
ScorpioFish
@ScorpioFish
14 Years1,000+ PostsPisces
Comments: 5 · Posts: 4180 · Topics: 103



Posted by size zero superhero
Health care should be a universal commodity.


Posted by size zero superhero
I go to Michael's or A.C. Moore if I need quality art supplies. Hobby Lobby is a bonnet-wearing fundie hausfrau haven.


Posted by size zero superhero
Since when does preventing conception equate to murder? And good call, I'm one of those diehard f@g-apologists because I don't think sexual orientation should factor into employment eligibility(under any circumstances).
Oh yeah, and hawking policies that lead to more unwanted children being born? That'll end well.
As a passionate "freedom fighter", do you not see the cognitive dissonance when the issue is a question of employers intervening in their staff's personal lives, reproductive health & medical issues?
Lemme guess...you know less than $ #!t about the various cancers prevented by taking hormonal birth control. Rather than basing your inferences on supporting science or statistics, your views seemingly come from petty emotions & misogyny, likely personal anger against women(as well gays, apparently).

Posted by Astrobyn
SF, If I punch you in the nuts like real hard, will you call me a baby killer?


Posted by size zero superhero
prevented by taking hormonal birth control.

Posted by Lucciferi
I sincerely hope you don't talk to females like this in person.

Posted by PerspicacityPosted by size zero superhero
This ruling means we'll probably see a whole grip of lawsuits in the near future, filed against companies that are opposed to hiring gays, or want to pay women lower wages than men, or don't believe married women should have the option of working...on the basis of of "sincerely held religious beliefs."
Moreover; our access to health care shouldn't be provided by employer(s)to begin with. Health care should be a universal commodity. This is just one of many reasons why it's wrong to hijack the necessity of health care in the name of corrupt capitalist profiteering.
For those who believe/assume the sole purpose of birth control is to prevent pregnancy--you are monumentally ignorant--if not genuinely too stupid to live.
Couldn't agree with you more, Zero. You always articulate your thoughts and rationalize subjects that just require common sense, rather well.
Try as you might, arguing with ScorpioFish is a lost cause, unfortunately. I think he thrives on inflammatory, hateful modes of conduct. The fact that he called you names just because you expressed your opinion is quite astonishing to me. There wasn't even an altercation between the two of you. Anger management, much?
Anyway. I find it odd that he would include "The Christian Victory". Is he proclaiming to be Christian? Christians are also adamantly against astrology and deem it the work of the devil. Bit hypocritical on his part, don't you think?click to expand


Posted by ScorpioFishPosted by Astrobyn
SF, If I punch you in the nuts like real hard, will you call me a baby killer?
You are psychotic, and it's no wonder why you have a hard time keeping a man in your life.click to expand

Posted by size zero superhero
This ruling means we'll probably see a whole grip of lawsuits in the near future, filed against companies that are opposed to hiring gays, or want to pay women lower wages than men, or don't believe married women should have the option of working...on the basis of of "sincerely held religious beliefs."
Moreover; our access to health care shouldn't be provided by employer(s)to begin with. Health care should be a universal commodity. This is just one of many reasons why it's wrong to hijack the necessity of health care in the name of corrupt capitalist profiteering.
For those who believe/assume the sole purpose of birth control is to prevent pregnancy--you are monumentally ignorant--if not genuinely too stupid to live.

Posted by Perspicacity
I don't know what kind of church you go to, but every Christian I've ever interfaced with, very quickly damned me to hell upon the very mention of astrology.
And out of curiosity.. Why are you so divisive?

Posted by munchkin
Are they refusing all contraception coverage (daily pill, NuvaRing, IUD, etc)? Or are they only against the idea of paying for abortions (surgical or pill abortion)?
If they want to exclude all birth control (preventative, not abortion), then I hope they're willing to allow maternity leave and coverage for prenatal needs.

Posted by size zero superhero
Just goes to show; religious convictions are one of the last socially-acceptable vehicles that allow the modern bigot to be outspoken about their prejudice(s).
I hate f@gs...because God
Women can't do X or Y--God SAID so!
Terrorism? Murder? Do it in the name of God & you're good to go
These people should ask themselves truthfully, what Jesus would do. In their heart of hearts, they must know the real answer to the age-old questiod, WWJD?: avoid their kind like the destructive plague they truly are.

Posted by ScorpioFishPosted by munchkin
Are they refusing all contraception coverage (daily pill, NuvaRing, IUD, etc)? Or are they only against the idea of paying for abortions (surgical or pill abortion)?
If they want to exclude all birth control (preventative, not abortion), then
No one is getting fired for being pregnant. Sheesh, you people need to read the USSC decision instead of posting nonsense to DXP.
Hobby Lobby provides 16/20 birth control opportunities to their female employees who qualify for them under their health insurance plans.
The communists, socialists and other losers on this website are crying "foul" because they insist that HL should now be sued into submission and provide RU-486 and the other 3 "Morning After" type shit.
I say, to hell with them. If you don't like HL's policy, then find another fucking job.
Using the full weight of the federal government and lawsuits only proves how awful these people truly are.
Go buy your own damn birth control pills, you pigs.click to expand



Posted by CapTenn
^^^^
It just got disclosed, munchkin. There was never a secret.
The gov't was forcing them to provide 'everything' and they fought it -- and won.
Now, what would be fair is if the gov't would take a hike, and let businesses run things as they see fit.

Posted by size zero superhero
LOL @ "why don't they get a job somewhere else"...like anybody working at Hobby Lobby is there because they have vast employment options. Think again.
The case might've been entirely different--or a non-issue--had a company that paid its employees livable wages(read: in considerable excess of minimum hourly wages, unlike Hobby Lobby)refused to cover the expense birth control. That way, it could've been argued that the gainfully employed staff in question already had the means to pay for birth control.
If you work at a craft store that's best known for being closed on Sundays, it's probably safe to say the employees directly affected by their controversial policy AREN'T especially well-off.
To those griping over the gov't intervening in the affairs/policies of corporations for the good of the public--how would you feel about the government stepping in if it was an issue of big businesses putting lead paint on your children's toys, or manufacturing unsafe vehicles?
(Yeah, that's what I thought.)

Posted by size zero superheroPosted by munchkin
Apples to oranges. Refusing to pay for someone's chemical abortion (RU-486) isn't going to cause illness or deaths.
That isn't the only type of BC they've declined, though. And how can you be sure? Some people have health conditions where pregnancy CAN result in the carrier's death(sometimes birth control & condoms fail). And if so, that issue should only concern the individual & their healthcare provider--their employer shouldn't have a say.
Point being; corporations need to keep the rosaries away from ovaries.click to expand

Posted by size zero superhero
Do you even know the definition of "socialism" or what it entails? You haven't demonstrated an understanding of the ideology at all, based on your usage/context.
Next.

Posted by size zero superheroPosted by munchkin
Apples to oranges. Refusing to pay for someone's chemical abortion (RU-486) isn't going to cause illness or deaths.
That isn't the only type of BC they've declined, though. And how can you be sure? Some people have health conditions where pregnancy CAN result in the carrier's death(sometimes birth control & condoms fail). And if so, that issue should only concern the individual & their healthcare provider--their employer shouldn't have a say.
Point being; corporations need to keep the rosaries away from ovaries.click to expand

Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →
Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain "closely held" for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in ObamaCare to provide free contraceptive coverage for their employees.
The 5-4 decision, in favor of arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby and one other company, marks the first time the court has ruled that for-profit businesses can cite religious views under federal law. It also is a blow to a provision of the Affordable Care Act which President Obama's supporters touted heavily during the 2012 presidential campaign.
"Today is a great day for religious liberty," Adele Keim, counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represented Hobby Lobby, told Fox News.
The ruling was one of two final rulings to come down on Monday, as the justices wrapped up their work for the session. The other reined in the ability of unions to collect dues from home health care workers.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the ObamaCare case, finding the contraceptive mandate in its current form "unlawful." The court's four liberal justices dissented.
The Obama administration, two years ago, already negotiated with religious-based schools, hospitals and other non-profits to reach an accommodation on the issue of contraception coverage. In the wake of Monday's ruling, the question now before the administration is how it might try to accommodate for-profit businesses that claim religious objections while also extending contraceptive coverage to female workers.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday afternoon that the decision "jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these companies," but said the administration would respect the ruling.
"We will work with Congress to make sure that any women affected by this decision will still have the same coverage of vital health services as everyone else," he said. Earnest did not get into specifics, saying they are still assessing the decision and trying to determine which companies are affected.
Alito suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation made available to non-profits -- by letting the groups' insurers or a third-party administrator take on the responsibility of paying for