I love how you and your ilk consistently cite privacy and self-determination in enforcing codependence. No one is stopping a woman from exercising her own self-determination. They merely wish women to pay for it themselves. The feminists fought for the right to pick up the check on a date, but for others to pay for them to have irresponsible sex and luxury medical operations. The most effective form of contraception is free. If you don't want a child formed out of your gametes, do exactly what a man can do - suck it up and endure it for a couple of decades at penalty of destroying your life, criminal history, credit rating and driving privileges.
cry me a river. you know (or should) that employment insurance is considered part of your compensation. you are basically saying if a woman doesn't want her insurance provided through her job to cover her health care, she should just stop whining and find some other way to get someone to cover her health insurance. i would agree that any woman working at hobby lobby should probably find an employer willing to pay for insurance that actually covers her health needs; it's a pity that hobby lobby can't employ strictly male workers so they won't have to feel icky when a woman asks to have her birth control covered by her insurance as required by federal law.
Somehow I have the feeling that society will survive even a pandemic-level outbreak of menstrual cramps. Of greater interest to the public and society, according to the science of Darwinism, would be the paramount concern of propagating the species, towards which birth control and abortion are counter-indicated.
and yet are considered medically necessary for a large number of women. it's not simply a case of women wanting risk-free sex, there are plenty of medical cases where birth control and/or abortion is a medically necessary procedure. i wouldn't expect you to crawl out from under your rock to acknowledge this, judging from your history of misogyny in this area.
No one is contesting a woman's right to birth control. They are only contesting the right to demand someone else pay for it.
bull shit. corporate executives who break the law do so at their own discretion, and the law applies differently when it is a corporate decision or an individual one. the corporation is distinct from the individual but the individual can still break laws without it affecting the corporate entity. similarly, a corporate decision can be made (like union carbide, BP or exxon) to commit a crime, in which case both the corporation and its executives can be held accountable. the corporate entity is, by nature, meant to be separate from its ownership's but this ruling says that's not so anymore. and one day later we have lots of christian leaders imploring Obama to allow them to skirt the anti-discrimination laws their faith supposedly tells them they should not follow. either we are a nation of laws, or we are a christian theocracy. we can't have it both ways.
and as long as employers are getting tax credits for providing health insurance, the real issue is that companies like hobby lobby are pocketing the money they receive to cover their female employees while telling those women they are "shit outta luck" for their reproductive health needs. so it's not about asking "someone else to pay for them" but rather "it's not the employer's place to deny health coverage to any of their employees"
Islamics believe in free birth control?
Muslims that i know are not against birth control the way some christians i know are. at any rate, if a corporation can hold a religious belief system, it should also be able to convert its belief system at any time.
"I am a strong independent woman! I am just as good as a man! I demand to be treated EXACTLY as a man! Now pay me to take off to grow a baby in my uterus, pay for me to have casual sex if I don't feel like growing a baby, pay to double your bathrooms for my exclusive use, provide a place for my children to be cared for when I work, enforce speech codes so my ears are undisturbed by anything I don't like at work, regardless of whether or not the conversation involves me, and have special days to recognize and appreciate my contributions, even though you had to lower standards for me to make them."
yep, we should force women to give birth no matter the circumstances, then throw their children out on the street when the mother can't take care of them, then laugh at her for getting raped because she was probably asking for it 
Actually, all this is doing is putting off the day of a confrontation over all the special privileges and accommodations made for women with no equivalence for men. Ladies get the pill from their employers when men get condoms. If a woman has the right to opt out of parenthood at any time during pregnancy or afterward, so should the man. Equal protection should mean EQUAL protection.
sorry, i forgot that both women and men can take viagra for "erectile dysfunction". except that, before Obamacare, viagra was covered but birth control was not. vasectomies were covered by a lot of insurance plans, as were "tube tying" procedures. but let a woman determine how and when she gets pregnant and suddenly women get special treatment? by all means continue to pretend that women have it so easy and are given special privileges for being women....
Do you know what "begs the question" means? I suspect not, because you'd see the irony of my query in this context.
The real issue is that no one is forcing them to invest in those companies.
that's true. and just as true is the fact that they could easily divest from them if their belief is so "strongly held" that they actually went to the Supreme Court to defend it.
Separation of Church and State is nowhere in the Constitution. Instead, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion is an absolute and explicitly stated restriction on the State. The free exercise of the religion of the Hobby Lobby owners requires them to refrain from using their own money to directly facilitate immoral activity.
the exact phrase is not in the Constitution, but we have a couple hundred years of having it upheld regardless. the owners of hobby lobby are perfectly free to practice their individual religion all they want, and as publicly as they want as long as they don't break the law to do so. their public corporate entity should have no right to practice religion as their corporate entity is not a real person and cannot perform the basic sacraments of any faith. this decision only sets up a means for "religious" entities to avoid following the law. again, either we are a nation of laws, or we are a theocracy. it cannot be both.
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
