Why Women Aren't People (But Corporations Are)
and

5 sexual health services insurance will cover… for men

As usual religion is used to justify misogyny.

No wonder everyone else in the world thinks America is crazy.

I can't wait to see how it goes down when extreme Muslim business owners use this to justify not hiring Christians (I'd say treating woman poorly, but we all know that will have no traction here, after all, they're only women and not people)

---

Reality Internet Personality

I wanted to say something witty and on point, but all I can think about is how depressing this is.

And whats next? A court ruling that says business owners can discriminate against gays and other minorities as long as its part of some 'deeply held religious believes'?

I wanted to say something witty and on point, but all I can think about is how depressing this is.

And whats next? A court ruling that says business owners can discriminate against gays and other minorities as long as its part of some 'deeply held religious believes'?

This is what happens when religious people try to dictate policy. Injustice and prejudice. So much for separation of church and state.

Any wonder I'm not a fan? Can you imagine the Jehovah's witnesses refusing to fund blood transfusions for their workers?

Lets just hope this leads to a realisation that there needs to be a single payer system in the US.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Lets just hope this leads to a realisation that there needs to be a single payer system in the US.

Not likely as long as big money is involved.

---

Eh, I wouldn't solely blame it on religion. The Supreme Courts love for giving corporations as much rights as possible, even more rights that actual people, plays a major part in this as well.

That and deep rooted cultural misogyny given how the court has made this specifically about women and their ability to gain access to contraceptives, while completely ignoring male contraceptives. You'd expect religious nuts to be a little more consistent if religion was indeed the primary reason for this abomination of a ruling.

You'd expect religious nuts to be a little more consistent if religion was indeed the primary reason for this abomination of a ruling.

Why would you expect "nuts" to be logical?

---

I honestly don't know what to say...


An aspirin between her knees?

Ah, the war on woman...

That was not the ruling...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Ah, the war on woman...

That was not the ruling...

Nor did anyone here or in the articles linked from the OP suggest there was. Straw man anyone?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

If I was Obama, I'd say fine. Then when Hobby Lobby's employees file their tax returns, give them the bad news that the company paid plan isn't Obama care on an individual test basis. Please remit the fine, er tax, for not having a valid Obama care policy.

Now let SCOTUS dare say that you can have a deep seated religious objection exemption to the personal income tax!

After all Obama care is a tax, not medical coverage.

---

I say get rid of employer provided, tax free insurance. It is of great economic value to the employee and is a tax dodge. I'm really tired of subsidizing business. If you can't afford it why should I pay for it?

---

That and deep rooted cultural misogyny given how the court has made this specifically about women and their ability to gain access to contraceptives, while completely ignoring male contraceptives.

Don't you people have your own problems? Anyway, this is about abortion not contraception. Obama told Hobby Lobby if they don't want to provide abortions they could drop employee health care all together.

Spin it as you will but Hobby Lobby pays twice minimum wage and provides health care along with other benefits. Wal*Mart appears to be the way to run a business, 80% of the workforce is part time minimum wage so no abortions or routine checkups to get involved with; no tax ether because they are part time employees and not eligible.

Contraception will be address when the Little Sisters of the Poor suit hits the SCOTUS.

---

That and deep rooted cultural misogyny given how the court has made this specifically about women and their ability to gain access to contraceptives, while completely ignoring male contraceptives.

Don't you people have your own problems? Anyway, this is about abortion not contraception. Obama told Hobby Lobby if they don't want to provide abortions they could drop employee health care all together.

No, Hobby Lobby objected to a few specific forms of contraceptives which it argued, were actually a form of abortion. Of course, non of that has been backed by science, but hey, who needs science when you have 'sincerely held religious believes'.

The much larger problem is that this ruling creates a very wide precedent for corporations to ignore laws because of religious believes. Worse even is that it gives even more personhood to corporations by stating that corporations can have religious believes of themselves. At the same time, it also sends a very negative message towards women, essentially stating that corporations are more human than they are and that corporate rights are more important than womens reproductive rights.

The Little Sisters of the Poor are a whole other mess of religious stupidity. They argue that even signing a form that would exempt them from providing contraception to women and make the government pay for it somehow infringes on their religious believes because that somehow forces them to acknowledge that women want and need contraceptives.

once again you have no idea what your talking about...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

define---want---need...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

+1

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

That and deep rooted cultural misogyny given how the court has made this specifically about women and their ability to gain access to contraceptives, while completely ignoring male contraceptives.

Don't you people have your own problems? Anyway, this is about abortion not contraception. Obama told Hobby Lobby if they don't want to provide abortions they could drop employee health care all together.

No, Hobby Lobby objected to a few specific forms of contraceptives which it argued, were actually a form of abortion. Of course, non of that has been backed by science, but hey, who needs science when you have 'sincerely held religious believes'.

The much larger problem is that this ruling creates a very wide precedent for corporations to ignore laws because of religious believes. Worse even is that it gives even more personhood to corporations by stating that corporations can have religious believes of themselves. At the same time, it also sends a very negative message towards women, essentially stating that corporations are more human than they are and that corporate rights are more important than womens reproductive rights.

The Little Sisters of the Poor are a whole other mess of religious stupidity. They argue that even signing a form that would exempt them from providing contraception to women and make the government pay for it somehow infringes on their religious believes because that somehow forces them to acknowledge that women want and need contraceptives.

Great summary. Thank you!

---

Reality Internet Personality

Ah, the war on woman...

That was not the ruling...

Here you go ID: The Supreme Court’s Radical Right Wing Majority: Waging War on Women And Boosting Corporate Power

Just because you don't want to call it a war on women, doesn't mean it doesn't look exactly like one.

once again you have no idea what your talking about...

---

Reality Internet Personality

Women, systematically mistreated for millennia are gradually gaining the political and economic power traditionally denied them.

Ah, the war on woman...

That was not the ruling...

Here you go ID: The Supreme Court’s Radical Right Wing Majority: Waging War on Women And Boosting Corporate Power

Just because you don't want to call it a war on women, doesn't mean it doesn't look exactly like one.

once again you have no idea what your talking about...

Id like to join that war on your side. If there is going to be one you really NEED me on your side..., ...were do I join up at? I'm damn good with firearms!

The corp didn't stop their insurance company from passing our birth control pills. Out of the 20 or so different pills used they wanted to stop 4, 4 abortifacient's. This was a win for the first amendment.

Us cavemen don't drag you ladies around by the hair anymore. But, if you see that war you will let me know wont you? You really need a real man like myself in your war on us men...

What you have posted is a slant, talking head point, strawman, and nothing else.

As far as personhood goes; I disagree with it for a corporation. It is no more a person then my left shoe. A child is a child from conception, just like one cell found on another planet would be called life by you... ...bottom line.

You need me in your war, let me know when the battle lines a drawn up...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...