Employment insurance is not part of your compensation. I don't think that word means what you think it means. Health insurance, as provided by your employer, might be part of your compensation, but it is not required, nor does the government have the right to require that employers provide insurance, or determine the nature of that insurance. Compensation is something that is agreed upon by the employer and employee. If an employee wants to be paid in euros, the employer does not have to comply.

Yes. Duh. I don't have the right to demand that I be paid in mass stipends or holy cards, and a woman does not have the right to demand that her employers do something immoral for her compensation. What if someone wanted to be paid in gift certificates to a brothel?
Just when I think you've finally mastered a simple concept, you step up to prove your vast ignorance. Hobby Lobby covers tons of birth control, you simpleton. They refuse to cover abortifacients.

Oh yeah. That's all that people want it for. In any event, abortifacients are not generally considered medically necessary for anything other than the outcome to which Hobby Lobby has moral objections.

You're the one who thinks women are incapable of decent behavior. It might be a medically necessary procedure, but that still does not mean other people should be forced to subsidize it. Not only that, but in the extremely rare cases of medical necessity (600 a year for the whole country, according to a pro-abortion source), no has any moral objections to that. Because a procedure is sometimes medically necessary does not justify it's use in other times and places. That's why there are things like prescriptions and controls on drugs. In 99% of cases, abortion is not medically necessary, it is a luxury procedure that serves only to rectify irresonsible and sexually degenerate choices made by the patient seeking it.

Why not? Who says Christian theocracies don't have laws? They just don't have laws that you like. Anti-discrimination legislation is not protected under the Constitution, but the free exercise of religion is. The free exercise of religion trumps any such legislation, which is, in and of itself, suspect, and in violation of the right of people to freely associate with one another. We ARE a nation of laws, and the highest law in this nation protects the free exercise of religion. The laws you cite are actually special interest groups imploring politicians to allow them to skirt the fundamental natural laws on which free nations are based, in order to obtain special privileges in violation of other's rights to spend their money as they see fit, to associate with people they wish to or refrain from the same, and to practice their religion as they see fit.

As far as anyone imploring Obama for exemptions, they are only following a precedent, wherein Obama and the Congress dominated by his party started granting exemptions to laws, like the Affordable Care Act, to themselves and to their favored corporations and donors. If Obama can grant exemptions to his supporters' wealthy districts, why NOT grant them to people or groups of people who would otherwise be compelled to act against their consciences?

It's not reproductive health if you are refusing to reproduce.

It's the employer's right to determine what they purchase with their money. If an employee demands something the employers believe is immoral, they have the right to refuse.

Anything you claim to "know" is highly suspect. There are large numbers of muslims who would argue otherwise.
Your point being? You making a straw man argument, since no one is arguing (aside from you and your ilk) that Muslims should be forced to provide abortifacients to their employees either. Christians that I know would universally agree that Muslims should also be entitled to the right of refusal that Hobby Lobby was granted.

As long as those circumstances include "having a living being in her womb", yes.
The circumstances of conception do not change the reality of a human life. If you can't kill a year old baby that was conceived through rape, you should not be allowed to kill it eighteen months prior. Even if an exception is going to be made for rape (and considering that according to FBI stats, rape is the most frequently falsely reported crime out there, with false reports doubling the average for false reports of crime in general, combined with the infanticide lobby's penchant for trying to camouflage a multitude of luxury procedures behind the miniscule number of genuine medical necessities, I am extremely dubious about allowing another such loophole for degenerates to lie their way into evading their responsibility), it's not someone else's responsibility to pay for what they believe is the murder of a human being.

One of these things is not like the other. The amount employers spend on coverage of Viagra prescriptions undoubtedly pales besides the costs of covering pregnancy care, or things like (largely unnecessary & recommended only to pad the income of the medical industry) mammograms. In any event, it should be obvious (except I'm talking to a person who has not mastered the concept of capital letters) that viagra is not birth control, nor does anyone have any moral objection to that, or an equivalent drug for women, to overcome sexual performance issues. Viagra is not remotely akin to the abortifacients that Hobby Lobby objects to, or even birth control that other groups object to. Birth control has the purpose of allowing the recreational abuse of the body's natural functions. Viagra and similarly functioning drugs allow natural body functions to be performed in the event of an aberrant debilitation. Viagra is the treatment of a problem. Birth control is a superfluous attempt to evade inconveniences that can be surmounted through the choices of the individual. No one chooses to engage in behavior that might cause the condition Viagra treats. If people were 100% certain what caused that condition, it would be well-known and men would make heroic efforts to avoid it. On the other hand, the specific behavior that creates a demand for birth control has been well-known for the entirety of human history.

For the reasons above. Viagra is the treatment for an unwanted condition whose causes are beyond the control of the patient. Birth control is not.

But not all. And no one compelled anyone to pay for those, either. No one is saying they are fine with covering vasectomies but opposed to the pill. Artifical birth control is artificial birth control, as far as religion is concerned, and I agree that those who are willing to do the one and not the other are hypocrites.

Since men are not allowed to determine how or when they become parents, yeah. That's special treatment. Until a man is allowed to opt out of fatherhood, abortion rights are a special privilege. A legal system that allows unilateral abortion choices, while mandating child support is hypocritical, a double-standard, and not equal protection or equal rights. I wouldn't expect you to crawl out from under your rock to acknowledge this, judging from your history of irrational attachments to positions, with no regard to consistent logic.
Yeah, they are. Abortion, child support, quotas, lowered standards, socially acceptable domestic roles, preferential treatment in court cases... the list goes on.

You keep hitting new lows of idiocy and reading incomprehension, to the point that I find it hard to believe I am solely aquainted with you through a book discussion website. The words in that very URL you posted say that those "investments" are through 401(k) plans! They have no control in what the managers of those funds choose to invest in, nor do they have any control over how those employees who choose to manage their own 401(k) handle it (or should they). It's like saying they are hypocrites because some employees choose to spend their own money on movies the bosses dislike.

You are either one of the most mendacious people with whom I have ever corresponded, or you are really clueless enough that you don't understand investing or retirement funds.
In point of fact, it is not easy to divest from the funds in which a 401(k) is invested. But if you think it is, why don't you explicitly specify the prodcedure they should take?

A law imposing on those rights is an invalid law.
No, it's a means for individuals to avoid being compelled to act against their consciences by their association with a group that is being unconstitutionally compelled to fund immoral activities.

Actually, it can, dumbass. Are you under the impression that there are no laws in Iran? That is as close to a "theocracy" as it is possible to come to such an inaccurrate and meaningless term. Ecclesiocracy would probably be a more accurrate term for what you seem to be suggesting, insomuch as there has never been in reliable human history, a case of a state ruled in fact by a deity.

Your personal pique at divinely-inspired or religiously motivated laws does not invalidate the concept. Freedom of conscience, and conscientious objection to immoral laws or policies has long been recognized for much more dubious cases than a practice which has been condemned by human beings for thousands of years, including the very wording of the Hippocratic oath! You are free to disagree with their position that it is immoral, but dissent on the grounds of private convictions is not a new or unique concept, nor has it ever been held to be fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law.