Best
704 Comments
Post
  • #5
    !
    No. Reading material about the very real link between abortions and breast cancer is purely scientific, with NO religious connections whatsoever. Furthermore, being asked to read a disclosure form is standard in virtually every medical procedure, and has nothing to do with employment. It also costs nothing, ergo one's employee is not being forced to pay for something that is against one's religious views/ This isn't the same thing at all. Besides, just what business does this "Satanist" own that employs women of child bearing age?
  • #16
    !
    @Realthinker Okay, you're going on a different tangent all together. If a corporation, which according to SCOTUS, is a person, wants to not have their health care plans cover certain types of birth control for religious reasons, than if a woman doesn't want to read a scientific OR dogmatic pamphlet before getting an abortion, she shouldn't have to, if reading that pamphlet is against her religion.

    Because of the Hobby Lobby, I can start a religion that mandates all followers must crap in paper bags instead of toilets... and my corporation being of that religion as well, can say they we are exempt from any local, state, or federal law that supplies toilets to employees.
  • #17
    !
    Bull. Rat bat bull dung insane crazy.

    The ones trying legislate were those who wanted Hobby Lobbies owners to provide that which is against their religion.....

    You were asking them for all intents and purposes to support the holocaust.....and saying that it would have been a violation of Hitler's rights that they did not comply.....BULL!
  • #20
    !
    @Knightkore "You were asking them for all intents and purposes to support the holocaust.....and saying that it would have been a violation of Hitler's rights that they did not comply.....BULL! "

    What? That made no sense.
  • #24
    !
    @thismonkey Yes. You wanted Hobby Lobby to provide for and pay for abortive products that murder unborn children.

    Had it been Hitler you would be fighting for Hitler's right to murder Jews.

    I don't care anymore.....your atheistic dogma is destroying this country.....you are evil....pure and simple.....
  • R Load more replies

  • #107
    !
    I don't understand what people don't understand about it's a women's body so it is up to the women & only the women of what she chooses to do with her body or what information she chooses to read.
  • #125
    !
    The law doesn't force a women to read them, it forces the abortion provider to make sure they are given the material to read if they so choose.
  • #156
    !
    @Yank but I hope the people that are writing the literature they're passing out are people that are only writing facts & not their opinions or writing things that are trying to sway the woman to walk out of the abortion clinic.
  • #175
    !
    @shorty603
    Absolutely! If a woman wants to have her body torn apart or cut to ribbons, it's her right. If she wants to be pickled alive, more power to her, and if she wants her head crushed with forceps, she has my support. But I draw the line when she wants to do those things to another living human being.
  • #213
    !
    We are talking about laws making one side unavailable. Got it? Abortionists did that with my donations to Breast Cancer Cures and I am angry I was lied to and ripped off.
  • R Load more replies

  • #48
    !
    Just as I predicted, when the Christian Right suceeds in imposing religious test into the public sphere other religions will follow. I specifically predicted that if evangelicals suceeded in promoting religion the satanist would soon use follow suit...
  • #69
    !
    You still don't get it. Abortion is only a right if you pay for it. It's not my oblic]=gation nor HL to pay for it. Get it , Get So stop .
  • #78
    !
    @magnacarta No, you don't get it, once the govt. is required to recognize religion in regard to the public sphere all religions and not just christians can take advantage of it. That is how the equal treatment under the law applies once the govt interprets the first amnd to permit religious practices in regard to law or public money or govt controlled space.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #12
    !
    As soon as someone says Satanic people freak but yet Christians have done far more evil than Satanism ever has, Satanism preaches to think for yourselves which is what some Christians can't do
  • #34
    !
    @bsking And if I do it doesn't make me evil just openminded I don't believe in the cultish satanic crap thats cliche more like to each is own and humanism
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #117
    !
    YES, Satanic Temple---there is a Santa Claus! Abortions For Everyone! Thank you, Hobby Lobby and Catholic Supreme Court MEN! YOU ROCK!
    The Temple's Spokesperson says this:......the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact. This was made clear when they allowed Hobby Lobby to claim certain contraceptives were abortifacients, when in fact they are not......." Heh Heh---can't wait to see what follows. Was this predictable or what?
  • #128
    !
    At least the Satanic Church's objections are grounded in reality, and are designed to promote factual information and eliminate misinformation, choosing to educate rather than subjugate women.
    Equal treatment under the law for EVERY Religion's "beliefs."
  • #126
    !
    Tell you what, for many of these right-wingers they just do not understand their desire to merge their religion with the state. They are completely blinded by emotion and reason does not stand a chance with them. They want so much for their doom which is having their religion and the state being one and the same. Islam. Taliban. Sharia. They can see the problems there but not when it is their versions of Christianity.
  • #358
    !
    @Jason2012
    I'm liberal and Christian and certainly want my religion as separated from the state as humanly possible, for that is when it is the most free.
  • #383
    !
    There is no middle ground with Bible thumpers. They are either voted out or the country suffers as they pursue their # 1 agenda of imposing selective Bible passages down everyone's throat .
  • #453
    !
    @WMCOL Liberal and Christian, is like saying communist and Christian. It is an oxymoron. Would you like it if the govt just said no to Christianity all together? Do you like the laws against theft, murder, lying, etc, etc, because those laws against societal ills, are in fact rooted in religion. Where as secular laws have pretty much eroded those black and white situations into a mush of "hey we don't need any religion, we are our own gods." Progressives like yourself really need to re examine your thinking.
    Stand for something or fall for anything, or at least what the secular govt mandates that you do. That is another thing, when we had a healthy dose of religion in our govt, we had less of it interfering in our lives. Now that we have less religion we have more govt, does that seem right to you?
  • #476
    !
    @Jason2012
    There should be a wall of separation between church and state. Society would be against murder because it is evil of itself without any influence from church or state. It was considered wrong even when it was done in the name of religion.

    "Would you like it if the govt just said no to Christianity all together?" No to any religion being merged or mingled with the state. Like I said, don't want the state controlling my religion but that is exactly what happens where the religion and state are under same control. Leave my religion free by not mixing it with the state.
  • R Load more replies

  • #25
    !
    I must have missed something about the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision - I thought it dealt with defending their own freedom of religion, not forcing their own religious beliefs on other people. What does the Satanic Temple request have to do with that?
  • #46
    !
    Their religious beliefs are based on the best available knowledge and since there are pieces of info in the 'informational' material that is blatantly false, it is against their religion to be forced to read through them.
  • #49
    !
    @AceLuby accirding to the article, the law only requires theu be given the material, and only if choosing to have an elective medical procedure... being provided information on something is not a violation of religious rights.
    Colleges routinely require studenta read the scriptures of and learn the cultures of other religions. Are younsuggesting the hobby lobby ruling forbids such practice as well?
  • #52
    !
    Well, the materials are not christian. The only way they could object is to claim they are using abortions as a form of human sacrifice, so far as i can see...
    How much you want to bet liberals would be a ok with knowing they are sacrificing unborn children, so long as abortions are unimpeded and it doesnt involve christianity?
  • #103
    !
    The Hobby Lobby decision had to do with the religious liberty of the employer vs the religious liberty of the employees, and the Supreme Court sided with the religious liberty of the employer, at the expense of the employees' own religious beliefs.

    I disagreed. The employees' rights should come before the rights of the employer, unless the employer is a church or a church organization. The Supreme Court decision was ill-conceived, and stories like this are going to become run-of-the-mill until the Court reverses the decision.
  • #112
    !
    @RedNorth the employees religious beliefs dictated that they must be provided free birth control?
    Which religion is that?
    And since when does ones religious beliefs force others to shoulder the responsibility of following those beliefs?
    No, the supreme court sided with religious liberty. Period. The religious liberty of employees was never in question or in danger.
  • R Load more replies

  • #296
    !
    Tit for tat! Religion is religion. And SCOTUS has basically said religion trumps science. I said the decision was going to come around and bite them in the A&$!
  • #200
    !
    And it begins. This ruling is a dangerous one, that effectively allows every man to become a law unto themselves based solely upon the fact that their belief is sincerely held. It doesn't even have to be true. Hopefully, the US Supreme Court will experience an outbreak of common sense, and undo some of the more disastrous corporate law logic that they have foist upon the American people in recent years.
  • #436
    !
    HOBBY LOBBY SAVED MY COMPANY!! THANK GOD FOR HOBBY LOBBY!

    I was hurting for money and didn't know how I could afford to keep my million dollar house and 6 cars.

    Finally, the Hobby Lobby case dropped into the laps of our Supreme Court. I was intrigued and invested in the outcome. Fortunately, the SCOTUS ruled in a way to give multi-million dollar companies even more over-reach into the employees personal lives! They actually say that a business owner who is under "protections" VIA corporate, LLC, for-profit legal protections. Well, we can circumvent those protections that keep us from being sued on behalf of our company to now pass religious dogma down to our company's employees.

    I recently started, ahem, commanded "by our lord and savior" to create a religion that says minimum wage is from the devil and that the owner should be able to dictate pay to our employees. My religion says that new wage will be .50 cents an hour. I am hearing other executives that also live behind the wall of legal protections are now also going to make such a claim ahem, I mean religious conversion.

    Man, soon this piece of paper that makes my business become a "legal entity turned person" will be able to marry me.

    One day me and my corporation will have kids and I'll take them out hunting. I'm so glad the supreme court ruled to make my piece of paper a person with religious rights!

    Clearly god created legal entities on the day he was supposed to be resting.
  • #407
    !
    The problem is, where do you draw the line? How can you say "yes" to Christians but "no" to other types of beliefs? From the moment courts sided with Hobby Lobby, I think we all knew it was only a matter of time before a ridiculous case was presented that actually made sense.
  • #528
    !
    Begin to claim? Since when was this separation ever NOT the intention of the 1st Amendment?

    You don't actually WANT an official government religion, do you?
  • #595
    !
    @Denizen_Kate Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
    I see no where in there the freedom from religion only the protections of religion. Maybe you use a different constitution than I do.
    The founders did not want a state church as there was in England, if you did not join then you were a second class citizen. The whole idea was you can be religious and practice what you want, no matter if you were a govt person or not. No where does it say that govt and religion have to be separate. Use some common sense, the people in govt have religion in their hearts, are you going to suggest that they get out of govt all together? We know where a secular govt leads, loss of individual freedoms in the name of good government protecting you for your own good. Just ask the people of former communist countries how that worked for them. I am sure Stalin and Lenin had good intentions when they murdered thousands of religious people in the name of the state.
    Yea, lets get rid of religion it is just the opiate of the people. Remember nature abhors a vacuum.
  • #617
    !
    @Jason2012 - "No where does it say that govt and religion have to be separate." Sorry, didn't realize they had to spell that part out for you. Making no laws respecting an establishment of religion means just that ... keep your religious views, rules, morals, and tenets out of government, please. Why is this concept so difficult for so many to understand?

    I realize that most of our elected officials are religious people, but enacting laws based on their religious principles, laws that we must all follow regardless of our own personal beliefs, is a "law respecting the establishment of religion".

    A secular government does not cause the loss of individual freedoms. While we can probably agree that nanny-state laws are a pain in the neck and unnecessary, so are all laws governing individual behavior that affects no one else. That goes for sex, abortion, drug use, and a host of other laws that should never have been passed and have always been unconstitutional. That no one has directly challenged some of these laws is beside the point. For example, did you know there are states that still outlaw fallacio? As if that were anyone else' business. It's a very sad state of affairs when a woman can't give her man a blow job in the privacy of her own bedroom, don't you agree?
  • #621
    !
    @Denizen_Kate "While we can probably agree that nanny-state laws are a pain in the neck and unnecessary" wow that is the most pro progressive statement that I have ever heard!
  • #624
    !
    @Jason2012 - isn't "pro progressive" redundant?

    Every conservative I converse with on this forum agrees that there are too many laws on the books, both federal and state, that go too far to protect idiots from their own stupidity. If that's progressive, mea culpa.
  • R Load more replies

  • #240
    !
    The wild card is the SC's version of "science". They ruled that "the pill" is an "abortifacient" - it causes an abortion of a fetus, I didn't go to med-school but...
    So anyone who wants to base their defense on science, has to don a Roberts/Alito/Scalia tinfoil hat first.
  • #483
    !
    @Wafflecone yea, ok.
    If you think she is in any way going to continue the Obama train, then you are crazy. Bill can't stand Obama and I am sure Hillary follows Bills line of thought.
    I am sure Hillary's administration would not set back and blame Israel for defending itself ( for example ), while doing zero.
  • R Load more comments...
Post