falcon123
NES Member
Was she hot?
Judging by by the smoke coming out of her ears I would say yes.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Was she hot?
I don't want to ruffle any feathers, and I certainly don't agree with the woman's actions in the OP's post, but I think the Hobby Lobby decision is a bit more problematic than some other board members have portrayed it. In my opinion, it's not an issue of women paying for their own birth control or not, it's a question of equality in employer-provided healthcare. For many women, birth control is a basic part of their personal health (not necessarily in terms of preventing pregnancy either; I'm personally acquainted with many who take birth control to regulate hormones that cause migraines, etc.) and if the employer is providing a health insurance policy it should logically cover birth control too. I wouldn't want to have my employer refuse to pay for a blood transfusion because they were Jehovah's Witnesses...
Closely held can mean a lot more than just small family-run businesses; it applies to the majority (80%, according to the IRS) of American businesses since to be "closely held" only means that 5 or fewer people have a majority share of it.
Personally, I believe that a person's freedom of belief is absolute, but it can't trump another person's right to fair treatment or health. If you don't want an abortion, by all means don't get one, but it's not my business what anyone else does with their private life anyhow. Just my .02.
The other thing people forget is that I can guarantee you Hobby Lobby didn't do this because of religious beliefs. They really didn't want to cover birth control because that costs money, and they just used religion as an excuse.
I was at hobby lobby with my wife today. I saw a deal on pipe cleaners and put them into my wifes shopping cart. I went outside of the store with one of my daughters and waited for my wife to finish up. Some crazy moonbat b!tch approached me and made a statement that as a father of a little girl, that I shouldn’t support hobby lobby. She stated that it was because of hobby lobby that the SCOTUS ruled against women. I then told the lady that I supported the SCOTUS decision, that as a father, I couldn’t agree with it more. She flipped. She started screaming that I was an irresponsible father. At that point, my wife walked by my side. I reached into her bag, grabbed my pipe cleaners and told the lady that I wasn’t irresponsible. I told her that I bought pipe cleaners to clean the gas tube on my AR15 in order to keep it in good working order should the need ever come up hat I needed to protect my daughters. Well, that lady flipped out. I started laughing, my daughters started laughing, my wife called her crazy, and we all walked away.
View attachment 109329
I have to admit to not following that case closely. Afaik, SCOTUS basically said women have to pay for their own birth control, correct? Or is there more to it than that?
I don't want to ruffle any feathers, and I certainly don't agree with the woman's actions in the OP's post, but I think the Hobby Lobby decision is a bit more problematic than some other board members have portrayed it. In my opinion, it's not an issue of women paying for their own birth control or not, it's a question of equality in employer-provided healthcare. For many women, birth control is a basic part of their personal health (not necessarily in terms of preventing pregnancy either; I'm personally acquainted with many who take birth control to regulate hormones that cause migraines, etc.) and if the employer is providing a health insurance policy it should logically cover birth control too. I wouldn't want to have my employer refuse to pay for a blood transfusion because they were Jehovah's Witnesses...
Closely held can mean a lot more than just small family-run businesses; it applies to the majority (80%, according to the IRS) of American businesses since to be "closely held" only means that 5 or fewer people have a majority share of it.
Personally, I believe that a person's freedom of belief is absolute, but it can't trump another person's right to fair treatment or health. If you don't want an abortion, by all means don't get one, but it's not my business what anyone else does with their private life anyhow. Just my .02.
No. They said that Hobby Lobby, and any closely held (owned) business, did not have to pay for 4 types of Morning After abortion drugs, they pay for all 16 other types of contraception.
I don't want to ruffle any feathers, and I certainly don't agree with the woman's actions in the OP's post, but I think the Hobby Lobby decision is a bit more problematic than some other board members have portrayed it. In my opinion, it's not an issue of women paying for their own birth control or not, it's a question of equality in employer-provided healthcare. For many women, birth control is a basic part of their personal health (not necessarily in terms of preventing pregnancy either; I'm personally acquainted with many who take birth control to regulate hormones that cause migraines, etc.) and if the employer is providing a health insurance policy it should logically cover birth control too. I wouldn't want to have my employer refuse to pay for a blood transfusion because they were Jehovah's Witnesses...
Closely held can mean a lot more than just small family-run businesses; it applies to the majority (80%, according to the IRS) of American businesses since to be "closely held" only means that 5 or fewer people have a majority share of it.
Personally, I believe that a person's freedom of belief is absolute, but it can't trump another person's right to fair treatment or health. If you don't want an abortion, by all means don't get one, but it's not my business what anyone else does with their private life anyhow. Just my .02.
It's absolutely an equality problem. The problem is that this is one of those situations where it's impossible to be equal, and many people don't like that idea. If women get birth control coverage in their healthcare (By the way, the pill prevents certain cancers, too) the only male equivalent would be covering vasectomies or condoms, which isn't quite the same thing.
The other thing people forget is that I can guarantee you Hobby Lobby didn't do this because of religious beliefs. They really didn't want to cover birth control because that costs money, and they just used religion as an excuse.
Just an FYI, two of the methods Hobby Lobby doesn't like are specific types of implantable IUD's, the other two are "Morning After" style pills.
I was at hobby lobby with my wife today. I saw a deal on pipe cleaners and put them into my wifes shopping cart. I went outside of the store with one of my daughters and waited for my wife to finish up. Some crazy moonbat b!tch approached me and made a statement that as a father of a little girl, that I shouldn’t support hobby lobby. She stated that it was because of hobby lobby that the SCOTUS ruled against women. I then told the lady that I supported the SCOTUS decision, that as a father, I couldn’t agree with it more. She flipped. She started screaming that I was an irresponsible father. At that point, my wife walked by my side. I reached into her bag, grabbed my pipe cleaners and told the lady that I wasn’t irresponsible. I told her that I bought pipe cleaners to clean the gas tube on my AR15 in order to keep it in good working order should the need ever come up hat I needed to protect my daughters. Well, that lady flipped out. I started laughing, my daughters started laughing, my wife called her crazy, and we all walked away.
View attachment 109329
women should pay for their own birth control, period
If you are for personal freedom, there should be no mandate for employer-provided health care and equality should be no issue. Don't like your employer's health care plan? Find a new employer.I don't want to ruffle any feathers, and I certainly don't agree with the woman's actions in the OP's post, but I think the Hobby Lobby decision is a bit more problematic than some other board members have portrayed it. In my opinion, it's not an issue of women paying for their own birth control or not, it's a question of equality in employer-provided healthcare. For many women, birth control is a basic part of their personal health (not necessarily in terms of preventing pregnancy either; I'm personally acquainted with many who take birth control to regulate hormones that cause migraines, etc.) and if the employer is providing a health insurance policy it should logically cover birth control too. I wouldn't want to have my employer refuse to pay for a blood transfusion because they were Jehovah's Witnesses...
Closely held can mean a lot more than just small family-run businesses; it applies to the majority (80%, according to the IRS) of American businesses since to be "closely held" only means that 5 or fewer people have a majority share of it.
Personally, I believe that a person's freedom of belief is absolute, but it can't trump another person's right to fair treatment or health. If you don't want an abortion, by all means don't get one, but it's not my business what anyone else does with their private life anyhow. Just my .02.
To be truly tolerant, one must also be tolerant of those they think are not.To break balls, I'll sometimes say something like, "theyre tolerant in the liberal sense of the word, meaning "not tolerant"." Or, "its fair in the liberal sense of the word, meaning "not fair"."
I don't want to ruffle any feathers, and I certainly don't agree with the woman's actions in the OP's post, but I think the Hobby Lobby decision is a bit more problematic than some other board members have portrayed it. In my opinion, it's not an issue of women paying for their own birth control or not, it's a question of equality in employer-provided healthcare. For many women, birth control is a basic part of their personal health (not necessarily in terms of preventing pregnancy either; I'm personally acquainted with many who take birth control to regulate hormones that cause migraines, etc.) and if the employer is providing a health insurance policy it should logically cover birth control too. I wouldn't want to have my employer refuse to pay for a blood transfusion because they were Jehovah's Witnesses...
Closely held can mean a lot more than just small family-run businesses; it applies to the majority (80%, according to the IRS) of American businesses since to be "closely held" only means that 5 or fewer people have a majority share of it.
Personally, I believe that a person's freedom of belief is absolute, but it can't trump another person's right to fair treatment or health. If you don't want an abortion, by all means don't get one, but it's not my business what anyone else does with their private life anyhow. Just my .02.
Hobby Lobby would have incured, at the vey most, increased healthcare costs of a couple million dollars. The cost of fines in refusing to comply with Obamacare was over $250 Million.The other thing people forget is that I can guarantee you Hobby Lobby didn't do this because of religious beliefs. They really didn't want to cover birth control because that costs money, and they just used religion as an excuse.
Bullshit - the day after pill they didn't want to cover is $30/dose. Unless you have a fleet of sluts working for you, how many doses is the average employee going to take over a lifetime? They actually would pay more for the insurance as there would be a higher chance of covering the cost of a pregnancy.
The fact that Hobby Lobby provides insurance that covers 16 of the 20 approved types of contraceptive is lost to those who rile against big business. They are not removing a woman's access, they simply don't want to be part of something that opposes their core beliefs.
Where in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does it say that employers have to offer heath insurance anyways? It doesn't.
women should pay for their own birth control, period
Hobby Lobby would have incured, at the vey most, increased healthcare costs of a couple million dollars. The cost of fines in refusing to comply with Obamacare was over $250 Million.
For a business not open on Sundays, and a business which in the past refused to agree to a logistics contract in which liquor would be transported in it's trucks despite millions in potential profits, any dispute that their religious concerns were a front for the lost profits of actually providing coverage is absurd.