S.T.A.R.K. Raving Mad
Posted by Michelle Moquin on July 8th, 2014
Good morning!
Like many of you the Hobby Lobby ruling and its repercussions are still heavy on my mind. How could it not be? This is such a huge step backwards for women. It reeks of misogyny and sexism from Hobby Lobby and the five BAPF S.T.A.R.K. raving mad et al (meaning the republicans). And it’s getting worse.
From Slate.com:
Quick Change Justice
While you were sleeping, Hobby Lobby just got so much worse.
The architecture of the U.S. Supreme Court Building is rife with turtles. There are turtles holding up the lampposts in the courtyard and turtles engraved in the stone decor. You can buy turtle coffee mugs at the gift shop. The turtle is said to represent the slow and deliberate pace of justice. This is an institution, the turtle tells us, that moves slowly, deliberately, and removed from the knee-jerk pace of the political branches.
Yet moments before they adjourned for their summer recess, the justices proved they can act quite quickly and recklessly when it comes to violating the terms of a controversial opinion they handed down only days earlier. It’s as if the loaner car the court gave us in the Hobby Lobby ruling broke down mere blocks from the shop.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that it was a “substantial burden” on the religious freedoms of closely-held corporations for the government to require them to provide contraception as part of their employee health care plans. The court didn’t say that the government could never require a company to do something that violated its religious beliefs, but rather that the government had to use the “least restrictive alternative.” That means that if there is a slightly less burdensome way to implement the law, it needs to be used. To prove that the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate was not the “least restrictive alternative,” the court pointed to a workaround in the law for nonprofits: If there are religious objections to a medical treatment, third parties will provide coverage to the employees.
Yet in an unsigned emergency order granted Thursday evening, the very same court said that this very same workaround it had just praised was also unconstitutional, that this workaround also burdened the religious freedom of religious employers. Overnight, the cure has become the disease. Having explicitly promised that Hobby Lobby would go no further than Hobby Lobby, the court went back on its word, then skipped town for the summer.
This new case involves Wheaton College, an evangelical Protestant liberal arts college in Illinois. A majority of the court granted Wheaton a temporary injunction allowing it to refuse to comply with the workaround, or “accommodation,” the court had just held up as the answer in Hobby Lobby. Under the ACA, churches have always been categorically exempt from the mandate. The law further allows religious nonprofits that don’t want to offer contraception to submit a short form, known as Form 700, which affirms their religious objection to providing contraception. Form 700 enables the company’s insurers or third-party administrators to cover the birth control instead of the employer. Easy peasy, right? Sign the form and you don’t have to provide the coverage that violates your religious beliefs. In Hobby Lobby, Justice Alito wrote that this solution “achieves all of the government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.”
Wheaton, however, along with many other religious not-for-profits, have long objected to this very workaround. They filed lawsuits claiming that the mere fact of signing a form noting their religious objection to contraception coverage triggered third parties to provide the contraception, which triggered women to have access to morning-after pills and IUDs, which in their view were akin to abortions, and thus violated their religious consciences. Signing the form, they said, was the same as actually providing the contraceptives themselves. It’s the butterfly effect of contraception. Any time Wheaton flaps its religious-conscience wings, a woman somewhere ends up with an IUD, and Wheaton’s religious liberties are violated.
And Thursday night a majority of the court agreed. The order is a preliminary injunction. The court will need to decide this and dozens of similar cases in the future. The justices caution that this in no way reflects their views of the future cases. But for our purposes, let it be known that the very workaround the court gave to religious objectors only four days earlier now likely violates their religious liberty as well.
For the court to issue an emergency temporary injunction is a truly extraordinary act. Even more extraordinary was that justices filed a 16-page barnstorming dissent. And those dissenters share a highly relevant personal characteristic: a uterus. That’s correct, the three dissenting justices last night were the court’s three women: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan. In the event that the religious and gender rift at the court was not already painful to behold, the dissent, penned by Sotomayor, is a forceful and unwavering rejection of both the majority’s reasoning and tactics. “I disagree strongly with what the court has done,” Sotomayor wrote. “Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today. After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might, retreats from that position.”
The dissenters take issue with several aspects of the majority’s act. First is the professed scope of the Hobby Lobby decision. Try to remember all the way back to Monday, when, writing for the majority, Justice Alito folded up the decision into something he characterized as nearly trivial. Look, it practically fits into his pocket! The decision only applied to family-owned, closely-held corporations, he assured us. The ruling was not going to unsettle a thing. “Our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate,” he soothed. Nothing about the holding would undermine an employer’s responsibility to provide vaccines to his employees, or to abide by existing employment and antidiscrimination laws. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” he wrote. But nowhere in his opinion did Alito tell us how or why there would be no such fallout. It was an assertion; or, in light of what happened next, a nice little act of judicial three-card monte.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his own concurrence to Hobby Lobby, cautioned us not to read too much into the precedent that he had just helped set, insisting that the majority opinion “does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent.” But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as she is so often reminded, was not born yesterday. In her Hobby Lobby dissent, she disputed the narrowness of the rule and charged that the court had just waded into a “minefield.” She was right.
In the hours after the Hobby Lobby ruling came down, the court was already kicking a host of cases back to various lower courts for reconsideration in light of the new rule. Three courts of appeals were told to revisit decisions, including at least one that involved an employer with religious objections to all 20 contraception methods guaranteed under the ACA, and not just the four ruled out in Hobby Lobby. Another is the appeal from an employer whose claims about burdens on his religious liberty started out as religious, but became a libertarian screed. “I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control,” Michael Potter, the head of Eden Foods confessed to MSNBC’s Irin Carmon last fall. “What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? That’s my issue, that’s what I object to, and that’s the beginning and end of the story.” That “religious” objection will now be taken seriously in the courts, bearing in mind, as Justice Alito cautioned, that “[i]t is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.” These nearly instantaneous acts by the court quickly made the narrow little Hobby Lobby ruling seem like much, much more. (Meanwhile, at Guantánamo Bay, real-live detainees are now petitioning the court for the same personhood status as Hobby Lobby so that they too may exercise religious freedom.)
The second problem with the court’s emergency injunction in the Wheatoncase is about the viability of this workaround. You would be forgiven for having been misled. In his majority opinion in Hobby Lobby, applying the test required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Alito determined that the problem with the contraception mandate was that it was not the “least restrictive” means for the government to achieve its goals of allowing women access to contraceptive care. What the majority said in Hobby Lobby was: Given that the administration had already nipped in the mandate a little for religiously-affiliated schools, hospitals, and charities, it was clearly able to nip it the same way for the for-profits who raise the same objections. “HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs,” Alito wrote. “HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections.” In other words, since the government had already created a legal workaround—the form that affirms the objection—that workaround was the narrowest way to achieve the government goals. If the Little Sisters of the Poor could sign a form that kicked responsibility for insuring contraception to the third-party administrator, Hobby Lobby should be allowed to sign the form as well.
Although the opinion nowhere guaranteed that this compromise was not also going to prove to be a religious burden, Alito said it “achieves all of the government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.” Again, you would be forgiven for reading that to mean, as we briefly did, that the form implicitly did not burden religious liberty, even though the court did not directly decide the question. Or for expecting that the array of challenges pending in the lower courts (122 at last count) by nonprofits claiming that signing the opt-out form violates their religious liberty, might now be resolved in favor of the government. Days later, the respect it afforded religious liberty is not enough. The new unsigned opinion in Wheaton suggests that the fix to Monday’s problem—signing a form—is now a religious burden. At this rate, by next Tuesday the court will have decided that religious objectors can more readily opt out by way of a Bat Signal to HHS. Which said workaround, in turn, will soon be found to offend religious freedom.
Justice Sotomayor, in Thursday’s dissent, identified the fatal flaw of the majority opinion in Hobby Lobby. “Let me be absolutely clear,” she wrote, “I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs. But thinking one’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened—no matter how sincere or genuine that belief may be—does not make it so.” She also pointed out, in case anyone seeks to argue that the extension of the Hobby Lobbyarguments to the not-for-profit claims was as “narrow” as the decision inHobby Lobby was purported to be: “Today’s injunction thus risks depriving hundreds of Wheaton’s employees and students of their legal entitlement to contraceptive coverage. In addition, because Wheaton is materially indistinguishable from other nonprofits that object to the Government’s accommodation,” she goes on to add, “the issuance of an injunction in this case will presumably entitle hundreds or thousands of other objectors to the same remedy.”
Not everyone was fooled by the majority’s promise that the decision in Hobby Lobby was narrow. But the speed with which the court has loosened the dam on this is stunning. While the court has told us that we are not allowed to question the sincerity of corporations’ professed religious beliefs, we remain free to question the sincerity of the court’s pinky promise that the Hobby Lobbydecision would have a limited scope. At the end of this term, many people sighed a breath of relief that the outcome of Hobby Lobby was not as bad as we’d feared. It will be. The only thing turtlelike about the court’s behavior inHobby Lobby was that an impenetrable shell protects it from the consequences of what it has just done.
*****
Readers: What no one is addressing with these religious freaks is, if you don’t believe in sex before marriage then why wouldn’t Cialis and Viagra be disallowed…i.e. not available to the single and widowed men of Hobby Lobby? Yet even though their religion is against premarital sex, men still get access to their pills through their health care coverage, and women are denied protection. Wha’at?! This is screwed up.
Do you think Hobby Lobby cares? Nope. If they did, their case would have included Cialis and Viagra too, at least for those single and widowed men.
Do you think S.T.A.R.K cares? Nope. If they did, their ruling would have included Cialis and Viagra too, at least for those single and widowed men.
(Remember religious freaks…no premarital sex is allowed!)
But wait…how could I forget?…Women’s health is not important. And men’s needs are. Men need to have their pills to get it up and get laid – veerryy important. So of course, taking away men’s Cialis and Viagra is not even going to be up for discussion, and certainly not part of the case or the ruling.
They will always use their religion as an excuse against the needs of women, yet they won’t address those same religious beliefs when it comes to the needs of men. Sexism at its best. And yes, throw in a big dose of misogyny too.
Have you ever thought about the influence Cialis and Viagra have on divorce? Divorce of those over 50 is so big that they have a name for them: “Gray Divorces.”
From the NY Times:
For the first time, more Americans 50 and older are divorced than widowed, and the numbers are growing as baby boomers live longer.
“A lot of marriages died a long time ago, but because of the shame involved, in a family people often stuck together for the children. Now the children are grown up. Viagra is another reason — men are able to satisfy younger women. And people are living longer and they can get out and still have a life.”
Ahh…yes, man leaves wife for a younger model. Nothing new here except now he’s got Viagra and Whoo hoo!! He now knows he can satisfy a younger woman. “I’m outta here – see ya wifey…I’m trading you in for a newer younger model.”
No wonder divorce rates are now higher amongst older couples, thanks to Viagra.
And what about STD’s now that “Gray Divorces” are common and we have a bunch of old men running around with hard dicks looking for younger women?
From the Huff Po:
Online dating and medications like Viagra have been a boon to the 50+ community over the past several years. People over 50 are more social than ever and more are having sex! That’s the good news. But with this change come issues. People over 50 are getting STDs more than ever before. Incidences of syphilis and chlamydia in adults aged 45 to 64 tripled between 2000 and 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In areas heavily populated by retirees, the STD rates are even more dramatic.
Not great news especially for women. If you think your man is done with his cheating years, think again. Viagra is around and available. And unless your man puts a rubber on it, you are at risk. How would you like to wake up in your older years with an STD because your husband, whom you never thought you would have to worry about now, decides to cheat on you without a rubber and then has sex with you, and you end up with an STD?
More from the Huff Po article:
Just because we’re older and our bodies aren’t in the phase of getting pregnant doesn’t excuse Boomers from the need to protect our sexual health. We’re not immune to STDs, nor are we resistant to them. In fact, post-menopausal women are more vulnerable to STDs than younger women.
This case ruling goes so much deeper than what has been addressed. But since it doesn’t affect the men, do you think S.T.A.R.K and the Hobby Lobbys of the world care about this at all? Nope.
Thoughts? Blog me.
Peace out.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2014
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
July 8th, 2014 at 12:32 pm
Face it these criminals have sold out the country for a few dollars more in their pockets. Someone needs to deal with this bunch.
July 8th, 2014 at 1:48 pm
Dear Michelle, I have owed you this apology for a long time. What makes this one difficult for me is that I haven’t had to make an apology such as this before.
Nothing you have done or said to me was reason for me to go off at you in the manner and severity in which I did. You are and always were completely blameless and I was totally at fault, as per usual.
I am now and have been so very sorry since that very moment that this occurred. Please accept my apology, your welcome back was the one I was looking for. If I am welcome to, I would like to comment here from time to time.
Sincerely,
Al
July 8th, 2014 at 4:15 pm
Americans are a right stupid bunch! They still can’t see the forest through the trees. Like we need this!
It’s a trend now big enough to put a name to. Many Americans are rigging their trucks to intentionally emit large plumes of toxic smoke. It’s called “rolling coal,” and it’s meant as a political statement.
The truck owner rigs the diesel engine to emit large amounts of black soot. One truck owner labeled his vehicle “Prius repellant” and took a video as he aimed smoke at a car behind him. (Via YouTube / doug coons)
For some, it’s a form of protest against environmentalism, striking back against efforts to lower carbon emissions and overall pollution. For others, it’s just for kicks. (Via YouTube / Renato Sanchez)
The relatively new trend has skyrocketed in recent years. Google analytics shows the search volume for “rolling coal” increasing sevenfold since February 2011. (Via Google)
July 8th, 2014 at 4:36 pm
You tagged this on Bea. Actually hicks, racist hicks will do anything to dis the black guy.
July 8th, 2014 at 4:52 pm
Japan needs to be shown that we will not continue to accept their lies. If they want to discover what damage their nuclear waste is doing to us, then let them see first hand.
Earthquakes or typhoon, I don’t care which get it done.
July 8th, 2014 at 4:57 pm
This serves to highlight how cataclysmicaly stupid our system is where the majority of Americans get their health insurance from their employers and now our employers can dictate what health care we can receive. Single payer is the only way out of this mess.
July 8th, 2014 at 4:59 pm
Here is a thought. Decouple employment and health insurance. I want my employer involved with my choices in health insurance as much as I want them to dictate what auto insurance I have and must pay for.
You don’t need single payer for this. All you have to do is treat employer provided health insurance as ordinary income and remove any financial incentives for employers to provide health insurance. This would result in a massive shift of people from employer plans to private plans, allowing individuals to choose what coverage they want.
This also greatly increases employee mobility because they are no longer beholden to their employer for health insurance.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:00 pm
Meanwhile, at Guantánamo Bay, real-live detainees are now petitioning the court for the same personhood status as Hobby Lobby so that they too may exercise religious freedom.
Man, that was depressing.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:01 pm
The conservative majority of the supreme court is absolutely out of control. There is no way anyone in their right mind can defend this. Base a ruling on an option being avilable that they then declare unconstitutional days later?
This shit is clearly a war against womens rights and women better wake up and vote or its gonna get way worse. Conservatives have shown their true colors when it comes to womens health.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:02 pm
I wonder what these people will do when a non-Christian business owner decides to ride this decision to its logical conclusion.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:02 pm
What happens if Hobby Lobby is sold to a person of another religion? (Before anyone says that wouldn’t happen, maybe not Hobby Lobby specifically, but the scenario will arise eventually.)
Does the company’s religion follow suit or will it forever be of its founders faith? Are there legal papers that will need to be filed in regards to the change of its religion?
July 8th, 2014 at 5:02 pm
The school pays an employee, the employee purchases birth control. That violates our religious beliefs, we shouldn’t have to pay them the portion of their wage that they possibly use for birth control. According to the court, this is a reasonable argument.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:03 pm
I go to Wheaton College. I hate it.
I’m not about to get into my reasons for being there, but let me just say that it’s pretty hypocritical for a college that preaches it’s pro-life stance to not have maternity leave for female professors, and that at one point required female professors to APPLY to have a child.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:04 pm
These rulings are very bad on another level, as it could result in religious discrimination. Any potential employee could be weeded out if they ask about the company’s insurance coverage during the interview. Of course, the stated reason will be that the company found someone who they felt was a better fit…
July 8th, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Oscar#6, Yeah, single payer is the answer to this issue but the conservatives on the supreme court aren’t even trying to appear unbiased anymore, never mind actually trying to be unbiased.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Linus#7, it also shifts employees out of large risk pools, resulting in larger premiums for all employees that had reasonable plans previously. And an even bigger gimme for the insurance companies.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:08 pm
Tj#15, There are no repercussions for their behavior.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:09 pm
Linus#7, Single payer would be cheaper and more efficient. By making the pool massive you evenly distribute the risk. Plus you have all the advantages you just talked about.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:11 pm
Oscar#18, Sure there is. The repercussions just aren’t legal. (Kidnap, torture, murder)
July 8th, 2014 at 5:13 pm
So to reduce conflicts where personal religious beliefs clash with government-mandated healthcare directives, you want more government mandates?
July 8th, 2014 at 5:15 pm
Brian#9, Women’s health is only part of it, what they are all about is christian privilege. All religions are equal, but in the eyes of the conservatives on the court certain christians are a bit more equal than the others.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:16 pm
Sally#20, Each individual can determine what health options they want to use and can’t dictate to anyone else, especially their employees.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:17 pm
Linus#19, You’re looking to undermine our system of government and the true intention of our founding fathers? Are you considering murdering representatives too when they don’t vote the way you like?
This is exactly why the supreme court has lifetime appointments, so that they’re NOT subject to popular opinion or politics.
I may not agree with their ruling, and I may argue against it and urge it to be changed, but I would never say anything near what you just said.
Our legislative branch has the power to change this.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:20 pm
Oscar#17, There may be repercussions if it causes an apathetic population to actually get out and vote in the upcoming midterm elections to make sure the GOP doesn’t win the senate.
There are several older justices and a Republican controlled senate would not allow Obama to make a moderate or liberal appointment should one or more of the justices resign in the next year or two.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:20 pm
It’s a major flaw in our system that justices wield so much power and are appointed.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:22 pm
Oscar#22, But some taxpayers are forced to pay for things they don’t agree with.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:23 pm
Oscar#25, I disagree with that. I think that having justices that aren’t subject to politics is a good thing. We’ve had some appalling rulings lately, but historically the court has mostly been on the right side of issues.
The problem is that we have a few very bad justices at the moment. The right has managed to get several ideologues on the court, but for most of our history the court has been pretty good.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:24 pm
Elected judges are worse.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:25 pm
Sally#26, They don’t have regular medical insurance? If they do some of “their money” goes in the general pot and pays for birth control too.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:26 pm
Lucas#27, I see your point, but it rankles me.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:27 pm
Oscar#30, Yeah, the damage they are doing is going to hurt a lot of people before it, hopefully, gets undone.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:28 pm
Oscar#29, Not true. There were and still are (to a lesser degree) health insurance companies and co-ops that don’t pay for things their members don’t agree with. For example:
http://samaritanministries.org/
July 8th, 2014 at 5:31 pm
Jon#8, right? they don’t even get habeas corpus. What the fuck makes em think they will get this? When are they gonna learn they are basically dead but we can’t kill them because they are POWs.
There are laws against that (mind you there are laws against torture and that didn’t seem to stop us).
July 8th, 2014 at 5:32 pm
All the Supremes are – ‘Bought and paid for’
…and the only one that sounds like they have a half a brain in their head is Sotomayor.
Those who are religious are so under the influence the don’t even get this?
Mischa,
You covered many topics…
…and the gray divorces are happening at a rapid pace, though stats say it’s women throwing down the divorce papers, and often it’s not over another woman or her man’s suddenly stiff appendage, by all accounts it sounds like women who stayed to raise the kids just stop the crazy train right after that last one leaves the nest. It’s the old ‘put up with it till you don’t have to’ thing though I could be totally wrong and it’s all about that dang blue pill …
As trending would have it though … monogamy is on the top of the list of things – ‘going out of style’ – could be the cialus but I would think that it’s that and social media making it very easy to hook up easily with whoever including with exes and all that, I’ve been contacted via facebook like that, (sorry, no thank you to you and your suddenly single self) and I’m sure it’s just the ever evolving concept that most people fid it very difficult to stay together till death parts their ways, we live a lot longer than we used to … btw, STD’s are also rampant in retirement homes/communities as well (no further commentary from moi on that) …
…and it used to be a ‘compromise’ (& more often than not that would be a woman doing that compromising thing) we made to not stray too far from who we were known to be within a relationship and now I don’t think anyone should get in the way of anothers’ life expansion (and maybe Mr Man needs his expansion to go elsewhere bc his wife simply just doesn’t love him ‘that way’ anymore) she’s into other things or wants a new partner who appreciates her and her repressed sensuality/sexuality, old relationships tend to have a ‘take it for granted’ factor that’s hard to escape … ohhh, there’s way too many variables involved … us humans are so complex I have a hard time with oversimplified statements like that …
Luv, Zen Lill
July 8th, 2014 at 5:33 pm
David#21, It’s more the authoritarian preoccupation with promiscuity. Google: authoritarian personality.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:33 pm
Having an authoritarian personality and and being a christian are not mutually exclusive.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:35 pm
None of this has to do with the Constitution.
The fact that a less-restrictive means exists, and is being used, does not mean that those means are themselves the least restrictive means. Strict scrutiny (and the statutory equivalent in the RFRA) doesn’t mean “find a less restrictive means, use it, call it good.” It means “we keep going until we get to the least restrictive means, a place where there are no less restrictive ways to do it.”
Imagine for a moment that the Supreme Court were reviewing an affirmative action case (also done under strict scrutiny), and said that giving automatic entry to every black person who applied would be unconstitutional because there is (for example) a less-restrictive means through a quota system.
Does that mean a quota system is by definition itself kosher?
July 8th, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Cain#10, They will be ruled against. The conservatives on this court are perfectly fine with giving christians special privileges.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Tthe right wing RAGE is, as usual, aimed at people who they think are doing the things they are themselves doing but are in denial about.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:40 pm
Russell #11, Presumably the new owner would change the rules and buy healthcare that included those types of birth control.
The ruling didn’t ban them from purchasing that coverage. Just said they didn’t have to.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:45 pm
Zen Lill#34, I think you have something there.”It’s the old ‘put up with it till you don’t have to’ thing though I could be totally wrong and it’s all about that dang blue pill …”
Looking at the statistics on STDs in the elderly, it is apparent that viagra has brought a terrible toll to the woman married to the man using it to cheat on her.
So in her late years she ends up with a STD that is fatal and incredibly painful. But you don’t hear the male dominated churches railing against this evil.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:49 pm
“Online dating and medications like Viagra have been a boon to the 50+ community over the past several years. People over 50 are more social than ever and more are having sex! That’s the good news. But with this change come issues.
People over 50 are getting STDs more than ever before. Incidences of syphilis and chlamydia in adults aged 45 to 64 tripled between 2000 and 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In areas heavily populated by retirees, the STD rates are even more dramatic.”
=====================
No church has said a thing about non married men having access to Viagra or cialis. Why is it moral for a man to use something to enable him to have sex out of wedlock but immoral for a unmarried woman to have access to birth control?
I’ll leave it to Zen Lill to explain. She has an answer to most human dilemmas.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:53 pm
Ira#13, wow, that basically like saying, “We aren’t going to help you if you have a child, but we’re not going to help you not have one either.”
July 8th, 2014 at 5:54 pm
So where are the morons who keep saying that both parties are the same?
July 8th, 2014 at 5:55 pm
Raphael#44, They are on other blogs supporting this ruling maybe?
July 8th, 2014 at 5:55 pm
It is 2014. Why in the hell are the most superstitious/religious people in this country in charge of so much of our secular government?
Why are we even having to discuss contraception as a public issue? Have these people never heard of privacy? Apparently not.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:56 pm
The Hobby lobby lobbyists are not really hobby lobbyists at all but rather professional Hobby lobby lobbyists. Some of them may be hobby hobby lobby lobbyists but I’m guessing many of them are just plain old lobbyists.
// sorry for the English, not my first language – and I’m pretty drunk.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:58 pm
I went to Hobby Lobby once. I never set foot in that place after my first time I saw the low quality goods – 100% stamped Made In China or some other shit hole communist country.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:58 pm
Aldofo#47, that was fine word play for a non-native-english-speaking drunkard, dare say it would be fine for a sober native-english-speaker.
July 8th, 2014 at 5:59 pm
Carlos#46, because large chunks of the US have not evolved past 1914.
July 8th, 2014 at 6:01 pm
I have lost all respect for S.T.A.R.K. They have become infected with the same sickness of political-cultural polarization as the rest of the government.
This is the worst Supreme Court since Tawney’s
July 8th, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Helen#51, sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you are so wrong. That S.T.A.R.K. bunch isn’t infected with anything but greed. They are as Zen Lill said, “Bought and Paid for.
July 8th, 2014 at 8:24 pm
June , bc men are running shit, that’s why…& they would also argue that it’s women who get pregnant and have babies (no mention of their insertion to get that way though) bc why take responsibility when you can blame it on women?
Did my a answer disappoint you?
-ZL
July 9th, 2014 at 3:07 am
Zen Lill#53, could you please use numbering system most others here use to identify whom you are addressing. I couldn’t find the “June” you were referring to.
July 9th, 2014 at 5:12 am
Howie, Why didn’t you warn us about the typhoon that hit my island of Okinawa. You know what the aliens are up to . They bragged about it.
5. 9sj^88 Says: July 8th, 2014 at 4:52 pm
We still do not have power in some places. Come on Howie we count on you.
July 9th, 2014 at 5:13 am
Thanks Zen Lill. Lesley I was number 42.
July 9th, 2014 at 5:23 am
My race’s racism is just insane some times. I still can’t understand the reason why Redskins owner Daniel Snyder is continuing to want to hold on to the that name.
Yes, there was a time when we whites could insult any OTW we wanted to, but alas, that time is over. We can beat them into submission or deny them the ability to testify against a white man in court any more.
People like Snyder are holding out because people like S.T.A.R.K. give them hope that SCOTUS will find a way to make it legal for them to be racists openly.
Who knows maybe if you say your religion hates niggers, spicks, jews, and chinks, you may be able to Hobby Lobby into expressing those views openly.
July 9th, 2014 at 9:02 am
[…] Al: Thank you. Apology accepted. And of course you may stay and comment here as often as you like. […]