• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

I henceforth vow to boycott Hobby Lobby

  • Yes, without a second thought!

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • Yes, but I never shopped there anyway...

    Votes: 13 65.0%

  • Total voters
    20

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
IMO, anyone who is unaware that doctors routinely prescribe birth control pills or IUDs to women for a wide variety of health reasons other than birth control is not entitled to be taken seriously in this debate. That goes double for the male SCOTUS justices, whose incredible ignorance vis a vis women's health has now been forcefully injected into the doctor's office with millions of female employees of other ignorant men.


I completely agree...
 

nash8

Da man, when I walk thru!
It opens the door for weaseling out of a lot of things that are wise for the greater public good. And given a certain relatively large demographic in my country seems to like to weasel out of things that are good for the general public or the long-term future, it makes me nervous.

Your just starting to get nervous... you're way behind the ball lol. :D

Supporting terrorist organizations and drug cartels gets you a slap on the wrist. Refusal of the provision of contraception seems minor to me, with regard to the other atrocities being "weaseled out of".

Even along these lines, and much more atrocious to me. The "Good Will" can "legally" pay disabled employees less than minimum wage regardless of their work performance due to a loop hole in a 1930's era labor law. If any store should be boycotted, it should be "The Good Will".
 
  • Like
Reactions: MD

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But now the big bad socialist/communist/fascist/Muslim/massiah/king wants to make them do it.

And that makes it different somehow. :yes:

FWIW, they did drop the coverage when they realized it was part of their plan. However, I think the fact that they apparently didn't bother to review their policy to see whether it conflicted with their beliefs or communicate their requirements to their insurer gives some indication of how important this issue was to them.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
FWIW, they did drop the coverage when they realized it was part of their plan. However, I think the fact that they apparently didn't bother to review their policy to see whether it conflicted with their beliefs or communicate their requirements to their insurer gives some indication of how important this issue was to them.

Exactly.

Their position continues to become less defensible as each new bit of information is revealed. It's as if the less informed this personhood is, and the more faithful they purport to be, the more support they get from SCOTUS to privilege and finance certain things and to throw others under the bus.

Science, accountability, and blind justice be damned now. As long as you're an arbitrary closely-held sort-of person with agreeable deeply-held beliefs that doesn't make baby Jesus cry, you can do whatever you please no matter the cost to those loose slutty women who don't deserve as much.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Exactly.

Their position continues to become less defensible as each new bit of information is revealed. It's as if the less informed this personhood is, and the more faithful they purport to be, the more support they get from SCOTUS to privilege and finance certain things and to throw others under the bus.

Science, accountability, and blind justice be damned now. As long as you're an arbitrary closely-held sort-of person with agreeable deeply-held beliefs that doesn't make baby Jesus cry, you can do whatever you please no matter the cost to those loose slutty women who don't deserve as much.
What's your opinion of Obamacare's specifically exempting these entities
from the requirement to provide birth control to female employees?:
- Companies with grandfathered plans which remain unchanged
- Companies with fewer than 50 employees
- Churches

Note: My question is predicated on some murky presumptions about coverage.
Googling the subject, things aren't crystal clear. Feel free to challenge things.

I hate sentences which require 2 forms of punctuation!
What is a "?:"....an "interrolon"....a "quesolon"?
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
What's your opinion of Obamacare's specifically exempting these entities
from the requirement to provide birth control to female employees?:
- Companies with grandfathered plans which remain unchanged
- Companies with fewer than 50 employees
- Churches

Note: My question is predicated on some murky presumptions about coverage.
Googling the subject, things aren't crystal clear. Feel free to challenge things.

I hate sentences which require 2 forms of punctuation!
What is a "?:"....an "interrolon"....a "quesolon"?

My knee-jerk reaction? Same old song and dance when it comes to a government that is all too willing to side with religious bigotry and sexism in the name of "freedom." White House female employees have to face a wage gap in spite of the fact that Obama has insisted on equal pay for equal work.

It's not as if the Obama administration hasn't thrown anybody else under the bus before. Oh wait...
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
My knee-jerk reaction? Same old song and dance when it comes to a government that is all too willing to side with religious bigotry and sexism in the name of "freedom." White House female employees have to face a wage gap in spite of the fact that Obama has insisted on equal pay for equal work.

It's not as if the Obama administration hasn't thrown anybody else under the bus before. Oh wait...
Well, in Obama's defense, men earn more because they're hired for the better
& more senior positions. So it's a perfectly reasonable.....uh...never mind.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Well, in Obama's defense, men earn more because they're hired for the better
& more senior positions. So it's a perfectly reasonable.....uh...never mind.

Men earn more because they value themselves more.

As an employer if I can't get a women to do the same job as a man for less pay it's better for my bottom line. Heck, if I can get a man to the same work as another man for less pay it's better for my company.

Why should I pay more when I can get people to work for less. If women are willing to work for less that's not my fault.

Lets encourage the hiring of more women, sounds good for business.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Men earn more because they value themselves more.

As an employer if I can't get a women to do the same job as a man for less pay it's better for my bottom line. Heck, if I can get a man to the same work as another man for less pay it's better for my company.

Why should I pay more when I can get people to work for less. If women are willing to work for less that's not my fault.

Lets encourage the hiring of more women, sounds good for business.
I doubt that Obama would admit to that strategy.
 
Last edited:
Top