The Supremes Tackle Birth Control

Then your even more clueless.

Women's sexual preference doesn't vary much. There is no character. The primal biological attraction is exactly the same in all of them.

Why do you think 50 shades of grey has such high sales numbers, almost all entirely women? It's a crappy book with no real story other then a girl being completely dominated and mastered by a male of ridiculously high status. It's every women's secret wet dream, well that and rape.

Now quick employ shaming tactics.

Last 3 pages can be summed up with this classic scene:


Women according to Jefe and El Gaupo.

Do you have any inkling?

Was that a rhetorical question or can any of us jump in on this one?

Do you have any inkling as to why exactly that is (that is, why corporations are legally distinct from its owners) or are you just kneejerking to a perceived attack on religion?

Oh it gets interesting. Take "*** shamming" for example. Something that the feminists and castrated white knights usually blame on men. They parade around and hold rallies about how men are judging women and blah blah. What's really interesting is that men typically hold a neutral stance on female promiscuity. Promiscuous females are actually in a males best interest as it means minimum commitment and provision for access to sex. The ones who really do the *** shamming are other women. Promiscuous women drive the price of sex down in the sexual marketplace. They are the wall-mart of the sexual economy. It's the women who judge other women based on how easy they give up sex. It's the women who reject promiscuous women from their social groups. And it's women who conduct covert rumor operations to discredit and lower a rival's social standing.

The one time that the sexual promiscuity of a women matters to men is in the artificial monogamy we've created to build society. It's a purely rational decision, a women who frequently changes lovers can't be relied upon to control her hypergamy and stay monogamous. She's perfectly fine as a friend, lover or business partner, but not as a wife. Further if she was to continue her promiscuous ways she would get pregnant with a child from a different man, it would then be the husbands responsibility to provide resources for DNA that wasn't his.

If we are to grant a set of individuals specific rights and privileges or restrictions and penalties, the constitution arguably gives the feds the authority to do so via (somewhat) the commerce clause. However people have natural & inalienable rights which are recognized in the bill of rights, which are i think we can all agree, are untouchable. Free exercise of religion happens to be one of them.

Whine all you want about Hobby Lobby's double secret motives, just don't kid yourself that this isn't about a group of peoples freedom to run their company as religiously as they see fit.

If we are to grant a set of individuals specific rights and privileges or restrictions and penalties, the constitution arguably gives the feds the authority to do so via (somewhat) the commerce clause. However people have natural & inalienable rights which are recognized in the bill of rights, which are i think we can all agree, are untouchable. Free exercise of religion happens to be one of them.

Whine all you want about Hobby Lobby's "double secret" motives, just don't kid yourself that this isn't about a group of people's freedom to run their company as religiously as they see fit.

Now you really are showing your sexism. If you really think rape is every womans wet dream you go out and do it see how far it gets you you perverted twit.

Ugh! You don't even know the half of it with this guy! A while back, he implied that, because a woman has a "hidden ovulation" (his words), it made men the victim. 'Cause, you know...A guy is incapable of counting fourteen days after his partner's cycle. Oh yeah! Because you men never ever pick up on behavioral cues or see tampon wrappers at the bottom of a trash can after being with or living with a female.

He also claimed that all Western women were "femi-nazis" (he did it quite frequently too at one point), and that was part of the reason he had to run away to South Korea. Western femi-nazis gonna snatch him up! He also shamelessly berated another female poster for her weight issues.

Grats, Creaucent! You just had the pleasure of meeting the dumbest mofo on AH!

k

So as far as my actual question is concerned, it would be the latter.

put your *** away, you're only reinforcing people's insecurities.

How can you legitimately argue that this case isn't about religious freedom when it is the cornerstone of the plaintiff's (hobby lobby) argument?

Ugh, let me spell it out for you. To incorporate is to legally classify yourself (or a group) as an entity. That entity has legally recognized personhood, and should not be exempt from the natural rights contained within the bill of rights. If you can make a successful argument to take away one class of person's rights, you can make it for any.

How can you legitimately argue that this case isn't about religious freedom when it is the cornerstone of the plaintiff's (hobby lobby) argument?

Well, closer.

Personhood in the way it's used here doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It confers some rights to a corporation that allow for its proper functioning (e.g. 14 Amendment protections since a corporation can be sued and would require due process). The expansion of this definition has resounding implications as was evidenced by the Citizens United case. This is the question I am asking:

How is the transfer of relgious beliefs to a corporation, such as Hobby Lobby, required for that corporation to function?

Why is a group of people who are incorporated to violate their religious beliefs by providing insurance to their employees that violates their free exercise of religion?

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Why is a group of people who are incorporated to violate their religious beliefs by providing insurance to their employees that violates their free exercise of religion? Why does the first amendment not apply to you in your corporate life?

Well that sure is an intolerant narrow view of religious freedom.

Why is a group of people who are incorporated to violate their religious beliefs by providing insurance to their employees that violates their free exercise of religion?

for the same reason we can't attack their personal holdings in a lawsuit. they have incorporated to indemnify themselves.

Irrelevant. What is the problem with recognizing the natural rights of a group of people who have incorporated themselves?

Why is a group of people who are incorporated to violate their religious beliefs by providing insurance to their employees that violates their free exercise of religion? Why does the first amendment not apply to you in your corporate life?

"Stuff" isn't the free exercise of religion

"Stuff" isn't the free exercise of religion. Surely we can all observe the difference between the two.