The Aftermath of the Hobby Lobby saga

[Jean Poutine]

For those not in the know, a SCOTUS decision was released today on the topic of whether an employer under the ACA could refuse to pay for coverage of religiously incompatible treatments (namely, in this case, birth control pills) for its employees for, well, religious reasons.

Because this is the United States, of course the SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that the employer was free to refuse to cover treatments that did not adhere to his/her religious values to the employees, no matter if the latter share these values or not.

Although the ruling is juridically acceptable (in the US), I don't think it is ethically. I do not understand why an employer should have the right to control the lives of people outside of the workplace. It's not just about religion, it's about the right to privacy and the right to make meaningful choices for one's life. If somebody works for a Jehovah's Witness, then are blood transfusions out of the picture? If I work for a Sikh, can I not get head surgery because my hair would be cut? And of course, if you throw religion into it, what right does a business have to enforce the beliefs of its CEO onto employees? Oh wait, I forgot, in America, businesses are people and have freedom of expression and freedom of conscience, so they have every right. Can a business even think? This ruling had the potential to mitigate the "but corporations are people too" doctrine going on in the US. Too bad. In fact, the ruling actually added freedom of religion to the list of rights corporations hold. I'm sorry, but to me, corporations should have no human rights, and in the event that they do, they should at least be totally subservient to the rights of actual human beings, meaning that if rights clash, the rights of the human win out.

Worst part is that I don't even blame Hobby Lobby for this, they are the typical Christian right fundy-ran business that will snake around any law in the name of Jesus (or at least their made-up vision of him). I blame the ACA for being a compromise that will satisfy no one. Leaving health care in private hands is completely irresponsible. I hope a future American president has enough balls to make a single-payer system a priority.

Here's the ruling, click on the date to read it : http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/

So, what do you think?

[Harry Smith]

Couldn't this be solved by having universal healthcare? (something the US would never have)

But yeah agree with your verdict-seems strange that a boss can have so much power over his staff

[Gamma Male]

Well where does it stop? What if an employer beliefs that antibiotics or organ transplants or chemotherapy are immoral and go against his religious beliefs? Then does he not have to pay for them?


But you know what really sucks? I get my art supplies at hobbey lobbey. :/

[Jean Poutine]

Couldn't this be solved by having universal healthcare? (something the US would never have)

Yes because then health care would become a part of government and such a ruling would violate separation of church and State, something even America has.

That's why in Canada, religious hospitals are really not, you can get an abortion or contraceptive pills at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal and no need to wear a kippa over there, or you can go to one of our hospitals with "Dieu" (God) in the name like the Hôtel-Dieu de Québec and get the same.

Well where does it stop? What if an employer beliefs that antibiotics or organ transplants or chemotherapy are immoral and go against his religious beliefs? Then does he not have to pay for them?

I'm usually wary of anything that looks like a slippery slope fallacy, but in this context I think it's actually a valid argument because under a common law system, precedents are used to judge similar cases with similar circumstances, so yes this could degenerate.

It's also because what standard the Court has put the test to : "It requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at conception." What that means is that a belief to x, if sincerely held, might render the ACA inapplicable to this x belief.

So it's literally possible for almost anything to not be covered by the ACA, especially because there is apparently no proof needed that a corporation burdens itself for the pursuit of a religious belief, such as spending more uplifting this belief than they would giving coverage :

"Amici supporting HHS argue that the $2,000 per-employee penalty is less than the average cost of providing insurance, and therefore that dropping insurance coverage eliminates any substantial burden imposed by the mandate. HHS has never argued this and the Court does not know its position with respect to the argument. But even if the Court reached the argument, it would find it unpersuasive: It ignores the fact that the plaintiffs have religious reasons for providing health-insurance coverage for their employees, and it is far from clear that the net cost to the companies of providing insurance is more than the cost of dropping their insurance plans and paying the ACA penalty."

Because this is how they determinate how sincere is a sincerely held belief : "It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. [...] The Court's "narrow function . . . is to determine" whether the plaintiffs' asserted religious belief reflects "an honest conviction,""

Meanwhile, the government has to prove this : "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the "Government [from] substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability" unless the Government "demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.""

I find the burden of proof really lopsided, especially given this ruling on this particular religious belief. It's funny because in Canada we have a freedom of religion ruling on a different subject but the criteria is "one of the least restrictive". Least restrictive is incredibly narrow, because it literally means what it means, in contrast with the Canadian criteria.

I would not be surprised if next up it's a Scientology-ran business that would try to gain its own special ruling to stop covering antidepressants (as Justice Ginsburg, apparently one of the only sane judges on this court, has written). Or maybe even some crazy loon cult-ran business not covering casts, as long as it claims a sincere religious belief.

How about a belief in the power of money?

So in the end, America will have a patchwork of religiously-minded exceptions to health care coverage, which seems quite against the spirit of the ACA to begin with, but Americans hate legislative history (don't know why, their legal tradition seems quite delusional to me) so eh.

If this continues, workers will have to research the [I]religious beliefs of the corporation they are applying to and find if they cover everything they want covered, limiting the job market for them even more than it already is. Seriously, is no one else shuddering at what I just italicized?

But you know what really sucks? I get my art supplies at hobbey lobbey. :/

This seems like as good a reason to stop shopping there than any other.

[Stronk Serb]

So if I'm some hardcore Christian or Muslim, I can decide to not allow my employees any insurance because it isn't God's will that they live. Fascinating. This is a stupid piece of legislation. I woučdn't wipe my ass with it.

[Jean Poutine]

So if I'm some hardcore Christian or Muslim, I can decide to not allow my employees any insurance because it isn't God's will that they live. Fascinating. This is a stupid piece of legislation. I woučdn't wipe my ass with it.

I don't know, it seems like a compelling interest for the government to actually preserve lives. I don't think it would go to this extreme, but it could go far enough.

It's still a terrible ruling for the liberal cause.

[Stronk Serb]

I don't know, it seems like a compelling interest for the government to actually preserve lives. I don't think it would go to this extreme, but it could go far enough.

It's still a terrible ruling for the liberal cause.

Well, if the US would open up for some "red" policies like universal healthcare and government subsidized education where you get in with skill, not money, they would realize a little socialism isn't bad after all. But all the "better dead than red" propaganda really did it's work.

[phuckphace]

I never could wrap my head around why Christians believe birth control is wrong. after all, birth control indirectly prevents needing to have an abortion later, and abortion seems to be the average Christian's pet peeve. I would think they would support free birth control and condoms given out everywhere if they really wanted to reduce the incidence of abortion that badly. but nope, I guess waving signs in front of abortion clinics is somehow better.

anyway, yeah, a national healthcare system would solve this issue perfectly. health insurance is a shameful scam and needs to fuck right off.

[Stronk Serb]

I never could wrap my head around why Christians believe birth control is wrong. after all, birth control indirectly prevents needing to have an abortion later, and abortion seems to be the average Christian's pet peeve. I would think they would support free birth control and condoms given out everywhere if they really wanted to reduce the incidence of abortion that badly. but nope, I guess waving signs in front of abortion clinics is somehow better.

anyway, yeah, a national healthcare system would solve this issue perfectly. health insurance is a shameful scam and needs to fuck right off.

Because you stop something which has a potential to ruin your life. Joking. Most of them see sex as a way to reproduce, not as a source of pleasure. Evolution introduced pleasure during sexual intercourse to encourage our cave men to reproduce more because the mortality rate was far greater back then. Now we can enjoy it all the same without children by just using a thing called a condom or birth control or other contraceptives. Here the state doesn't distribute contraceptives freely, not that I know of that, but for a dollar and 25 cents you can buy five condoms at a pharmacy, so it's covered.

[Laquifa]

How is it that all 5 justices that ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby were all men, who really wouldn't be affected by this? Does anyone else see the absurdity of that?

[Lovelife090994]

Well where does it stop? What if an employer beliefs that antibiotics or organ transplants or chemotherapy are immoral and go against his religious beliefs? Then does he not have to pay for them?


But you know what really sucks? I get my art supplies at hobbey lobbey. :/

I love Hobby Lobby. The Christian décor and art only makes me feel that more welcome. I just disagree with their high prices.

I never could wrap my head around why Christians believe birth control is wrong. after all, birth control indirectly prevents needing to have an abortion later, and abortion seems to be the average Christian's pet peeve. I would think they would support free birth control and condoms given out everywhere if they really wanted to reduce the incidence of abortion that badly. but nope, I guess waving signs in front of abortion clinics is somehow better.

anyway, yeah, a national healthcare system would solve this issue perfectly. health insurance is a shameful scam and needs to fuck right off.

Birth control stops potential life. Most Catholics strongly disagree with birth control. Many Catholic mothers tend to have more than one child if any.

[Harry Smith]

I love Hobby Lobby. The Christian décor and art only makes me feel that more welcome. I just disagree with their high prices.



Birth control stops potential life. Most Catholics strongly disagree with birth control. Many Catholic mothers tend to have more than one child if any.

Becoming a priest and vowing never to have sex stops potential life yet the Catholic agree with that

[Lovelife090994]

Becoming a priest and vowing never to have sex stops potential life yet the Catholic agree with that

Because never answering to the flesh and marrying frees a man solely to God. That's the idea anyway.

[AgentHomo]

I never could wrap my head around why Christians believe birth control is wrong. after all, birth control indirectly prevents needing to have an abortion later, and abortion seems to be the average Christian's pet peeve. I would think they would support free birth control and condoms given out everywhere if they really wanted to reduce the incidence of abortion that badly. but nope, I guess waving signs in front of abortion clinics is somehow better.

anyway, yeah, a national healthcare system would solve this issue perfectly. health insurance is a shameful scam and needs to fuck right off.

Because they believe the best for, of birth control is abstinence. Which I totally disagree with.

I am in utter shock and awe over this to be honest. Mainly because women are the victims here, but who's next. The ignorant religious right bigots who coincidentally hold wealthy money hungry positions as CEO's of disrespected companies now have the choice to impose whatever rules they see fit, according to their religion. Hobby Lobby is able to refuse contraception, WHICH IS PART OF THE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE MANDATE!!!!!!!! because they decided to play the victim card. What's next? Oh I don't know...they can fire gays, they can refuse gay customers, they can refuse atheist customers, they can force their religious intolerance on everyone! This is a victory for the religiously intolerant and bigoted right wing nut jobs. All because of some 2,000 year old superstitious belief of ignorance. Good job America, glad to see that we are making progress. I'll be celebrating July 4th in London I guess.

[Karkat]

I find it funny that you say this, because from what I know of Jehovah's Witnesses, they do not impose their lifestyles on unwilling persons if they're actually faithful :P

If you're getting imposed on, it's probably because you didn't tell them not to come back. Ergo, it's totally your fault.

The whole thing is that if they feels a job would go against their conscience, they don't do it. End of story. I feel if this man was a Jehovah's Witness, he'd either live and let live or not have the job. :lol:

ANYWAYS, back to the topic at hand, IMO religious freedom = the freedom for YOU to practice your religion, the freedom from religious persecution by others, and the freedom to have a sanctuary to worship, like a church.

It does NOT mean governing others, any form of government, or any public property, or private property one does not own. It should also mean separating religion from place of work IMO, for this very reason. Also, churches and church/religious-run organizations should be nonprofit. No televangelists. Churches and religious persons should have to pay taxes, etc.

IMO the US is far too religious as a government. I don't care if every person in America wants to PEACEFULLY follow a religion, but no one in government positions should be allowed to let their religion impose on their work. That's just silly. If you feel so strongly about your religion that you feel you can't do your job without adding in religion, BECOME A PRIEST OR SOMETHING.

[Jean Poutine]

I never could wrap my head around why Christians believe birth control is wrong. after all, birth control indirectly prevents needing to have an abortion later, and abortion seems to be the average Christian's pet peeve.

I think it's due to that Bible quote that says to spill no seed or something to that effect.

How is it that all 5 justices that ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby were all men, who really wouldn't be affected by this? Does anyone else see the absurdity of that?

Mostly because every female judge on the bench is progressive, I believe. Scalia et al are conservative dinosaurs, and Scalia especially scares me a lot.

ANYWAYS, back to the topic at hand, IMO religious freedom = the freedom for YOU to practice your religion, the freedom from religious persecution by others, and the freedom to have a sanctuary to worship, like a church.

It does NOT mean governing others, any form of government, or any public property, or private property one does not own. It should also mean separating religion from place of work IMO, for this very reason. Also, churches and church/religious-run organizations should be nonprofit. No televangelists. Churches and religious persons should have to pay taxes, etc.

IMO the US is far too religious as a government. I don't care if every person in America wants to PEACEFULLY follow a religion, but no one in government positions should be allowed to let their religion impose on their work. That's just silly. If you feel so strongly about your religion that you feel you can't do your job without adding in religion, BECOME A PRIEST OR SOMETHING.

Pretty much this. The whole problem is this "corporations have rights" doctrine, it's what suddenly allows businesses to claim freedom of religion. It essentially gives two voices to business owners as obviously the "beliefs and opinions" of a business are those of its owner. It's almost like there is a capitalist/business upper class stratum in the US that is propped up by getting more and more advantages with time. Waaait...that's exactly what is happening!

BTW, I've written a small letter for the lulz on this topic. Here it is :

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was a massive disappointment for liberals all over America, especially so because it was eminently foreseeable due to the Supreme Court's partisan composition. Insofar as the Establishment Clause in the United States is generally interpreted in what one might call a “religion-first” manner, permitting individual religious beliefs to frequently invalidate legislation, as opposed to a “government-first” interpretation alike to the one in France where the State has much more latitude to enforce a very rigid separation between Church and State, including a ban on religious accessories such as the burqa in public schools, this ruling is legally defensible.

However, the ruling being legally defensible does not mean that it does not go too far. By not only granting corporations a form of freedom of religion, but by setting the burden of proof of any would-be complainant to an absurdly low, almost logically circular level, and conversely asking the government to prove that there is a compelling governmental interest supporting legislation encroaching on religious beliefs and that this encroachment is fully minimized, removing any breathing room the government might have enjoyed in enacting said legislation, the Supreme Court of the United States has made it very easy to claim coverage exemptions on a religious basis; in fact, it has made it too easy.

As Justice Ginsberg correctly notes in her dissent, this unequal burden of proof will, with enough time, create a literal minefield, a patchwork of religiously-minded exemptions that will vary according to the employer's religious beliefs. It adds another factor for potential employees to consider while looking for a job. In the current economic situation, it might block jobs from the reach of employment seekers, especially when they cannot afford to pay themselves what an exemption is not covering. In short, either low-pay, low-skill jobs will become unavailable to people who do not share the employer's religious convictions and who need the coverage, or these workers will have to make do without such treatments as anti-depressants in case the business is ran by a Scientologist, blood transfusions for Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on. This seems quite against the colour and the spirit of the ACA to begin with.

It seems to me, a Canadian national, that Burwell exemplifies a conflict between a legal tradition that is unusually rigid, favouring legal positivism and originalism, and a population that is beginning to outgrow it. In Canada, our Constitution and by ricochet, our equivalent to the American Bill of Rights, is a living, breathing document that is supposed to evolve with the times. An originalist interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is unthinkable. Our Supreme Court, despite being composed of a majority of jurists appointed by the ruling Conservative Party, has not overturned this interpretation method. As well, our Court almost routinely creates new rights from old ones, all the while showing deference to the legislative branch by giving it some berth to create legislation tailored to today's context, even if it encroaches on individual rights.

Quebec's Multani affair is a striking example as while the statute in question, a ban on bringing to public schools the kirpan, a knife carried by Sikhs as part of their religion, was still invalidated, the Court all the same made clear in its motives that the government could and still can choose from a range of solutions to a given problem, and not just the least restrictive one. In opposition, the American Constitution has become ossified with time and, it seems, simultaneously distorted by an interpretative style favoured by numerous vocal, lobby-heavy minorities, for the protection of whose interests the Court gives unreasonably heavy burdens of proof for the government to surmount, contributing to further rigidity.

This seems due to a lack of purposive interpretation : even I know that the American Founding Fathers envisioned quite a different country than the one the United States has become. One look at the Federalist Papers makes this postulate quite evident. Yet, Canada, a country that gained its full independence from the United Kingdom only in 1982 following a slowly paced process over hundreds of years, and still keeps relics of British rule such as the monarchy, has a living Constitution, and the United States, a country born of a dynamic revolution, a mere British colony one day and a fully independent nation full of potential and groundbreaking, innovative political ideas the next day, has a dead one. Why is such irony present, and when did it happen?

Indeed, if the Constitution is the spine of a nation, it seems foolish to stunt its growth while the country itself continues to change and evolve, following the flow of time. So fight – fight for a new American Enlightenment.

Enjoy.

[Lovelife090994]

I find it funny that you say this, because from what I know of Jehovah's Witnesses, they do not impose their lifestyles on unwilling persons if they're actually faithful :P

If you're getting imposed on, it's probably because you didn't tell them not to come back. Ergo, it's totally your fault.

The whole thing is that if they feels a job would go against their conscience, they don't do it. End of story. I feel if this man was a Jehovah's Witness, he'd either live and let live or not have the job. :lol:

ANYWAYS, back to the topic at hand, IMO religious freedom = the freedom for YOU to practice your religion, the freedom from religious persecution by others, and the freedom to have a sanctuary to worship, like a church.

It does NOT mean governing others, any form of government, or any public property, or private property one does not own. It should also mean separating religion from place of work IMO, for this very reason. Also, churches and church/religious-run organizations should be nonprofit. No televangelists. Churches and religious persons should have to pay taxes, etc.

IMO the US is far too religious as a government. I don't care if every person in America wants to PEACEFULLY follow a religion, but no one in government positions should be allowed to let their religion impose on their work. That's just silly. If you feel so strongly about your religion that you feel you can't do your job without adding in religion, BECOME A PRIEST OR SOMETHING.

You want to tax churches? Are you mad? Churches are places of worship and charities not a business. What's next, taxing a synagogue or mosque? America would see a civil unrest so bad it would be mind boggling. If a business of religious standing disgrees with something since it violates their views then let it be. Don't expect a Christian business to do something deemed un-Christian. Birth control is your responsibility.

[StoppingTime]

You want to tax churches? Are you mad? Churches are places of worship and charities not a business. What's next, taxing a synagogue or mosque? America would see a civil unrest so bad it would be mind boggling. If a business of religious standing disgrees with something since it violates their views then let it be. Don't expect a Christian business to do something deemed un-Christian. Birth control is your responsibility.

Now just exactly how can a business have a religion? I fully understand that the business owners can be religious, but how and why, to you, do they have the right to allow this religious belief to influence what benefits they do or do not provide for their employees?

[Karkat]

You want to tax churches? Are you mad? Churches are places of worship and charities not a business. What's next, taxing a synagogue or mosque? America would see a civil unrest so bad it would be mind boggling. If a business of religious standing disgrees with something since it violates their views then let it be. Don't expect a Christian business to do something deemed un-Christian. Birth control is your responsibility.

Cuh, churches usually require you to tithe, it might as well be a business.

Also, there should be no such thing as a "Christian business" in this sense, that's practically discrimination against, well, everyone who ISN'T Christian. Including its employees. Business and religion should be kept separate, it's not ethical to deny healthcare of any kind just because you have a belief. Birth control is also used to treat some disorders, in case you didn't know.

Not that women have ever really mattered much to most religious organizations.

If men needed birth control to treat disorders, you bet this wouldn't be an issue.

If you can't do your job the way it needs to be done because of your religious beliefs, find another one.

This is like if Starbucks was bought by someone who was LDS and they decided only vanilla bean and strawberry frappes should be served.

If you can't handle the workload, don't take the job. In this guy's case, his workload involves providing his employees benefits. If he can't handle that, he needs to be canned, just like any other half-assed worker who can't do his job.

Besides, isn't a "Christian business" appropriating the religion? Didn't Jesus go in the temple and throw out the people who were selling things?

Sure, there are televangelists, but IMO they're just as bad. IMO this is hypocrisy, and if he wants to call himself a Christian, he needs to act like one, or shut his mouth. Simple as that.

[Jean Poutine]

You want to tax churches? Are you mad? Churches are places of worship and charities not a business.

Texan megachurches would disagree, as would televangelists.

What's next, taxing a synagogue or mosque?

By all means!

America would see a civil unrest so bad it would be mind boggling. If a business of religious standing disgrees with something since it violates their views then let it be.

The majority of your employees don't share their employer's views, and they are actual human beings, it's the employer who should let the employees be and decide for themselves what kind of sex life that they want. I mean employers already drug test, how far in someone's privacy can they get because "DUH JESUS"?

Don't expect a Christian business to do something deemed un-Christian.

You mean like investing in Plan B, the morning-after pill? (http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/investing/hobby-lobby-401k-contraception/)

By the way, if you're a man, it's totally okay to get Viagra or a vasectomy, Hobby Lobby does cover either.

[Karkat]

Texan megachurches would disagree, as would televangelists.



By all means!



The majority of your employees don't share their employer's views, and they are actual human beings, it's the employer who should let the employees be and decide for themselves what kind of sex life that they want. I mean employers already drug test, how far in someone's privacy can they get because "DUH JESUS"?



You mean like investing in Plan B, the morning-after pill? (http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/investing/hobby-lobby-401k-contraception/)

By the way, if you're a man, it's totally okay to get Viagra or a vasectomy, Hobby Lobby does cover either.

This is perfect in every way

Just thought I'd say that

[phuckphace]

lmao @ Hobby Lobby covering dick pills. what are they trying to do, get everyone to have more late-life children?

[Lovelife090994]

Cuh, churches usually require you to tithe, it might as well be a business.

Also, there should be no such thing as a "Christian business" in this sense, that's practically discrimination against, well, everyone who ISN'T Christian. Including its employees. Business and religion should be kept separate, it's not ethical to deny healthcare of any kind just because you have a belief. Birth control is also used to treat some disorders, in case you didn't know.

Not that women have ever really mattered much to most religious organizations.

If men needed birth control to treat disorders, you bet this wouldn't be an issue.

If you can't do your job the way it needs to be done because of your religious beliefs, find another one.

This is like if Starbucks was bought by someone who was LDS and they decided only vanilla bean and strawberry frappes should be served.

If you can't handle the workload, don't take the job. In this guy's case, his workload involves providing his employees benefits. If he can't handle that, he needs to be canned, just like any other half-assed worker who can't do his job.

Besides, isn't a "Christian business" appropriating the religion? Didn't Jesus go in the temple and throw out the people who were selling things?

Sure, there are televangelists, but IMO they're just as bad. IMO this is hypocrisy, and if he wants to call himself a Christian, he needs to act like one, or shut his mouth. Simple as that.

Tithes are a part of the Bible. You pay the money to God but it goes through a church. Rightfully it should only be used to help others and keep the church running. Keeping a church isn't free.
Christian businesses should be allowed. There are countless businesses both big and small with Christian fundamentals. You can't tear them down. Not everyone is Atheist. And to your comment on women, women matter to God. Women have been second-class since the beginning from the actions of men. Blame all of society. Every point in history both before and after Christ show harsh treatment to women.

Texan megachurches would disagree, as would televangelists.



By all means!



The majority of your employees don't share their employer's views, and they are actual human beings, it's the employer who should let the employees be and decide for themselves what kind of sex life that they want. I mean employers already drug test, how far in someone's privacy can they get because "DUH JESUS"?



You mean like investing in Plan B, the morning-after pill? (http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/investing/hobby-lobby-401k-contraception/)

By the way, if you're a man, it's totally okay to get Viagra or a vasectomy, Hobby Lobby does cover either.

What do you know about Texas or it's churches? What the media says right? Birth control is your ordeal, not your job's.

[Harry Smith]

You pay the money to God
What the media says right? Birth control is your ordeal, not your job's.

Does God recieve the money on paypal? Literally the whole idea of tithes has been abused since the Middle ages-nowdays you've got priests and ministers with 2,000 dollar suits. It's worse than those email scans-giving a guy money won't make God like you.

If your job provide you with medical insurance then by right it's their ordeal-they should provide you with all the available treatments

[Lovelife090994]

Does God recieve the money on paypal? Literally the whole idea of tithes has been abused since the Middle ages-nowdays you've got priests and ministers with 2,000 dollar suits. It's worse than those email scans-giving a guy money won't make God like you.

If your job provide you with medical insurance then by right it's their ordeal-they should provide you with all the available treatments

Did I say they are no scammers out there? No. Scammers are everywhere and humans are messy. History shows this too much to ignore it. Tithes is supposed to be a way to give thanks for the money God has granted you. There is always someone who is struggling and needs help, and it is your duty to help others. Tithes shows that you are thankful and willing to sow some of your money to others in the name of the Lord.

[Harry Smith]

Tithes is supposed to be a way to give thanks for the money God has granted you.

God doesn't give you money-it's a human invention that has fuck all to do with God

[Karkat]

Tithes are a part of the Bible. You pay the money to God but it goes through a church. Rightfully it should only be used to help others and keep the church running. Keeping a church isn't free.
Christian businesses should be allowed. There are countless businesses both big and small with Christian fundamentals. You can't tear them down. Not everyone is Atheist. And to your comment on women, women matter to God. Women have been second-class since the beginning from the actions of men. Blame all of society. Every point in history both before and after Christ show harsh treatment to women.



What do you know about Texas or it's churches? What the media says right? Birth control is your ordeal, not your job's.

Ah, but most priests are paid, no? And not volunteers?

There do exist heads of churches out there who are volunteers. Who have other jobs to support themselves. You are paying for a service if you tithe. If the church ran on voluntary donations- which it could- I know for a fact that the Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses are entirely voluntary, and run off of donations- then it'd be a different story.

You're right. Not everyone is an atheist. I'm not even an atheist. But there are plenty of other religions and beliefs out there that AREN'T Christian, or DON'T view birth control the same way. Denominational BUSINESSES are discrimination- how is this any different than if only white people were allowed rights in the workplace, or only gay people, or only women? It's fucking lopsided!

This isn't religious freedom, this is actually religious discrimination. Against anyone who doesn't have power.

Birth control isn't only used to prevent pregnancy, or even STDs- and as Jean Poutine pointed out, they cover vasectomies and Viagra. So this is totally just discrimination against any women who don't follow this guy's beliefs.

Providing healthcare is part of his JOB. So even if the religion he followed, or even just Christian religion in general was about screwing over people when you have power because you can- and modern Christianity seems to be ALL about screwing over people these days (I'm assuming because most modern Christians are uneducated in regards to the bible, and also hypocrites)- he's not doing his job, his position needs to be turned over, he needs to lose his job. This is no different from someone in general or district management denying benefits their workers. I mean, I don't know if there is a law out there per se that states that you HAVE to provide your workers with healthcare options, but considering the emergence of the law that everyone must be insured, it's only a logical step.

He's not necessarily doing anything illegal, just unethical. If his religion is going to mess with his ability to do his job the right way, he needs to choose. The position of power that he's in doesn't make him some sort of superhuman. It just frankly makes him a dick, and a terrible example for Christians.

lmao @ Hobby Lobby covering dick pills. what are they trying to do, get everyone to have more late-life children?

Wouldn't surprise me :lol:

[phuckphace]

Wouldn't surprise me :lol:

I give it ~40 years until we start watering our crops with Brawndo

[Jean Poutine]

What do you know about Texas or it's churches? What the media says right? Birth control is your ordeal, not your job's.

I don't need to rely on the media when I have been given a good enough brain to discern some things just by looking at them.

https://deanlbailey.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/slide1_grandopeningwide_.jpg

Does this look Christian to you?

Before you answer, keep in mind this :

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Matthew 6:5-8)

PS : according to Jesus, the Lord's Prayer is the only one you will ever need.

PPS : as an agnostic, my favourite hobby is teaching Christians their own religion. Hey, I have creds, I was raised Catholic.

lmao @ Hobby Lobby covering dick pills. what are they trying to do, get everyone to have more late-life children?

In the Christianright religion, only men are allowed to go forth and be promiscuous on the company's dime. Women just need to STFU and take it.

[Lovelife090994]

I don't need to rely on the media when I have been given a good enough brain to discern some things just by looking at them.

image (https://deanlbailey.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/slide1_grandopeningwide_.jpg)

Does this look Christian to you?

Before you answer, keep in mind this :

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Matthew 6:5-8)

PS : according to Jesus, the Lord's Prayer is the only one you will ever need.

PPS : as an agnostic, my favourite hobby is teaching Christians their own religion. Hey, I have creds, I was raised Catholic.



In the Christianright religion, only men are allowed to go forth and be promiscuous on the company's dime. Women just need to STFU and take it.

That's called rudeness. Christians pray for anything. In fact you should pray when you are happy, sad, and angry. I pray for joy, I pray for peace, I pray at home, I pray in public. You won't stop that.

[Jean Poutine]

That's called rudeness. Christians pray for anything. In fact you should pray when you are happy, sad, and angry. I pray for joy, I pray for peace, I pray at home, I pray in public. You won't stop that.

It's rude to point out that so-called Christians don't read or follow their own book? It's not my fault Jesus said ministers and physical churches are useless. He also said render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and render unto God what belongs to God ie. obey the laws of the land. So even just seeking these exemptions are contrary to the Bible.

Not that this is the subject of the thread to begin with.