longest river in the world.

    “..-well, of course” (OF COURSE? of course you couldn’t get free supplies? of course It was a straw man argument all along, of course I’m right?) thanks for showing the stupidity of the question in the first place, of course you won’t agree.

    “..not unless I had 5 of the 9 Justices as a part of my religion who were biased for me and made an idiotic ruling..” Ah, now we get to the crux of your whining, (pout, pout) IYO it’s an idiotic ruling. And we get to the reason for me jumping in to this forum.
    “The ruling only covers contraceptives” BS projection
    “free art supplies” a straw man that you of course knew didn’t apply.

    But you cannot show any part (one easy part to point out is federal regulation) I fail to meet as well as Hobby Lobby. You know, using logic and reason. As if you could. :)
    “But you cannot show……” get your head out of the sand, you’ve been shown more than once that your straw man argument doesn’t apply.

  • MI Mitten

    “free good (grammar?)”
    Asked and answered.Also see “federal regulations”

    “…boredom…” It must be boring to pick up all of those tatters from your white panties.

    “..pretty clear…” I am more than capable of answering your Aunt Sally, you can’t admit when you’re wrong.

    ***wait this just in, Michael Gasser aka WPT admits that “of course i can’t” get free supplies.

  • MI Mitten

    ***wait this just in, Michael Gasser aka WPT admits that “of course i can’t” get free supplies.

  • MI Mitten

    wait, wait this just in, Michael Gasser aka WPT admits that “of course i can’t” get free supplies.

  • MI Mitten

    This just in, Michael Gasser aka WPT admits that “of course i can’t” get free supplies.

  • MI Mitten

    NEWSFLASH Michael Gasser aka WPT admits that “of course i can’t” get free supplies.

  • MI Mitten

    FROM AP/UPI Michael Gasser aka WPT admits that “of course i can’t” get free supplies.

  • MI Mitten

    MSLSD reports Michael Gasser aka WPT admits that “of course i can’t” get free supplies.

  • MI Mitten

    ***wait this just in, Michael Gasser aka WPT admits that “of course i can’t” get free supplies.

  • MI Mitten

    CNN reports – Michael Gasser aka WPT admits that “of course i can’t” get free supplies.

  • MI Mitten

    On NPR today – Michael Gasser aka WPT admits that “of course i can’t” get free supplies.

  • MI Mitten

    ***wait this just in, Michael Gasser aka WPT admits that “of course i can’t” get free supplies.

  • MI Mitten

    **FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE** Michael Gasser aka WPT admits that “of course i can’t” get free supplies.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ah, so you are saying the only way Hobby Lobby can get away with what the SCROTUS has said they can is because of 18 U.S. Code § 669 – Theft or embezzlement in connection with health care.

    So I would need to make sure my actions would otherwise be a federal theft matter and not a state one.

    Hmmm, best defense yet! But this just means I would have to use the same argument at the state level where the theft laws are defined. No need to go all the way up to the Federal SCROTUS, just the state supreme court.

    But the same logic applies.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser
  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    As predicted, after a dozen or more times of you dodging you would finally *try* to give a reasoned response… after doing research and / or consulting with others (otherwise you would not have run for the first dozen plus responses). You really have no idea how predictable you are.

    In any case, you then posted the same thing multiple times. And I fully responded here: http://dailycurrant.com/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-stones-gay-employee-to-death/#comment-1489920910

    And now we will rinse and repeat. You will wave your white flag for a dozen posts or more and then finally try to figure out why your answer does not fail. I will show you quickly why your attempts to defend this SCROTUS decision do not work.

    And your white flag will wave again.

    This will continue until you get bored with being unable to support your view or I get bored responded to your gross repetition, waving of white flags, logical fallacies, irrational nonsense, etc. But until then I will keep having fun. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I am noting your attempt at logic leads to the conclusion I can. And it does. But this whole thing has gone over your head.

    By the way, I am not a gambler and never been in the World Poker Tournament.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    No idea what your obsession is with the World Poker Tour, but my point – which clearly goes over your head – is that based on your logic I should be able to get art supplies for free from Hobby Lobby.

    And it is fun watching you squirm and fail to try to explain why this is not the case.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I only can based on your logic… well, that and the logic of the SCROTUS. But this whole thing just goes over your head… as you obsess over the World Poker Tour. Weird.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I only can based on what you and the SCROTUS say. The fact it is stupid is the point.

    But my argument is one based on logic and reason – and goes over your head.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Anyone ever tell you that you redundantly repeat yourself over and over in a repetitive way? LOL!

    Anyway, I only get free supplies based on the logic you and the SCROTUS use… as I keep telling you. Good to see you *finally* are starting to understand the point. In a couple more days when you have asked some of your smarter friends to help you, maybe you will come back with a reasoned response.

  • MI Mitten

    “I *ONLY* can based on your logic… well, that *AND* (so it’s not only) the logic of the SCROTUS (so there is logic)
    “But this whole thing just goes over your head… as you obsess (you’re the one obsessing over what you call my white flag/crying/squirming/etc.) over the World Poker Tour (glad you ran and looked up WPT, as I have shown, it refers to your white panties that were bunched up when the decision came out, then were torn to tatters when you lost the argument hence WPT)

  • MI Mitten
  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Wow. You really have a hard time keeping up. I asked you about why I should not be able to get out of what would otherwise be my legal obligations the way the SCROTUS has allowed Hobby Lobby to. You dodged and whined for over a dozen responses… while I patiently waited for you to do research, ask friends, or do whatever else you do as you try to dig your way out of the holes you dig for yourself. Finally you came back with the obligations Hobby Lobby had were federal where the ones I noted are at the state level. I then repled to that: all this means is that my case would not go to the SCROTUS but be a local matter – but the logic still holds… and certainly the morality does.

    So now we are down to you having only a weak legal argument (federal vs. state legal obligations) and absolutely no moral argument.

    In another dozen posts or so, though, perhaps you will find something. Good luck!

    Oh, and you denial that the ruling only covers contraceptive measures is contradicted by the ruling itself (as I have repeatedly quoted to you). Bottom line: you still are completely lost on this SCROTUS decision. You do not even know what it is about.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ah, your famous straw man… where I am showing you *logic* and you are taking it literally and missing the point of the argument entirely. You are good at that!

    Maybe in a dozen more posts you will finally try to address the point as to why I should not both legally and morally be able to get out of legal obligations in exactly the way Hobby Lobby did (with, I grant you, the one exception you have found being that the obligations they got out of are federal while the ones I speak of are at the state level… only took you a few dozen posts to come up with that… but you did. Congrats!)

  • MI Mitten

    Oh so now we’re switching to moral arguments?

  • MI Mitten

    Wow you really have a hard time supporting your opinion.
    1.only applies to contraceptives –
    WRONG
    a) no legal or scientific –
    WRONG

    2.free supplies
    WRONG
    a)weak legal
    WRONG

    3.moral issue
    IYO

    4. ruling itself
    WRONG

    Between your moving goalposts/straw man/changing grounds I believe its you that are lost and have lost :)

  • MI Mitten

    Ah, your famous straw man
    (or Aunt Sally)

    … where I am showing you *logic* (opinion)
    and you are taking it literally (how am I supposed to take it?)

    and missing the point of the argument entirely.
    (What is the point? You should be able to spew your drivel as fact?)

    You are good at that!

    Yes MG you are.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ah, the ol’ “You’re wrong because I say so! And I can make accusations, too!”

    Such an amazing intellect you have! Meanwhile you have yet to find a legal or moral reason why I should not be able to use your logic to get free supplies from Hobby Lobby.

    Go Google it! In a dozen more posts you might even say something relevant!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ah, more accusations and insults from you – and in another couple dozen posts you might get back to the topic and try to explain why, using your logic, I should not legally and morally be able to get free art supplies from Hobby Lobby.

    It is not like I am really going to steal from them or anyone – I am merely noting the error in your claims (and the claims of the SCROTUS).

    Maybe you will get this… if you can end your tantrum over your failure. :)

  • MI Mitten

    Ah, more misconjecture and projection.
    Asked and answered.

    “It is not like I am really going to steal from them…”
    But you said “Excellent. So you support the idea that I can go to Hobby Lobby, get a cart load of art supplies, and walk out without paying”
    Am I taking you *literally* again?

    “I’m right …and …ONLY you, …and …well, SCOTUS is wrong!”
    Keep running with that buddy. There is your tantrum.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You really are not getting this: using the logic you and the SCROTUS use to allow Hobby Lobby to steal from their female employees, I have shown why I should be able to steal from Hobby Lobby. Exact same logic. Exact same legal issues (with the exception you pointed out out of federal vs. state – well done on that by the way!). Exact same morality.

    You have no reasonable response to this so you just go on and on waving your white flag while I laugh at you.

    This is fun. :)

  • MI Mitten

    “You really are not getting this”
    That would be you.

    “… using the logic you and the SCROTUS use to allow Hobby Lobby to steal from their female employees
    LOL – now they’re “stealing from there female employees” – keep moving the goal posts pal.

    I have shown (dream on narcissist) why I should be able to steal from Hobby Lobby. (see straw man or Aunt Sally) Exact same logic.(nope, see your exception below)

    Exact same legal issues (with the exception you pointed out out of federal vs. state – well done on that by the way!).
    It is quite apparent in your world that there are no absolutes – only doesn’t mean only, exact doesn’t mean exact, etc.

    Exact same morality.
    Wrong, objecting to a federal government imposed mandate for religious reasons isn’t morally equivalent to stealing from a business because you don’t like that they have won a case.

    You have no reasonable response
    (projection, why not include everyone can see…) to this so you just go on and on waving your white flag (never mind I see we’re back to white flag) while I laugh at you.
    And I laugh at you running around picking up the tatters of your white panties that were in a bunch over this.

    This is fun.

    Finally, something I can agree to.

  • MI Mitten

    Exact same legal issues (with the exception you pointed out out of federal vs. state – well done on that by the way!).

  • MI Mitten

    moral?

  • MI Mitten

    Only because I didn’t want to respond to your Aunt Sally. – You’re going to go back retract your incorrect straw man now right?

  • MI Mitten

    Justice Samuel Alito, the George W. Bush appointee who penned the majority opinion, went to great lengths to write a limited decision, stressing that the ruling should only apply to Obamacare’s contraception regulations, and that other employers shouldn’t cite Hobby Lobby to justify opposing other laws. “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate,” Alito wrote, “and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.”

  • MI Mitten

    Says the guy that has typed “white flag” and running 50+ times.

  • MI Mitten

    There’s that misuse of only again.

  • MI Mitten

    “White Panty Tatters” in reference to you.

  • MI Mitten

    I am noting that your are aka WPT White Panty Tatters.

  • MI Mitten

    Is it fun picking up your tatterings?

  • MI Mitten

    No that is not what “I’m saying”, nice try though. the rest of comment is moot ramblings.

  • CMac

    This has to be BS or I’m becoming an illegal Mexican to live free off of the Government.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Goal posts never changed: you cannot find a reason why your logic to allow Hobby Lobby to get out of their legal responsibilities does not also apply to me and my getting supplies from Hobby Lobby.

    In both cases we have a religious objection to what would otherwise be a legal requirement to compensate someone else.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You are *finally* getting this. The decision of the SCROTUS is an exception based on one religious view (not religion in general) and goes against women (but was decided on by men) and is not something based on general rules nor should it be applied to anything else because it makes no sense.

    Took you a long time to get there… and you will certainly back pedal now that you have made it clear you get why this decision was a bad one.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    A concept foreign to you. Got it.

    No wonder you cannot figure out why the SCROTUS decision was not moral.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    At this point you have no point – your logic backed you in a corner.

    Again: if sincere beliefs are now enough to get you out of legal obligations regarding compensating others, there is no legal or moral reason why I should not be able to get out of my legal obligation to compensate Hobby Lobby for goods I get from them.

    Simple concept that has blown your mind.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    It is fun noting how you cannot find a reason why Hobby Lobby should be able to get out of compensating others but I should still have to compensate them.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You are the one who tied it to federal regulations – so which ones did you mean other than the one I pointed to.

    Oh.

    You have no idea what you are talking about.

    Again.

  • lfrohling

    This has got to be a joke. This cant be serious just because someone believes lies written in a book written hundreds of years by people who never met the man who starred in it (as that man had died hundreds of years before). I mean it talks about a burning bush = burning weed = marijuana for God’s sake. OK, I start a religion that forces young 18 year old model girls to sleep with me and any girls who don’t have to die. Anyone wanna join my religion?

  • MI Mitten

    nice try

  • MI Mitten

    “hence once reason”?

  • MI Mitten

    M Gasser “..there is no scientific evidence..”

    Me
    66% (1154) of the doctors responded to the questionnaire

    57% answered – at conception

    28% answered – at implantation

    16% answered – not sure

    Scientific evidence.

  • MI Mitten

    your running

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Good grief. You have already posted a dozen times *today* in response to me and have yet to figure out why, using your logic or the logic of the SCROTUS, I should not be able to go to Hobby Lobby and, using my sincerely held beliefs, both morally and legally get out of my legal obligation to pay for any goods I walk out with.

    A dozen posts from you with nothing but *failure*. And that is just today. Not going to waste my time responding to each and every one of your failures.

    Bottom line: you have tacitly acknowledged defeat.

  • MI Mitten

    Ok, NOW it’s about men vs. women?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    If you can get past your black and white world view you would be able to see there is more than one aspect to this.

    In any case: good that you finally see how absurd this SCROTUS decision is.

  • MI Mitten

    How about your ever changing shades of grey?

  • MI Mitten

    LOL – Me thinks your projector needs a new lamp.

  • MI Mitten

    * * “It’s only about contraception”
    * *
    ******
    **
    **
    * * “No legal or scientific basis”
    * *
    *******
    **
    **

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    001

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    002

  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    003

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    004

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    005

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    007

  • MI Mitten

    “Exact same legal issues” (definition of exact?) “with the exception you pointed out out of federal vs. state – well done on that by the way”

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    006

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Count of your dodges is over a dozen now. Likely over two.

    Have fun getting the last word… you have nothing of value to say. But let us be clear: using your own “logic” – of which you have none – there is no good legal [1] or moral reason I should not be able to use your argument to get out of paying Hobby Lobby for supplies.

    [1] The only “reason” being a biased exception noted in the SCROTUS decision which supports one religion over others, to the detriment of society.

  • MI Mitten

    pending for 2 hrs.

  • MI Mitten

    Have

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Good grief. You are freaking out over:

    1) You cannot find a legal or moral reason why, given the “logic” of the SCROTUS decision, I should not be able to use *my* religious freedom to get out of my legal obligations as Hobby Lobby has done with theirs. (Keep in mind this is excluding the idiotic pro-Christian, anti-female exceptions included in the decision itself… no reasonable person is actually saying the SCROTUS decision makes sense).

    2) You cannot accept that by federal regulation Plan B is a contraceptive and does not lead to abortions. Also, you ignore how you have been shown specific scientific information backing this. The fact some people disagree with this is not relevant – another point you miss.

    3) You ignore how contraceptive measures and *only* contraceptive measures are covered by the SCROTUS decision (as stated in the decision itself).

    4) You ignore how the only way Hobby Lobby gets any benefit from this is to have a view which is in contrast to the federal regulations. If they were to accept the federal regulations then they would get no benefit. They must “sincerely” believe items which are, legally, *only* contraceptive measures actually do something else.

    And you go on and on and on and on and on – begging for attention without ever really making a point or showing any understanding. Now I have reduced the amount of attention I am giving you your reaction is to beg even stronger.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    not!

    I mean, really – this is silly. You are now down to saying you could back your view, and maybe even have backed your view, but you currently will not back your view.

    This is you waving your white flag… as you beg for attention and bring up every off-topic piece of information you can.

    If your goal is to bore me until you get the last word you are “winning”. Good for you. But we both know you have yet to find a moral or legal reason why I should not be able to use the same logic Hobby Lobby did and get out of my legal obligations as they got out of theirs (well, other than the fact that the SCROTUS made a specific pro-Christian, anti-female exception that you support based on your own bigotry and nothing else).

  • MI Mitten

    1) “You cannot….”
    hey we’re back to using “unnecessary quotes”
    SHOWN legal: tests and federal vs state
    your quote “with the exception you pointed out out of federal vs. state – well done on that by the way”
    SHOWN moral: morality is very subjective, ie an atheists morality may be different than a believers
    “Keep in mind….NO REASONABLE…”
    Hyperbole

    2)”You cannot….”
    “Plan B is not an abortifacient by federal standards”
    Yes
    “and does not lead to abortions”
    No – it doesn’t by federal standards but by HL’s it could.
    “specific scientific information…”
    And you’ve been shown contradicting scientific information.
    “The FACT that some people disagree with this is not relevant ”
    It is wholly relevant, hence the case in the first place. Another point YOU miss.

    3)”You ignore how contraceptive measures…”
    No I don’t the SCOTUS decision affirms for profit corporation the same relief as HHS gave to non-profits.
    “HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.
    Furthermore:
    “The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

    Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

    4)”You ignore…”
    Ignore it? I think that is a poor word choice on your part, The RFRA was enacted to give protections to someone when their view is in contrast with federal regulations. To characterize it as a “benefit” is one way of looking at it, but to look at it as having objectionable drugs/procedures is also another.
    Okay, more needless “”””‘s and ****’s bla, bla, the measures can do something else.

    “begging…..”
    The only begging here is you hoping (not praying) people don’t read your posts – more importantly my responses – that illuminate your ignorance.

  • MI Mitten

    PS – Third paragraph of #3 takes care of your straw man “free goods” :)

  • MI Mitten

    Done, just waiting for Daily Currant to take it out of pending status……..

  • MI Mitten

    “The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

    Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

    BAM BAM AND BAM :)

  • MI Mitten

    And I put it in Black and White. :)

  • MI Mitten

    “The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.
    Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

  • MI Mitten

    :)

  • MI Mitten

    Asked and answered in detail…….

  • MI Mitten

    “The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

    Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

  • MI Mitten

    Post

  • MI Mitten

    “The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

    Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Your answer was to say that federal regulations should include the option that Plan B does something other than what federal regulations say it does.

    And then your head exploded. :)

  • Guest

    Still pending approval – so posted as image.

  • Guest

    Still waiting approval, so posted as an image.

  • Guest

    ..

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser
  • Kevin Yates

    It’s the individual’s responsibility, or perhaps places like this should then provide you and I with condoms? No? hmmmm.

  • MI Mitten

    That’s not what I said at all.

    RFRA allows exemption from federal regulations.
    If you had enough brainpower to distinguish between the two maybe you head would let out a little pop.

  • MI Mitten

    1) I have named the federal tests they are:

    Rational basis
    Generally, the Supreme Court judges legislation based on whether it has a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest. This is called rational basis review. For example, a statute requiring the licensing of opticians is permissible because it has the legitimate state objective of ensuring the health of consumers, and the licensing statutes are reasonably related to ensuring their health by requiring certain education for opticians. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955).
    (There is no rational basis for stealing art supplies)

    Intermediate scrutiny
    Under the Equal Protection Clause, when the law targets a “quasi-suspect” classification, such as gender, the courts apply intermediate scrutiny, which requires the law to be substantially related to an important government interest. It is more strict than rational basis review but less strict than strict scrutiny.
    (There is no government interest in stealing art supplies.)

    Other forms of intermediate scrutiny are applied in other contexts. For example, under the Free Speech Clause, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are subject to a form of intermediate scrutiny.

    Strict scrutiny
    If, however, the statute impinges on a fundamental right, such as those listed in the Bill of Rights or the due process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment, then the court will apply strict scrutiny. This means the statute must be narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. For example, a statute restricting the amount of funds that a candidate for public office may receive in order to reduce public corruption is unconstitutional because it is overly broad and impinges the right to freedom of speech. It affects not only corrupting individual contributions, but also non-corrupting expenditures from their own personal or family resources, as well as other sources that may not exhibit a corrupting influence. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
    (Stealing art supplies is not a federal right)

    The courts will also apply strict scrutiny if the law targets a suspect classification, such as race. For example, there is no fundamental right to be an optician (as explained above), but if the state only requires licenses of African Americans (and not opticians of other races), that double standard would receive strict scrutiny, and would likely be ruled unconstitutional.

    In you world of morals two wrongs make a right. In the real world it is not true.

  • MI Mitten

    2) Yes I do claim Plan B can lead to abortion, the Federal Drug Administration makes it clear that it can stop a zygote from attaching. I know your definition of abortion and the federal standards, just like you know HL’s definition and the federal ruling of their exemption.

    Princeton link leads to nowhere, my U of Chicago survey paste is real

    SCOTUS and my point are not to redefine pregnancy, but to offer RFRA protection to organizations with differing definitions.

    “insist menstruation is a form of abortion” – your hyperboles are getting very tired.

    “Even if we do these things, this is contrary to federal regulation”
    Again with the federal regulation? Federal regulations can be challenged to their validity, I think we both agree that a persons skin color doesn’t reduce him/her to 3/5th of a person.

    SCOTUS didn’t give anyone special legal privileges, you’ve twisted again in what happened here.
    Follow closely:
    THE HHS (FEDERAL) ALLOWED NON-PROFIT RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS EXEMPTION (REGULATED) FROM THESE 4 DRUGS/PROCEDURES (IS THE HHS ALL MEN AND CHRISTIAN?)
    SCOTUS ALLOWED HL’S (A FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION) THE SAME EXEMPTION.

  • MI Mitten

    3) “corporations are not people….”
    Tell that to HHS – they exempted corporations.
    Dishonest reasoning on your part.

  • MI Mitten

    4) “right to not compensate…..”

    Again addressed in the decision (and you have been shown this)
    Is Sebelius a Christian man?

    A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
    In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.

    After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.

    Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.

    This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good. And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws and regulations give to health care providers.

  • MI Mitten

    The shame is all yours.

  • MI Mitten

    THE HHS (FEDERAL) ALLOWED NON-PROFIT RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS EXEMPTION (REGULATED) FROM THESE 4 DRUGS/PROCEDURES (IS THE HHS ALL MEN AND CHRISTIAN?)
    SCOTUS ALLOWED HL’S (A FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION) THE SAME EXEMPTION.

  • MI Mitten

    The shame is all yours.

    THE HHS (FEDERAL) ALLOWED NON-PROFIT RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS EXEMPTION (REGULATED) FROM THESE 4 DRUGS/PROCEDURES (IS THE HHS ALL MEN AND CHRISTIAN?)
    SCOTUS ALLOWED HL’S (A FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION) THE SAME EXEMPTION.

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten

    01

  • MI Mitten

    02

  • MI Mitten

    03

  • MI Mitten

    04

  • MI Mitten

    05

  • MI Mitten

    06

  • MI Mitten

    07

  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten

    Does HHS have a legal or moral reason?

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

  • MI Mitten

    Counting your BS is in the dozens now, in your view HHS are bigots.

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten

    Again with compensate, bury that dead horse your beating with this federal departments release:

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

  • MI Mitten

    “you and the SCROTUS…. ”

    I think you mean me and HHS:

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten

    “no legal or moral….”

    Is this why Katherine quit?

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten

    Not SCOTUS logic. Not even a christian man’s logic.

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten

    It really is time for you to take your white panty tatters and go home.

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

  • MI Mitten

    It is really fun if people click this link.

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten

    I predicted your blaming the wrong people.

    And I was right.

    Have a great day!

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Can you explain how is it the individuals responsibility to provide the health care coverage that the employer is getting a tax break to provide?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ah, so it is only federal regulations you think I should be able to get out of. Any that you think I should not be able to… as long as they go against my sincerely held beliefs?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You posted over 60 times to day. That is called a “tantrum”. Seriously, my kids would know better than to do that when they were 2 (assuming they could post a message at all!)

    Good grief… just admit you have lost an online debate and have no moral or legal reason why others should not get the same benefits as Hobby Lobby does, even in regards to getting out of other legal obligations (with the exception, of course, being the idiotic legal comments in the SCROTUS decision that specifically limit the decision to the pro-Christian, anti-woman benefits Hobby Lobby got).

  • MI Mitten

    Yet all of my posts are just replies to yours, and you have other discussions going too.

    What is that called?

    From Organizing for Action:

    THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUT IN PLACE RULES THAT WILL ENSURE WOMEN CAN RECEIVE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION WHILE RESPECTING THE BELIEFS OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

    UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, INSURERS WILL COVER CONTRACEPTION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED PREVENTIVE SERVICES FOR WOMEN WITH NO OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS

    So then by your flawed logic Obama is anti-woman?

  • MI Mitten

    Don’t ask me, ask Barak:

    THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUT IN PLACE RULES THAT WILL ENSURE WOMEN CAN RECEIVE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION WHILE RESPECTING THE BELIEFS OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

    UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, INSURERS WILL COVER CONTRACEPTION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED PREVENTIVE SERVICES FOR WOMEN WITH NO OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS

  • MI Mitten

    Game, set, and match.:)

  • MI Mitten

    So then what does that make you?
    A one year old throwing a hairy conniption?

  • Guest

    By all means, explain what you think they are doing that is “anti-women”… a side issue, of course, on your inability to explain why I and others should not be able to get out of any federal regulation we want by merely claiming we have a “sincere” belief it is wrong (based on our religion, of course – simple moral beliefs not tied to religions are places on a second tier… which is absurd in itself but a different topic).

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    By all means, do explain what you think they are doing that is “anti-women”… a side issue, of course, on your inability to explain why I and others should not be able to get out of any federal regulation we want by merely claiming we have a “sincere” belief it is wrong (based on our religion, of course – simple moral beliefs not tied to religions are places on a second tier… which is absurd in itself but a different topic).

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    it makes me the guy who inspired you to publicly throw a toddler tantrum simply because you could not find a moral or legal reason why others should not get the same benefits as Hobby Lobby does, even in regards to getting out of other legal obligations (with the exception, of course, being the idiotic legal comments in the SCROTUS decision that specifically limit the decision to the pro-Christian, anti-woman benefits Hobby Lobby got).

    The fact this is driving you so crazy – to the point of such tantrums – does amuse me. I admit that… and perhaps it does not speak well of me. Oh well.

  • MI Mitten

    “… being the idiotic legal comments in the SCROTUS decision that specifically limit the decision to the pro-Christian, anti-woman benefits Hobby Lobby got).

    The Obama administration (HHS) made this carve-out not SCOTUS, so when you say SCOTUS is anti-woman don’t you mean the Obama administration (HHS)?

    HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries.

  • MI Mitten

    Now you inspired me – HA!

    What inspired you to post more than me and to count my postings in you conniptive state (you have more – again what does that make you?).

    Did I inspire you?

    “..couldn’t find a moral”
    and
    “with the exception, of course, being the idiotic legal comments in the SCROTUS decision that specifically limit the decision to the pro-Christian, anti-woman benefits Hobby Lobby got).

    Let’s try this again, SCOTUS’s ruling:
    HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services(HHS not SCOTUS).
    Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan (HL) and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing ANY COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries (WOMEN).

    So then by your reasoning:
    HHS is the one who says it’s “ok for you to fill up you cart with supplies” not SCOTUS right?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Hmmm, still no explanation as to why you think Obama is anti-women (he is not the one who made this idiotic SCROTUS decision and has even spoken out against it).

    And, of course, all of this is a dodge from you because you cannot explain why I and others should not be able to get out of any federal regulation we want by merely claiming we have a “sincere” belief it is wrong (based on our religion, of course – simple moral beliefs not tied to religions are places on a second tier… which is absurd in itself but a different topic).

    One more chance… then you can throw another tantrum and post 60+ times in a sad, pathetic attempt to get attention.

    And at some point – my choice – I will likely give it to you. Just enough to keep you going. It is a bit of a game at this point… face it, you will never actually get to the real point – you are just freaking out.

    Have a great day!

  • MI Mitten

    So then by your flawed logic Obama is anti-woman?

    Never said Obama was anti-women. Are you really that thick headed?

    And your reason to miscast my question as a statement is your failing.

    It is not a dodge, as anyone reading this can see, you are dodging multiple questions .

    “…you cannot explain…” yet I have explained, I can get out thanks to the Obama administration/HHS.

    One more chance…..
    Admit that it was the Obama administration/HHS that allowed the sincere beliefs objection.

    At this point, my choice (who’s else would it be?) I will clearly not give it to you, face it you can’t admit your “free goods because of SCOTUS” was wrong.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Obama has specifically come out against this decision… but yet you blame him for it.

    Comes down to you not being able to find a moral or legal reason why others should not get the same benefits as Hobby Lobby does, even in regards to getting out of other legal obligations (with the exception, of course, being the idiotic legal comments in the SCROTUS decision that specifically limit the decision to the pro-Christian, anti-woman benefits Hobby Lobby got).

  • MI Mitten

    But you are?
    You know, with your shopping cart. :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Good grief – you still do not get it: neither Hobby Lobby nor I are religious organizations. And yet you (and the SCROTUS) believe Hobby Lobby should get benefits as if they were. So why should I not? And while we are at it, why not get any other relevant benefits? I merely need have a sincere belief to get out of any federal regulation, right?

    Your level of incomprehension is both sad and amusing.

  • MI Mitten

    Neither are you with your free supplies.

    HHS exempted religious non profit organizations.

    Although [The Department of Health and Human Services] has made this [accommodation] system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

  • MI Mitten

    Me:
    So then by your flawed logic Obama is anti-woman?

    MG:
    Obama has specifically come out against this decision… but yet you blame him for it.

    I don’t blame him for it, I thank him for it. Without his administrations policy, HL might not have won.

    Although [The Department of Health and Human Services] has made this [accommodation] system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Neither I nor Hobby Lobby are a religious organization. Are you finally figuring this out?

    What you cannot explain is why they get special privileged to get out of responsibilities that I do not. But keep working to change the topic!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You are the one who said Obama was anti-woman. Not me.

    But this is all a side show. You cannot explain why Hobby Lobby gets special privileged I and other non-religious people and groups do not.

    Because there is no good legal or moral reason.

    But hey, keep working to move those goal posts. I will keep the focus right on the actual SCROTUS decision.

  • MI Mitten

    You say:
    Government should not back any religion, and when they make exceptions for Christianity they are wrong to do so. (remember this one? I do, now quick go delete it, oh wait too late, I captured it.)

    The Obama administration says:
    This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good.

    SCOTUS says:
    HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections.

    Your level of incomprehension is both sad and not amusing.

  • MI Mitten

    HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections.

  • MI Mitten

    This is ridiculous, you have got to be the most narrow minded twisting idiot I have ever had a conversation with.

    “You are the one who said Obama was anti-woman. Not me”

    Where and exactly where and how did I say that?

    Not here “So then by your flawed logic Obama is anti-woman?”

    Please somebody else comment on this babbling fool.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You keep missing the part about your inability to find a reason Hobby Lobby should get special privileges I do not get.

    Oh well. This is getting tedious.

  • MI Mitten

    Your saying Obama is anti-women?

  • MI Mitten

    Says who?

  • MI Mitten

    No, I thank him for it.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Thank you for your admission that you think in terms of removing your content. I can see why *you* would want to do so.

    At this point you are still a dying fish flopping on the ground, unable to think of a single moral or legal reason why Hobby Lobby should get special privileged others do not.

    Once you answer that (which you never will) I might be willing to follow you down the rabbit hole of your side issues. Until then, though, i shall just remind you of your failure. :)

  • MI Mitten

    Oh, is that was this is all about you?

  • MI Mitten

    Thank you for your admission that you are a jackass that projects.

    At this point you are searching for yet another straw man or mysoginist or religious slam when all along HHS should be your target.

    Another question you will dodge/run from/cry about/wet you white panty tatters over:

    Did you complain about HHS’s mandate?

    THEY AREN’T GETTING A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
    They are getting an exemption through HHS’s policy (thanks HHS, I was told it was through MEN that were CHRISTIANS but the whole time it was you) and ineptitude in defending why it doesn’t apply to for profit vs. non profit.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    It also provides no reason why I should not get special privileges, either! Based on your response there is no reason for me to not get special privileges based on my beliefs. Thanks!

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Better get some friends to help you.

    The fact is: when you failed to find any legal or moral reason for me to not get special privileges, as Hobby Lobby does, you changed the topic to some nonsense about Obama being anti-woman.

  • MI Mitten

    Me, me, me……
    What is your definition of special privileges dodger?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    What saying are you saying is mine? Whatever – does not matter.

    Please stop dodging. You have yet to find a legal or moral reason why I should not get special privileges for my beliefs – as Hobby Lobby gets for theirs.

    The rest is just nonsense from you. We can explore your “sayings” and claims of Obama being anti-woman *after* you stop running.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You now need documentation that Hobby Lobby and I are not religious organizations?

    OK, at this point you are just waving your white flag as you beg for attention.

  • MI Mitten

    Better pack a lunch buddy.

    The fact is: you said Obama was anti-women because he is a Christian man.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You thank Obama for this idiotic SCROTUS decision he has spoken out against. My goodness you are lost. But let us not talk in detail about that until you admit you cannot find a moral or legal reason why others should not get the same benefits as Hobby Lobby does, even in regards to getting out of other legal obligations (with the exception, of course, being the idiotic legal comments in the SCROTUS decision that specifically limit the decision to the pro-Christian, anti-woman benefits Hobby Lobby got).

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    As far as my interaction with you, the only topic worth focusing on is your complete and utter inability to find a moral or legal reason why others should not get the same benefits as Hobby Lobby does, even in regards to getting out of other legal obligations (with the exception, of course, being the idiotic legal comments in the SCROTUS decision that specifically limit the decision to the pro-Christian, anti-woman benefits Hobby Lobby got).

  • MI Mitten

    Don’t need documentation, you can speak for yourself but not HL.

  • MI Mitten

    I thank Obama for the religious Carve-out you hate:)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Wow: I finally shamed you into trying to defend your claims. But you make a number of mistakes.

    1) The reason you give that Hobby Lobby can get out of what would otherwise be their legal obligations and others cannot is:

    Legally: Some federal “test” you cannot name or explain why it would not apply to other situations (without, of course, referring to the very decision in question that is clearly pro-Christian and anti-woman)

    Morally: No moral reason at all. This is key – if this pro-Christian, anti-women, irrational decision is deemed morally correct, so should my walking into Hobby Lobby and leaving with product without paying.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ah, name calling and false accusations. The best you can do.

    In any case, the whole decision was about if Hobby Lobby should get special privileges based on claiming they have “sincerely held beliefs” based on Christianity.

    And the SCROTUS decided they could. And you have been unable to give a legal or moral reason I should not be able to as well.

    Anyway, this is getting tedious and I am shall ignore you for a while if you if you do not try in your next response. Your very next response. Yo have had dozens of chances – and failed repeatedly. Frankly you are not worth the time I have given you.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I have no clue what a “special privilege dodger” is and do not care. What is clear is you cannot give a legal or moral reason why I and others should not also get special privileges when Hobby Lobby does.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ah, what a game. Let me play!

    You said you were a penguin in your previous life and have a birthmark that looks like a flipper!

    But that does not help you with your inability to explain why I and others should not morally and legally get special privileges in the same way Hobby Lobby does.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    OK, fine. I am a religious organization – whatever. One you cannot find a legal or moral reasons why I should not get special privileges just as Hobby Lobby does.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I thank Obama for standing up the SCROTUS and speaking out against this pro-Christian, anti-woman decision.

    But none of this is even relevant – keep in kind the topic is your complete and utter inability to find any legal or moral reason I should not get special privileges just as Hobby Lobby does.

    You have failed over 100 times now. That is remarkable. I truly have never seen anyone online fail as spectacularly as you have.

    OK. That was your current “run” of posts. You now have *one* chance to actually try to stay on topic and explain a moral and legal reason why I should not be able to get special privileges just like Hobby Lobby.

    You will fail, by the way. That is a certainty.

    And then you will be ignored for a while and you will beg harder and harder for attention. You will cry and scream and name call and throw another toddler tantrum. It is not as if you are the first troll I have seen online. You are very predictable.

  • MI Mitten

    Here is the reason, and I thank Obama for this:

    I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.

    You know of course his appointee issued this statement, and BHO did not come out in opposition of it.

  • MI Mitten

    They are not getting special privileges.

  • MI Mitten

    Ah, what a game – 20+ instances of you doing this!

    And it does not help you with your inability to explain why the HHS carve-out that BHO praised is not derided by you.

  • MI Mitten

    Okay simpleton,
    define special privilege.

  • MI Mitten

    There you go again with those “special privileges” have you defined exactly what they are yet?

    ” …I am shall ignore you…”
    Now instead of sounding like Bizarro, you sound like Solomon Grundy. ROFL

  • MI Mitten

    Wow such hatred of HHS and BHO

    This is key – if this pro-Christian, anti-women, irrational decision (remember its Sebelius that said I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. BHO praised it.) is deemed morally correct, so should my walking into Hobby Lobby and leaving with product without paying.

    I guess you’ll have to talk to them, maybe they believe you can walk out of a church with a dozen communion wafers and a gallon of holy water. LOL

  • MI Mitten

    Sebelius says -“…The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services…..I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. ”

    So according to her I can walk out of church with a cart load of vestments and some of those incense thingies right?

  • MI Mitten

    I thank Obama for this:
    A statement by Katherine Sebelius:

    “This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good.”

  • MI Mitten

    A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

    In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.

    After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.

    Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.

    This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good. And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws and regulations give to health care providers.

  • MI Mitten

    MG finally admitted defeat and removed dozens of his posts (I wonder if he still gets paid for them if he deletes them?).

    The argument killer was the HHS carve-out:

    A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
    In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.
    After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.
    Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.
    This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good. And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws and regulations give to health care providers.

  • MI Mitten

    It’s HHS that did the carve out:
    A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
    “…will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.
    After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.

    Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.

    This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good. And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws and regulations give to health care providers.

  • MI Mitten

    I believe people should read the HHS carve-out:

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Unlike you, who openly denied things you were shown from the decision, I am not denying any of that. Your quoting of it, though, is a direct dodge of our inability to find why I should not be able to get special privileges based on my religious views. The logic is the exact same: Hobby Lobby is getting special privileged based on the idea they are “religious” even though they are not a religious organization.

    So why should I not get the same type of special privileges? Why should these privileges be limited to pro-Christian, anti-female items that benefit these for-profit organizations?

    Other than to quote the actual decision which sets up this insane limitation there is no legal reason – as was made very clear in the dissent of the decision by the SCOTUS. Now extend that to moral reasons and you have even less.

    That is the point. And that is what you keep avoiding and working to obfuscate with long quotes from things which are not in contention. You have avoided this point – ran away waving your white flat – for over 100 posts now. You are not going to suddenly change and actually give a reasoned response now… if you were capable you would have long ago.

    Or maybe you are doing more research and getting some friends to help you. That is almost surely the case given your repeated pattern of waving your white flag for many posts and then making a generally flawed attempt to redeem yourself. With that said, you did bring up the federal regulation vs. state regulation argument which, while weak legally (for the overall point) and useless morally, it did have some teeth to it. I commend you (or your friends you get help from) for that.

  • MI Mitten

    Still haven’t defined special privilage.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    There are excellent dictionaries online. Not biting and allowing you to side track this. But notice, again, how you failed to give a single legal or moral reason why I (and others) should not – like Hobby Lobby – get special privileges for our beliefs.

  • MI Mitten

    If you would define your meaning of special privileges I could.

  • MI Mitten

    Here, let me help you(or you and your friends working on this), how about this:

    a legally endorsed privilege granted exclusively to some individual or group

  • MI Mitten

    You dropped the “SCROTUS”?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/special%20privilege

    But you still will not even after I help you use a dictionary (I keep answering you questions as you run from mine). Your white flag is 100% predictable.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser
  • MI Mitten

    typed this 19 minutes ago:

    a legally endorsed privilege granted exclusively to some individual or group?

  • MI Mitten

    “Other than to quote the actual decision which sets up this insane limitation there is no legal reason –

    Did you miss my post on the HHS Carve-out?

    Unlike you I don’t look to blame Christian men for this decision, I look at the decision and where they drew from – Katherine Sebelius.

    “as was made very clear in the dissent of the decision by the SCOTUS. Now extend that to moral reasons and you have even less.”

    Moral reasons to apply the HHS carve-out to HL:
    I believe as KS said:
    “This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty.”
    It is morally right to carefully consider the contraception mandate in the framework of religious liberty.

    “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

    I too believe legally and morally the HHS carve-out strikes the right balance.

    “The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services.”
    A morally correct choice.

    “… will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception.”
    Again morally right.
    “Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services.”

    Yet again morally right.

  • MI Mitten

    She added that the contraception coverage requirement was vital to women’s health and reproductive freedom. Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan joined almost all of her dissent, but they said there was no need to take a position on whether corporations may bring claims under the religious liberty law

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    And you are still dodging. As predicted: you cannot find any legal or moral reason why I should not also get special privileges based on my beliefs, the way the SCROTUS has said Hobby Lobby can (there, added it back for you).

    In any case, you have already ran away multiple times today. As I said, you have *no* reasoned response to this. You simply dodge and wave your white flag. Boring… so expect to be ignored for a while as you beg for my attention.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Again no answer from you: So why should I not get the same type of special privileges? Why should these privileges be limited to pro-Christian, anti-female items that benefit these for-profit organizations? What would push things past a “balance” for you?

    Why does this question scare you so much?

  • Guest

    Responded 20 minutes ago.

  • MI Mitten

    Responded 20+ minutes ago.

  • MI Mitten

    so we’re dropping the legal and moral?

  • MI Mitten

    Did you miss my post on the HHS Carve-out?

    Unlike you I don’t look to blame Christian men for this decision, I look at the decision and where they drew from – Katherine Sebelius.

    Moral and legal reasons to apply the HHS carve-out to HL:
    I believe as KS said:
    “This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty.”

    It is morally right to carefully consider the contraception mandate in the framework of religious liberty.

    “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

    I too believe legally and morally the HHS carve-out strikes the right balance.

    “The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services.”

    A morally correct choice.

    “… will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception.”

    Again morally right.

    “Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services.”

    Yet again morally right.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    And still no answer as to why I should not have my “religious liberty” respected and *also* get special privileges.

    So why not?

  • MI Mitten

    Special Privilege:
    a legally endorsed privilege granted exclusively to some individual or group

    So why should I not get the same type of special privileges?
    Gee, IDK, ask HHS? Seriously, you I and I both know why you don’t qualify.

    Why should these privileges be limited to pro-Christian, anti-female items that benefit these for-profit organizations?
    They aren’t – you mentioned Sherbert – wasn’t that a woman?

    What would push things past a “balance” for you?

    If there wasn’t a plan in place to allow the employees the coverages for free.

  • MI Mitten

    Cause your not special. :(

    I have shown you why but here it is again.

    Alito addressed this specifically:
    This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it
    provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

    The SCOTUS decision is not:
    A referendum on when pregnancy begins.
    A decision granting “special privilege”.
    A license to steal for religious reasons.
    A way to block contraception to it’s employees.
    I could go on….

    It is:
    An extension of the HHS carve-out to for-profit closely held corporations.

  • MI Mitten

    I should predict you changing your question.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You keep changing the topic and dodging.

    No: I am not going to ask anyone else why you think I should not get special privileges based on my beliefs, as Hobby Lobby does.

    Empty denial of the decision being pro-Christian and anti-female does not answer the question.

    And with your balance: the decision prevented the coverage – but it was never free. Someone pays the insurance companies. Again: you keep spewing nonsense that shows you do not get what is being discussed.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    As I said: the only legal defense you can find for the decision is the decision itself… and you cannot find a moral defense at all

    You keep proving me right.

  • MI Mitten

    As I am saying: the legal defense is the legal decision, what more do I need, and by definition wouldn’t it be?
    You’re the one who admitted it is the law of the land (hence legal).

    Legally HHS carved-out corporate exemption (for non-profits) and they couldn’t legally prove a for profit didn’t qualify for the same exemption.

    Now if you want to say it is a flawed decision, knock yourself out, you’re on the losing side 5 to 4 on applying the RFRA mandate, and 7 to 2 on corporate protection.

    I have shown a moral defense.
    It is immoral to require a religious person or persons (whether they be men/women or christian/non-christian) to pay for drugs and/or procedures that can in their definition of pregnancy terminate that pregnancy.

    “using your logic and SCOTUS I can get free supplies…”
    WRONG – using the HHS carve-out (not mine or SCOTUS’s) you could try to make an illogical leap that you can get free supplies. SCOTUS very clearly states the limits of this decision and how they don’t apply to anything but the four drugs/procedures exempted in the HHS carve-out.

  • MI Mitten

    Jump around all you want on this comment board posing questions I’ve already answered, are you hoping someone reads just your characterizations and not my answers?

    You “RFRA/Sherbert” use them interchangeably.
    “anti-women anti Christian”
    Sherbert:
    Adell Sherbert, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, worked as a textile-mill operator. Two years after HER conversion to that faith, HER employer switched from a five-day to a six-day work week…
    Clearly I have shown it is not anti-women.

    And you know it is not anti-Christian:
    The law, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.

    To twist the HHS exception into something it is not and then peg it to SCOTUS is very disingenuous.

    It clearly is you that does not understand the decision, the thing for people to decide is if you are just ignorant or dishonest.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    So your legal defense of the decision is the decision is the law (which is not even in contention).

    The best you have is circular reasoning. Got it!

    Onto the moral side: if it is immoral to have someone pay for things they do not want to based on their religion, we are back to it being moral for me to not pay Hobby Lobby for products I walk out with. Keep in mind, with me I am at least directly paying – with Hobby Lobby they are merely paying an insurance company that covers the cost of medical procedures. They *never* had to directly pay for any medical procedure at all, no less ones they find morally objectionable.

    Bottom line:
    * Legally: You use circular reasoning
    * Morally: Your “reasoning” allows me to get free products from Hobby Lobby.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Arguing against the idea that Sherbert is anti-female is a straw man (nobody made that claim – you are arguing against a twisted version of the reality that the Hobby Lobby SCROTUS decision was anti-female)

    Same with the comments about Native Americans. Straw man.

    You really should take a basic logic class. :)

  • MI Mitten

    And your legal reasoning is a straw man that you can get free supplies.

    The best you have is a straw man – Got it!

    “Onto the moral side: if it is immoral to have someone pay for things they do not want to based on their religion, (per HHS not SCOTUS)
    we are back to it being moral for me to not pay Hobby Lobby for products I walk out with (per HHS not SCOTUS)

    “I am directly paying…vs merely paying insurance…”

    Then why did HHS make the carve-out? Another question you run from.

    Churches are directly paying for communion wafers, verses “merely paying for insurance” yet HHS gave them an exemption. So then why aren’t you correctly phrasing your question that as to why “using HHS’s logic why can’t I walk out of a church with a cartload of wafers?”

    Bottom line:

    Legally your phrasing the question the wrong way through ignorance or intentionally deceptive language.

    Morally your phrasing the question the wrong way through ignorance or intentionally deceptive language.

  • MI Mitten

    The SCOTUS decision is that the HHS carve-out applies to HL.
    “..the reality that the Hobby Lobby SCROTUS decision was anti-female…” so then IYO the HHS carve-out is anti-female?
    Logic – check into it.

  • MI Mitten

    Saw this and thought of you:
    NYPD investigating white flags flying from Brooklyn Bridge

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/nypd_investigating_white_flags_flying_from_brooklyn_bridge.html

    Hope they don”t catch you :)

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    My noting how you claim that it is OK to allow people to not pay for things they find immoral applies just as well to other situations than the one you apply it to is *not* a straw man. You clearly have no clue what the term even means. Look it up.

    And then you accuse me of being “deceptive” for merely noting your failure to find a legal defense (other than your circular reasoning) or any moral defense at all.

    Serious question: How many chances do you think you deserve? I have give you *dozens* and you keep failing. You are a failure – at least in this discussion.

    You have failed to find either a legal or moral defense of this idiotic SCROTUS decision that holds up to logic.

  • MI Mitten

    So then why aren’t you correctly phrasing your question that as to why “using HHS’s logic why can’t I walk out of a church with a cartload of wafers?”

  • MI Mitten

    I don’t claim it HHS does.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    How many chances do you think you deserve to come up with a reasoned and logical legal and/or moral defense for this idiotic SCROTUS decision?

    So far you have completely failed – after dozens of attempts. You spew circular reasoning, straw men, and show you do not even get what is being discussed… as you misuse terms such as “straw man” showing you do not even get basic concepts of logic.

    And above you just spew another of your straw men – claiming something other than this anti-female decision might also be seen as anti-female even though you cannot show how it would be in any way. But this is a nonsense side issue, not even related.

    So real question: how many chances do you think you deserve? Do you think you deserve a medal for just showing up? A ribbon for the most number of posts?

    No. You have had your chances. I have been extremely patient with you and given you more attention than you deserve.

  • MI Mitten

    So then why aren’t you correctly phrasing your question that as to why “using HHS’s logic why can’t I walk out of a church with a cartload of wafers?”

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Loaded question.

    Sigh. Please, take a logic course!

    Oh, and you failed to answer *another* question: given your repeated failures to find a legal or moral defense of the idiotic SCROTUS decision, how many chances do you think you deserve?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Ah, so you no longer claim there is a legal or moral defense of the SCROTUS decision. Good. I commend you for your growth.

    In case you flip flop, though, which you surely will: given your repeated failures to find a legal or moral defense of the idiotic SCROTUS decision, how many chances do you think you deserve?

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    Attempt to change the topic on your part – and doing so with a loaded question.

    But you refuse to answer the question: given your repeated failures to find a legal or moral defense of the idiotic SCROTUS decision, how many chances do you think you deserve?

    10? 100? 1000? We have already far passed 10… and likely hit 100. So how many chances do you think you deserve?

    My answer: far fewer than I have given you.

  • MI Mitten

    Not changing the topic, making the question in the right context.

    So then why aren’t you correctly phrasing your question that as to why “using HHS’s logic why can’t I walk out of a church with a cartload of wafers?”

  • MI Mitten

    The logical question is:

    So then why aren’t you correctly phrasing your question that as to why “using HHS’s logic why can’t I walk out of a church with a cartload of wafers?”

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    The context is this debate: where you – at one point – were pretending you could offer a legal and moral defense of this idiotic SCROTUS decision.

    You have given up that pretense and now it is clear you just want attention.

  • MI Mitten

    The context is this debate:where you at – one point- said it was just about contraception, so it doesn’t apply pretending it was about something it wasn’t

    Run away with your white panty tatters –

    So then why aren’t you correctly phrasing your question that as to why “using HHS’s logic why can’t I walk out of a church with a cartload of wafers?”

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You are the one failing the challenge to come up with a legal or moral way to defend this idiotic, anti-female, pro-Christian decision. There is nothing for me *to* run from even if I wanted.

    You are doing nothing now other than simply lying and spewing grade school insults to detract from your failure… as you insist you cannot answer my question because you want to change it – and still not answering how many chances you think you deserve. The answer is simple: far, far fewer than I have given you. I have given you a kind gift of attention and many chances you did not deserve. But I will not pretend you earning a trophy for just showing up. Work harder and *earn* the respect you are begging me to give you.

  • MI Mitten

    The decision was to follow the HHS carve-out.

    You’ve been shown, yet you continue to cower, HHS is the one that set this policy.

    If any one is idiotic it is you, HHS exempted religious organizations from these 4/20 not SCOTUS, and you keep running away.

    It’s funny how when I turn your way of arguing sprinkling in running, whining, cowering, etc. you have the failed logic of accusing me of grade school tactics – they’re your tactics. You are doing nothing now but avoiding the question:

    So then why aren’t you correctly phrasing your question that as to why “using HHS’s logic why can’t I walk out of a church with a cartload of wafers?”

    The answer is simple, then you would have to admit it was HHS who gave the carve-out, not SCOTUS so all of your “Christian, Men, direct financial impact, shopping cart straw man, legal and moral, ad nauseum would have been pointless.

    Switch tactics- “you do not deserve my attention, you’re begging for respect.” And you’re running away from the question for good reason – it destroys all of your posts – and you’re waving you’re white flag.

    Your incorrect premise and the following drivel about a myriad of things that aren’t at issue or apply do not earn you my respect just my pity.

    So, thanks to your logic and HHS I can now go into St. Thomas Acrylic and fill my cart with wafers.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    The topic is the SCROTUS decision – not the decision of anyone else.

    And of THAT decision – the topic – you have repeatedly failed to find any legal or moral reason why it makes sense. You cannot answer the question.

    Then you try to turn things around and say – in relation to the very question you cannot answer – that somehow I owe you an answer about something. Does not matter what: I do not. Then you beg me to change the wording of my question… a tacit admission of your failure… and babble other nonsense about how your failure to be able to defend this idiotic SCOTUS decision says *anything* about me. It does not. It is entirely irrational for you to claim it does.

    Remember: it has already been established that your only legal backing is to use circular logic and your only moral backing allows me to get free supplies from Hobby Lobby.

    Until or unless you actually try a new response do not expect more than a note from me about what a failure you are. So when you see “FAIL” just think about how many chances you think you deserve.

  • MI Mitten

    And that decision mentions the HHS carve-out.

    And of THAT decision – part of the topic- you have repeated ran. Do I really need to paste the quote of the decision that refers to the HHS carve-out?

    Then you run and hide, and say I’m cowering and stupid and unable to answer your question without help as you almost refuse to acknowledge my question.

    I don’t beg, I don’t whine, I don’t cry, I don’t care about your attention.

    Remember: it has already been established you don’t have a leg to stand on in your comments and questions and how they relate to this decision.

    Until or unless you actually try to answer my question do not expect more than that question from me.

    So when you see FAIL just think about all the time you wasted with a false premise.

    Here’s another chance for you, if you aren’t still in a corner cowering:

    So then why aren’t you correctly phrasing your question that as to why “using HHS’s logic why can’t I walk out of a church with a cartload of wafers?”

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    And you failed again.

    Legally: You use circular logic.

    Morally: You allow for me to get free art supplies from Hobby Lobby.

    As far as me correctly phrasing my question: the fact you insist I have not is a tacit admission of failure on your part. So you have failed… and I keep giving you attention for it. Boring. Be more interesting or be ignored.

  • MI Mitten

    Another misleading accusation of court’s decision is that the court is or will be favoring some religions over others by accepting only some religious objections while denying others. While it may be true that the court may SEEM like it is favoring some religions over others, I think there’s a pretty simple explanation for why it isn’t actually doing so. The court, and the federal government, doesn’t question the sincerity or validity of anyone’s religious beliefs. If a religious objection is denied, it is because there is no less restrictive means of furthering the “compelling” interest that the government is trying to achieve other than by overruling the religious objection. For example, if I have a sincere religious belief that I should murder everyone in my neighborhood, the government isn’t disfavoring my religion over others in denying my religious objection to its law against murder; it recognizes that I may have a sincere and, for all it knows, valid religious belief, but it has a compelling interest in public safety (OR PROPERTY RIGHTS), and outlawing murder (OR THEFT) is the least restrictive means to achieving that interest. But the interest must be “compelling,” and the means to achieve that interest must be the “least restrictive.” The source of the belief does not matter.

  • MI Mitten

    It is you that has fallen on your face in failure.

    Another misleading accusation of court’s decision is that the court is or will be favoring some religions over others by accepting only some religious objections while denying others. While it may be true that the court may SEEM like it is favoring some religions over others, I think there’s a pretty simple explanation for why it isn’t actually doing so. The court, and the federal government, doesn’t question the sincerity or validity of anyone’s religious beliefs. If a religious objection is denied, it is because there is no less restrictive means of furthering the “compelling” interest that the government is trying to achieve other than by overruling the religious objection. For example, if I have a sincere religious belief that I should murder everyone in my neighborhood, the government isn’t disfavoring my religion over others in denying my religious objection to its law against murder; it recognizes that I may have a sincere and, for all it knows, valid religious belief, but it has a compelling interest in public safety, and outlawing murder is the least restrictive means to achieving that interest. But the interest must be “compelling,” and the means to achieve that interest must be the “least restrictive.” The source of the belief does not matter.

    As far as you running scared from the question that ruins your conniption: the fact you insist on not answering a properly phrased question doesn’t bore me it empowers me to show others your ignorance.

    So then why aren’t you correctly phrasing your question that as to why “using HHS’s logic why can’t I walk out of a church with a cartload of wafers?”

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    The decision makes it clear it is not to be applied to other religious beliefs – showing you have no idea what is even being discussed or what the decision is about. It is all about picking one thing from one religion and making a sexist decision based on it. Again: you have no idea what is even being discussed.

    Your best effort:
    Legally: You use circular logic.
    Morally: You allow for me to get free art supplies from Hobby Lobby.

    You fail. Good grief… and I am still giving you attention.

  • Fretwizzen

    Good grief. Both of you need to grow up. MI Mitten, if you are simply going to insist on rewording his question then you have given up. Period.

    Michael Glasser: You have said about a thousand times you will stop giving him attention. Do it and stop lying. This idiot will never come back to the question. He knows it. You know it. Anyone who even skims this discussion knows it.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    It has gone on a long time. He is just being silly… and I am just rewarding him with attention.

  • fretwizzen

    For those of us who have not been following this endless blow by blow, and without referring to 10,000 other things, what defense do you have for this one Supreme Court decision? Do you think it makes legal sense? Moral? If so how do you defend it. Again without referring to 10,000 other things. That is key. It is called ‘focus’.

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I do give him too much attention… it is not as though he is ever going to actually answer. Fascinating watching his toddler tantrum though.

  • fretwizzen

    Come on little Ralphy Thorpe. You use the same outs every post. Why not respond to the questions you are asked?

  • fretwizzen

    Hello! Marty McFly! Earth to Marty! Stop thinking like a christian and start thinking like an American!

  • fretwizzen

    You are changing the topic FlyBoy. You do not get to say his question is wrong. Your God is an evil God.

  • fretwizzen

    The context is you flapping your gums and making a fool of yourself. Why do you picture men in panties? Does it turn you on?

  • fretwizzen

    Stop yacking like you know what any of this means you sad sack tea bagger.

  • MI Mitten

    “The decision makes it clear it is not to be applied to other religious beliefs”
    So you’re admitting it doesn’t apply to your “cart of supplies”, and it never applied right? So it was a straw man argument all along.

    You can’t seem to comprehend the decision, you now are continually casting it as “one religion and sexist…”

    HHS made the carve-out.

    Your sorry effort:
    Legally: you ask questions that don’t apply by your own admission.
    Morally: you invent a new way to cast the HHS carve-out as the SCOTUS decision.

    And you fail, and I still show you failing.

  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten

    Snit

  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • MI Mitten
  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    You are *back* to your circular reasoning (the decision is legally good because it says so in the decision itself) and your moral reasoning is to say that since it is legal it is good… all while ignoring the actual question of why other similar moral questions should not be decided the same way.

  • MI Mitten

    Did you even read what you replied to?

    Your moral issues are with HHS.

    And your back to holding a conversation with yourself.

  • MI Mitten

    By replying to yourself psycho?
    Fretwizzen is Glasser

  • http://prescottcomputerguy.com Michael Glasser

    I suspected you were my someone stalking me from https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.os.linux.advocacy

    Now there is proof. Good grief. You cannot stand the fact you keep making a fool of yourself. Just sick.

    I have given you far, far too many chances. Let us end this here with you having failed.

    Your legal “defense” is circular reasoning and your moral “defense” allows for all sorts of other special privileges for people. You have nothing but trolling and following me from forum to forum. Just sickness. Done.

  • MI Mitten

    “were my someone stalking” – do your anti-psychotics make it hard to use correct grammer?

    OK, Psycho, not stalking you – you are the one who guested as fretwizzen to attack me, and then started talking to yourself – pathetic.

    The proof “snit”/”Fretwizzen”/”Michael Glasser” whatever you decide to call yourself is your reply to this post. Show everyone your a schitzo, hey why not do it in all of your aliases too. :)

    Your legal defense has been shot down by you and your moral defense is misguided – why am I trying reason and logic on a mentally unbalanced poster?

    PS, screenshot the Fretwizzen – go ahead and take them down MG/Fretwizzen.

  • Guest

    Even if that was true – which it is not (and is almost surely you playing games from https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.os.linux.advocacy) – what difference would it make?

    Your legal argument would *still* be circular reasoning and your moral argument would *still* allow for all sorts of other special privileges.

  • MI Mitten

    It is true and I’m not playing games. Don’t belong to any forums.

    “what difference would it make?”

    Trying to justify to one of your personalities?

    Now your posts are showing up as guest?
    good thing I took a screenshot:

    Fail

  • MI Mitten

    Guest?

    Did you forget the screenshots?

    Thank you michael glasser for attacking me last night as Fretwizzen, if you wouldn’t have I would not have been able to find out what a Psycho you are (having a conversation with yourself).

    Legally: you ask questions that don’t apply by your own admission.
    Morally: you invent a new way to cast the HHS carve-out as the SCOTUS decision.

  • MI Mitten

    Your legal defense has been shot down by you and your moral defense is misguided – why am I trying reason and logic on a mentally unbalanced poster?

    PS, screenshot the Fretwizzen – go ahead and take them down Michael Glasser/Fretwizzen.

  • MI Mitten

    Hey TDF, you’ll be glad to know Michael Glasser got caught talking to himself and attacking with an alias, he’s went and changed some, not all, of his posts to “guest” in his shame.

  • MI Mitten

    HHS/Obama administration doesn’t agree:
    A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:
    The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services.

  • Snuffy

    Now we have to endure another rash of idiots who don’t realize this is a satirical site? How do they even get a link here?

  • Snuffy

    It’s SATIRE, you morons! Someone once said that it’s not possible to make a satirical statement that someone won’t interpret as the truth.

  • conservIN

    Get your heads out of your silly $#%&!#@ what a total bunch of silly nonsense….

  • pignut

    clearly the author of this article has no values and doesn’t understand the importance of values over bad and dangerous commie laws

  • pignut

    beyond me how anyone can argue it doesn’t begin at conception

  • MI Mitten

    A very flawed satire to say the least, the SCOTUS decision extended the existing HHS exemptions to the 4, really could have been written at that time that a Mosque employee did the same thing.