@ContrariusererCompanies are under no obligation to provide
healthcare.And none I know of are stopping the providing of medical
insurance.They just do not want pay for birth control. Which is an
individual responsibility and which would force they to pay for something
against their religious beliefs.And congress can NOT make laws that
would interfere with someone's religion and worship.Companies
are NOT an arm of government.
@ Razzle: Pregnancy can be life threatening - birth control is preventative.
@the truth --"it is about freedom of religion..."As with other rights, your freedom of religion ends at my nose -- meaning that
your freedom ends when your actions harm me.Withholding health
insurance which is already legally required from employees harms those
employees. Therefore the employer has no right to do it." you
have freedom to speak yours, but not punish him"NOM is currently
running TWO boycotts against companies with pro-gay policies. Why is it okay for
NOM to boycott, but not for anyone else?@RG --"...when OSC made the gay marriage comments?"He has made
many such comments, in many venues, throughout the years. The last ones I have
the text for were, I think, last year or the year before."I'm just pointing out hypocrisy of some people."No,
you're just pointing your lack of facts.He's not being
boycotted because he's against gay marriage. He's being boycotted
because he has said several very harmful (and untrue) things about gay people,
and because he has actively worked to deny them equal rights.@Razzle
2 --"Birth control is not life threatening."Have
you ever seen the results of a back-alley abortion?
At the risk of opening up a can of worms on this commentary, the solution to the
Hobby Lobby (and other companies that agree with them) is to stop all companies
from providing health care and then to replace that with Medicare for all.
An employer does NOT owe his/her employees ANYTHING but a wage for hours worked!
FORCING him/her to do otherwise, is a crime and goes against his/her freedom of
choice, which comes from a Higher Law than Obamcare.
I've always found it interesting that those who want others to be the most
tolerent of their lifestyle and views are often the least tolerant of the
lifestyles and views of others. You can choose your own lifestyle, but you do
NOT get to choose the reactions of others to your choice. It is impossible to
legistlate personal belief, try as our bureaucrats might to do so.
@ the Truth - Sorry that was meant for Contrariuserer@
Contrariuserer - Birth control is not life threatening when not supplied by your
@ the TruthBirth control is not life threatening.
The only job of our government is to protect our borders.
An employer should not have the right to impose their religious belief(s) on
their employees. .. Hobby Lobby.Abortion is not exclusively a
religious concern, any more than murder is.
Does anyone know when OSC made the gay marriage comments? Seems like it was
several years ago, long before Obama and Clinton were for gay marriage - at a
time when they, too, were against it. But somehow they get a pass. (Not that OSC
has changed his mind, and he shouldn't change it, but I'm just
pointing out hypocrisy of some people.)
Contrariuserermid-state, TN-Hobby Lobby -- Allowing this
business to pick and choose which laws it will be subject to would open up a
huge can of worms....Businesses and corporations are expected to follow
ALL the laws of the jurisdictions under which they operate. Omission: The discriminatory nature of this company is terrible.People
who get minimum wage jobs often must take whatever they can get.Female
employees of Hobby Lobby may have to chose between shoes for the kids, rent, and
birth control, so they take a chance.Women are 2nd class citizens to this
man, and he cares nothing for the unwanted children who will suffer.But --"Support gay rights! Go see "Ender's Game"!" --
Sorry, you are wrong.Lionsgate made a mistake which they are trying to
redress, but Hollywood is about money.If this movie is profitable, the
price of the movie rights to Card's books will go way up.
"The constant references to Plan B and ella as abortion-causing pills
frustrates Susan Wood, a professor of health policy at George Washington
University and a former assistant commissioner for women's health at the
FDA."It is not only factually incorrect, it is downright
misleading. These products are not abortifacients," she says. But it turns out, at least when it comes to Plan B, there is now fairly
definitive research that shows the only way it works is by preventing ovulation,
and therefore, fertilization."We've learned a lot about how
these drugs work," says Diana Blithe, a biochemist and contraceptive
researcher at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
"I think it's time to revise our speculations about how things might
work in view of data that show how things do work."Blithe says
studies have also shown that ella, like Plan B, doesn't prevent pregnancy
if a woman has already ovulated. Women who took the drug after ovulation got
pregnant at the same rate as those who took nothing at all. She says that
strongly suggests it does not have any effect on blocking implantation.(NPR)
There is NO evidence to date that morning-after pills prevent implantation of a
fertilized egg."There is no evidence to suggest that either of
the FDA-approved emergency contraceptive options, levonorgestrel (LNG, such as
Plan B One-Step, Next Choice One Dose, Next Choice, and Levonorgestrel Tablets)
or ulipristal acetate (UPA, such as ella) works after an egg is fertilized. In
two recent studies1,2 of the levonorgestrel regimen, women who presented for EC
were monitored to identify their menstrual cycle day and ascertain which women
took EC before ovulation, and which took it after. Among women taking LNG before
ovulation, there were no pregnancies. Among those who took it on the day of
ovulation or after, there were about the number of pregnancies that would be
expected with no use of EC; if LNG were effective at preventing implantation, it
would most certainly be more effective when taken after ovulation. A 2010 study
3 of ulipristal acetate (ella) found that at certain doses, it can decrease the
thickness of the endometrium (by 0.6 to 2.2 mm), but it is not clear that this
would in fact prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg."(Princeton
I will be attending the movie on opening day. Maybe even twice just to offset
any boycotting by hate groups.
@Larry- you're wrong. A Muslim or Jew would be perfectly within their
rights to ask something like that of their employees. Those who don't like
to make an agreement of that nature are free to seek employment elsewhere.There oughtn't even be anything illegal about making imbibing beer
during breaks a required condition for employment; you're just limiting
your potential workforce and possibly causing those who are willing to work
under those terms to be less effective. Just doing yourself a disfavor and your
competitors a favor. Why should the state get involved?Saying that
civil law is always "secular law" is really just a way to try to exclude
religious people from the public sphere. Civil society doesn't work that
way. If the majority of a city wants businesses to be closed on Fridays, only a
misguided judiciary would step in and overrule the will of the people; it
shouldn't matter whether that's because citizens think everyone should
spend the day surfing or because they think everyone should spend the day at the
mosque. Religious motivations are not somehow less valid in public discourse
For those who would boycott Ender's Game, I say fine, but it will be your
loss. The book was iconic and the movie is supposed to be incredible. It's
ironic that those who wish others to be tolerant of their aberrant lifestyles
are so intolerant and even hateful of those who may disagree.
There are religious laws and secular laws. Learn the difference. If I am a
Muslim or Jew and I own a business and you work for me, I do NOT have the right
to tell you not to bring a ham sandwich for lunch. By the way, my religion
insists my employees have a beer on their breaks.
@ContrariusererIt is not about "picking and choosing",it is about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of
conscience.@Red CorvetteAgain it is about freedom of
religion, which includes freedom to speak ones beliefs and conscience.And you have freedom to speak yours, but not punish him, that is what freedom
is all about.
@RedNormally I don't go to movies on the opening night. Mostly
I wait for Red Box, or at least I will catch it at the dollar theater. Because
of calls for a boycott, I will be going opening day to see Enders Game. I may
go a second time on Saturday just to help boost the opening day take.
Hobby Lobby -- Allowing this business to pick and choose which laws
it will be subject to would open up a huge can of worms. For
instance:Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions on religious
grounds. How would you feel if you were in a terrible car accident, but you
found out when you got to the ER that your employer refused to cover your
life-saving blood transfusions? Similarly, fundamentalist Christian Scientists
oppose ANY medical treatments on religious grounds. How would you feel if your
employer refused to provide ANY health insurance?Businesses and
corporations are expected to follow ALL the laws of the jurisdictions under
which they operate. Orson Scott Card --I personally hope
that EVERYONE will go to see this movie. Lionsgate Entertainment, the company
that produced "Ender's Game", is a prominent gay-rights supporter
in the movie industry. They have recognized and promoted equal treatment of gays
in their workplace for years, including providing equal benefits for gay couples
even while gay marriage was not being recognized in CA. Also, they are planning
to throw a benefit for gay-oriented charities coordinating with the movie
premiere.Support gay rights! Go see "Ender's Game"!