Iron Man`s Take On The `Hobby Lobby` Decision[Pic]

Submitted by: Jerm_Leather 1 year ago in Funny

Tony Stark represents American women, and the Iron Man Suit represents Democracy when the supreme court rules this way.
There are 29 comments:
Male 228
This is stupid.
0
Reply
Male 579
Isn`t the Iron Man suit basically a giant body condom? Just musing there, but I am enjoying seeing the lefties go nuts about everything this decision is not. If anything, does this not empower women to be more accountable for their own actions? No one is taking rights away. Sorry, but anything to keep the government less intrusive into our lives is a good thing in my book.
0
Reply
Male 37,888
"I`ve never understood being against abortion, but also against contraception and sex education."

@holygod: Studies by the pro-choicers (a long ways back!) said only 5% of pro-lifers opposed contraception.
They INTENDED to say this was hypocrisy in their literature, but in fact it supports the pro-life side (which was constantly being accused of that).

@holygod: Abstinence never killed anyone. Ask Muslims if their daughters should be free to have sex before marriage... just sayin: it`s an idea supported by LOTS of people...

"3. I don`t think any doctor in america would perform a female circumcision."

Sadly? You are mistaken, many have been arrested for this.

"Some companies ARE suing about all forms of birth control."

Yup! Their positions just got -much- stronger.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
HolyGod

Yes, the socialists have lied to you about Hobby Lobby. They already offer 16 forms of contraception. This is about control, about government authority over companies. The only thing actually controversial about the decision is that 4 Justices dissented. They should be impeached.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
HolyGod

"I don`t think most elective surgeries are covered by health insurance?"

This is not about insurance. This is about mandates for health plans.

Insurance is now banned in the US (or rather is not compliant with the ACA) and I believe has been banned in some states for a long time.

Insurance is a hedge against contingencies. Anything that covers regular medical care (check-ups that are not in the interest of the underwriter, birth control, minor treatments that everyone can expect to need in a normal lifetime, ante-natal and early-life care, "preventative" medicine for those not known to be at significantly elevated risk) is a healthcare plan.

Of course a healthcare plan is a very expensive, inefficient way of paying for healthcare.

As I understand it the ACA mandates cover for many aspects of healthcare that are not insurable risk.
0
Reply
Male 837
@HG

There`s the implant that prevents a fertilized egg from settling - but conception isn`t the settling it is the fertilization.

Plan B, or the Morning After, specifically is designed not to stop conception but to destroy the fertilized egg.

All four of the methods involved in the HobbyLobby suit are post-conception "contraceptives".

The implant, I would argue is an elective procedure. The "medical purpose" is to stop a fertilized egg from settling. A means to have sex without worrying about taking the daily pill or wearing a condom.

That seems fairly elective to me.

But, from one cultural standpoint, it is an abortive act and is therefor abhorrent. From another it is perfectly fine.

Likewise, female circumcision, from one cultural standpoint is a Female Genital Mutilation and should be outlawed. From another it is a sacred act. (Note: my standpoint doesn`t have it sacred.)
0
Reply
Male 8,132
JadesDitoyr

"is that these forms of "contraception" do not prevent conception, and are therefore abortions."

Actually I wasn`t aware of that. I thought this was about all contraception. That is kind of buried. Some companies ARE suing about all forms of birth control.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
JadesDitoyr

"Should an atheist company be forced to pay for an elective surgery that it finds abhorrent (such as female circumcision) that its employee finds perfectly acceptable?"

1. ELECTIVE? I don`t think most elective surgeries are covered by health insurance? I`m pretty sure my health insurance doesn`t cover boob jobs.

2. Female circumcision serves no medical purpose I`m aware of. That`s like wanting health insurance to cover elective arm amputation.

3. I don`t think any doctor in america would perform a female circumcision.
0
Reply
Male 837
@HG

The stance taken by HobbyLobby, and many religious groups, is that these forms of "contraception" do not prevent conception, and are therefore abortions.

But, please, I answered your question, will you answer mine. Should an atheist company be forced to pay for an elective surgery that it finds abhorrent (such as female circumcision) that its employee finds perfectly acceptable?
0
Reply
Male 8,132
Crak

"Abstinence before marriage is the best way to prevent abortions and STDs as well."

Abstinence only is a f.ucking crock. Come on. Ask sarah palin how well it worked in her house.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
...because if I`m not forced to pay for your birth control, democracy is destroyed and women suddenly have no rights! I`m so sorry, can the jack-booted thugs come back and take my money for you please?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: Abstinence before marriage is the best way to prevent abortions and STDs as well.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Davy: That supposed 90% may be the total number of businesses, but that doesn`t translate to being 90% of all employees. Most of those "90%" have fewer than 10 employees, some even fewer than 4. A lot of people incorporate their "mom and pop" businesses here to protect themselves against lawsuits.

HG: This decision doesn`t effect the whole scope of Obamacare, just the contraception part.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
I`m against abortion.

I`ve never understood being against abortion, but also against contraception and sex education. In my mind those are the absolute best ways to help prevent abortion.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]First, the Supremes are wrong on this one. [/quote]
Gerry, I have to disagree with you. A right cannot impose an obligation on another person. Also, a corporation is nothing more than a collection of individual persons, whose say in running the organization is weighted by whose ass is out the farthest. If the board of GM voted not to fund abortifacient drugs because it offends the sensibilities of a majority of the stockholders, I don`t think they should have to, either. You don`t have to surrender your human rights to work for a corporation. Why should you have to in order to own an interest in one?

Of course, the whole damned idea of Obamacare is blatantly and flagrantly unconstitutional. I think Brier, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor should be impeached for violating their oaths to uphold the constitution. Roberts, on the other hand, should be hanged as a traitor.
0
Reply
Male 37,888
Um, I just don`t get it... huh?

Meanwhile:
#1 - It has nothing to do with "women" it`s about Freedom Of Religion which is SUPPOSED to be universal.
#2 - It`s not about "Companies" it`s about the HUMANS who own them! One doesn`t surrender their human rights when they own a company, do they?
SO: A government LAW which violates their human rights is a BAD law, correct?
#3 - In NO way does this stop women from getting contraceptives or whatever. It simply says that OTHERS cannot be FORCED to pay for it!

@holygod: Yup. It`s not like employers HAVE TO provide insurance. But if they do? They should be FREE to decide which policies they OFFER their employees. Not the Government. Correct?

Of course if they tried to stop employees from getting ANY insurance, that`s an entirely different situation.
0
Reply
Male 1,448
I think the point they were making is not that corps are individuals, but that (in this case) the majority shareholders were individuals and if they are family then legally they can be considered as a single individual in this case.
0
Reply
Male 38,511

First, the Supremes are wrong on this one. Corporations cannot have "faith". They are soulless ventures with one purpose - make money... Oh wait. Maybe they are churches after all. Most don`t pay taxes....
0
Reply
Male 837
@HG

1st) Yes. I would.
2nd) The Supreme Court in the Majority Position stated that their ruling only applies to these specific abortive practices; so a Christian Science Church cannot make that claim.
3rd) Do you think an Atheist owned company should be forced to pay for elective procedures born of religious practice such as circumcision on men or women?
0
Reply
Male 8,132
CrakrJak, AJ, Others

This is a completely serious question.

What if Hobby Lobby was owned by Christian Scientists (who believe that almost all medical treatment is against their religion)?

Couldn`t they say insurance for almost all procedures and medicine was against their religious beliefs? Would you support that?
0
Reply
Male 2,170
It wasn`t a decision against women, it was a decision for churches and corporations.
It was also wrong.
0
Reply
Male 6,722
The Supreme court sure likes to make corporations get all the benefits of being a person with none of the drawbacks.
0
Reply
Male 837
I`m baack.

@davymid
Its probably not that high, but it is high. The important thing to note is that figure is counting a whole lot of small businesses. When Wal-Mart counts as one business, Exxon-Mobile counts as one business, Nordstroms counts as one business, the percentages of "closely owned" business far exceeds the number of non-closely owned.

Most small businesses, and the ones most likely to be closely owned, are too small to be under that statue anyways.

Further, it must be "established" that the company seeks to align its business practice with a religion. How this part is going to be enforced, I am not certain of. But, one cannot doubt that HobbyLobby (which is closed for Sunday so employees can go to church, and is well known for their Christian Values) does meet this requirement.

Once again, HobbyLobby isn`t firing anybody for using Birth Control, they aren`t telling employees that they cannot use it. They jus
0
Reply
Male 12,138
CJ, the BBC reports that around 90% of US businesses qualify as being "closely held", which would therefore be allowed to be exempt if they so choose. Is that correct? (I don`t know much about the story)
0
Reply
Male 17,512
This wasn`t an anti-women ruling at all. It was limited in scope, to those business that are mostly privately held and have deeply held religious beliefs. It doesn`t prevent women from getting birth control.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Uninformed masses.

It wasn`t a decision against women.

The ruling affected 4 medicines, that altered or damaged a fertilized egg.

The women can still get the drugs as normal through their work insurance, but now the federal government has to pay for it.

Nothing wrong with that.
0
Reply
Male 450
"I am so glad I do not live there.." Yeah, cause we should dismiss an entire content based on the decisions of a few people very out of touch with reality. Nothing bad ever happens in Europe.
0
Reply
Female 7,867
I am so glad I do not live there..
0
Reply
Male 897
Link: Iron Man`s Take On The `Hobby Lobby` Decision[Pic] [Rate Link] - Tony Stark represents American women, and the Iron Man Suit represents Democracy when the supreme court rules this way.
0
Reply