Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGo home SCOTUS You are drunk
Handy Links & Talking Points for Arguing About Hobby Lobby Case[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]
If you're anything like me, the last 36 hours or so have been filled with rage, tears, and yelling obscenities at the Supreme Court over it's appalling ruling allowing employers to refuse to provide health insurance coverage for some forms of birth control. This blatantly sexist travesty was compounded this morning when SCOTUS clarified that the decision is not limited to the four types of contraception specified in the Hobby Lobby case, but extends to ALL methods of birth control.
In light of the number of times I've have had to engage in debate with friends, family members, coworkers and random people on the internet as to why the Hobby Lobby ruling is terrible for women, I've compiled a list of the most frequent arguments I've heard in support of the decision and some (hopefully!) handy links and talking points refuting said arguments.
1. Should the government be able to force companies to pay for something that goes against their religious beliefs? What about their right to religious liberty?
On one level, this all stems from the Citizens United ruling. This is the infamous case in which the Court held that corporations are 'people'. There are obviously a number of real, substantial, non-trivial differences between a person and a corporation, including but not limited to the fact that an actual human being can: A.) die, as opposed to going out of business; b.) go to jail if they commit a crime, as opposed to, you know, banks and Wall Street firms that are "too big to fail" or completely unaccountable; etc. Many people, myself included, do not believe that corporations should be considered 'people' under the law. SCOTUS (well, at least 5 of them) and I disagree bitterly on this point. So, my to answer the question of "should the government be able to force companies to pay for something that goes against their religious beliefs?" is that yes, I think that the government should have that power.
Read More:http://powderroom.jezebel.com/handy-links-talking-points-for-arguing-about-hobby-lo-1598812424/+burtreynoldsismyspiritguide1
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
12 replies, 1468 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (12)
ReplyReply to this post
12 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Go home SCOTUS You are drunk (Original Post)
sheshe2
Jul 2014
OP
Drunk on their filthy sociopathic power for life, she! :( Thank you for these factual talking
Cha
Jul 2014
#2
A company cannot HAVE religious beliefs. It's not human and certainly not a person.
Shrike47
Jul 2014
#9
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)1. More like go drunk SCOTUS, you are home.
At least that's how the cons govern.
Cha
(297,154 posts)2. Drunk on their filthy sociopathic power for life, she! :( Thank you for these factual talking
points against HobLob Decision.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)5. I hate the "five" Cha.
From what I have read their decision is not even based on the law.
Cha, we need it.
Cha
(297,154 posts)7. Based on their drunken power.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)3. More like Scrotus.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)6. Exactly Warren!
Hekate
(90,645 posts)8. oh yeah
Uncle Joe
(58,349 posts)4. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, sheshe.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)9. A company cannot HAVE religious beliefs. It's not human and certainly not a person.
Constitutional amendment.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)10. 4 out of the 9 people in that pic don't belong. nt
William769
(55,145 posts)11. Thanks for the links.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)12. I took a peek in the hosts forum....
Yes, you have been busy. As for your OPs today. Magnificent.
The links...you are welcome William. Sigh~ We will continue the fight, sad that.