Boycotting a store at which you don’t shop makes about as much sense as complaining about a SCOTUS ruling that exists only in your imagination. Clearly, getting a verified Twitter account is way easier than getting a clue.

Backbench celebrities and pundits are crawling out of the woodwork to make what they must believe are very wise and witty statements about the Hobby Lobby ruling.

A lot of circumstances “shape” medical decisions, but the only coercion here was a government coercing Hobby Lobby. Nobody is coerced to work for them or for any other “closely held” company, and nobody has been forbidden from—heaven forbid—using their own money to pay for options not covered by their insurance.

Why is it “reasonable” to assume that employers are morally obligated to shop for personal services for their employees? “Reasonable” would be paying people for their work with money and letting them make their own decisions on how to spend it.

Derp. Maybe you didn’t notice but the case was about the government butting into religion, not the other way around.

Anyone know if Elayne is a drinker? Seriously.

Some people aren’t even pretending to understand what the case was about. 

Person miseducated about the Hobby Lobby case condemns miseducation about birth control.

Name one religious precept imposed by Hobby Lobby. You can’t, Chucky.

Sorry, Cenk. You didn’t build that. People don’t lose their religious liberty just because they hire someone for a job.

Employer provided insurance is nothing but an unintended consequence of past progressive assclownery like wage and price controls. Remaining hidebound to it to the degree you start trampling religious freedom is not rational in the least. Rational insurance practice is the insurance customer finding their own insurance provider–as happens when someone insures their home, their car, their business, etc.

Deliver us from what liberals deem “rational.”

***

Related

Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards fights Hobby Lobby decision with safe, legal stupidity

Lena Dunham weighs in on SCOTUS’ Hobby Lobby ruling

‘Clueless or lying’: Sandra Fluke ‘purposefully ignoring’ fact in Hobby Lobby decision

Fu*k you:’ Left-wingers want to ‘burn down’ Hobby Lobby after SCOTUS win

 

 

 

  • QueenB

    Why do these women, who are so reluctant to “depend” on a man have absolutely no problem depending on the government? Hobby Lobby should have on site day care, because they only other way women can figure out how to have their children cared for or not even have them in the first place, is if someone else pays for it, but they are “independent” women! Shuuut up.

  • Wootpool the Yuge

    I have to say. I have thoroughly enjoyed watching the meltdown of the left today. It is delicious.

    • http://www.dangerouspolitics.com/ Dangerous Politics

      My “favorite” are the violent ones, threatening to burn down Hobby Lobby stores. Perhaps we should create 35-foot no lefty zones in front of every Hobby Lobby store in the country. After all, the lefties are clearly more dangerous than they claim pro-life protestors are.

      • http://www.docfluty.com Doc Fluty

        Cleary? You do know there have been multiple DRs killed and buildings burned down by pro lifers right?

        Are you really saying those murders are equal to angry tweets?

        • JohnFLob

          Citations?

        • TexSizzle

          No, we do not know any such thing. What proof do you have?

        • Riya

          Yeah, I know of at least one doctor killed. But that didn’t even happen at a clinic. I can only surmise that if even a fraction of pro-life folks spewed the type of violent rhetoric that these “enlightened” ones are, the same “enlightened” people would be demanding anyone pro-life be deemed a terrorist.

          Actually, I think that’s already happening.

    • ZombieWarhol

      Yea, I ran out of popcorn hours ago.

  • Iacobus

    Whatever would we do without these morons?

    • http://www.dangerouspolitics.com/ Dangerous Politics

      Live peaceful, productive lives where we get to keep everything we earn? I know, I know, that’s asking way too much…

  • Richard J Sunkle

    Rational isn’t even on the horizon.

  • V the K

    The left is going nuts because the SCOTUS ruled, for once, that Church does not have to kneel before State.

  • Eagle 77

    No truly liberated woman would allow herself to be used as a political prop. Furthermore, it is stupid to mandate a consumable, birth control, on an insurance plan. That the democrat party agitates this issue demonstrates that they hold women in low esteem and are ignorant of economics, all in one issue

    • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

      Yes reducing women down to their lady parts is condescending. But it’s not about being independent or equal. It’s about growing the power of the state at the cost of the individual by any means.

      • Eagle 77

        Excellent point.

  • JBE

    All employers should cancel all their policies, give their employees the pay raise, and let the employee shop for what they want.

    • DG

      Why give the pay raise? No one in America could afford to buy these contraceptives before ACA?

      • JBE

        Usually, instead of higher pay, a company offers benefits.

        If they’re no longer offering those benefits, the employee should receive that amount in income.

        • DG

          Says who?

          • JBE

            Your employees paid into it, they deserve the difference.

            I don’t know if there’s a legal thing, but it’s common sense.

          • DG

            Paid into what? I’ll tell ya what. Pay into a Life Insurance Premium for years, change companies, and see how much “difference” is paid to you.

          • JBE

            You’re not understanding what I’m trying to say, but it’s fine.

          • DG

            I do understand what you’re trying to say, you’re just saying it poorly, and prove you have no idea how business works from the employer front.

          • Humanary Stew

            Common sense, two words you should never utter since you don’t know what they mean.

          • JBE

            That’s what you’re coming with?

          • Humanary Stew

            Need I remind you about the fence on the southern border again? You actually thought the fence had been built, yet all these children are crossing it. Which couldn’t happen if the fence had been built. That is called using common sense.

            Something you have proven you don’t possess.

          • gekkobear

            And if the company loses money, they’ll pony up their share of the loss? Oh, that’s still all on me…. hunh.

            So owning a business i should have 100% of the risk, and if we do well, benefit nothing. All risk, no reward.

            What company do you run like this? I’ve been looking for something to short in the market.

          • kcinmo

            They will get to keep the premiums they currently pay. Their checks should be $300-$600 more per month. That’s their share that they paid into it.

        • DG

          No employee is entitled to anything the company has.

          • JBE

            Who do you think help make the company?

            When you work for a company that offers benefits, you’re paying every dime of that with your work.

          • DG

            My brother and I made our company. Not our employees. They created nothing, and took no financial risk. My brother and I put everything on the line. Not our employees.

          • JBE

            Could you sustain your business without your employees?

          • DG

            Rewarding our employees for a job well done, is not the same as employees mistakenly believing they have a right or entitlement to our good fortune.

          • Humanary Stew

            And the employees are compensated for that work. That is what the pay is for.

          • JBE

            Benefits are a part of that pay package.

            You usually take a lower direct pay in order to get those benefits.

          • DG

            Pay and benefits are discussed at the time of hiring. Not after. They are further affected during incremental reviews.

          • JBE

            Yes, and if the company chooses to end those benefits, are they going to keep their pay the same?

          • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

            They may even fire and hire brand new employees.

          • DG

            The company has the right to keep the pay the same. It’s a contract with the employee. While benefits may be calculated into pay, benefits are not really pay.

            The employee retains the right to cancel their employment contract with the employer, and seek employment elsewhere.

          • JBE

            They’re going to cut pay, which benefits are a part of, then they’re going to keep the money to themselves and not give it back to the employees.

          • Humanary Stew

            Key word: benefit. Not all jobs provide insurance, yet they still pay wages or salary.

          • JBE

            Often at a higher wage, correct?

          • DG

            No.

          • Humanary Stew

            At times maybe. Not sure it is as often as you want to claim.

        • DG

          I see you’re choosing not to answer my “Says who” comment. Why?

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Says WhoDat, of course.

          • DG

            Of course. I recognize the style. Why do I bite?

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            And if it isn’t literally him, as if there ever was a WhoDat person as opposed to a username used by the troll on duty at some Leftie organization– the style is uniform, and apparently is taught, as a thread-killing mechanism.

          • DG

            Yea. I think I’m done here. Not really interested in explaining Business 101 or even 201 to this dumbass.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sadly, some folks on OUR side, who might be none too clear on the issues facing small biz, will suffer as a result of not being exposed adequately to a crisp and cogent argument made by the likes of you, DG.

          • DG

            Someone downvoted my comment, so I upvoted it to counteract. LOL

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You probably shouldn’t say that out loud. People might start thinking you’re signing out and “guest” voting your own posts.

          • DG

            Trust me, I don’t do that. I’m not that self-absorbed. LOL

        • gekkobear

          Minus the taxes the employee pays, on the private market (not buying in “bulk” as an employer does) they can’t get nearly the insurance they had.

          Why is worse insurance and less take-home pay preferable?

          I’m sure having people have less money after their (wages – taxes – insurance) is figured… but I’m not sure why more poor people is preferable.

          I guess I don’t “love the poor” like you do after all.

          Who knew that means working to make more people poor?

    • LinTaylor ✓vitrified

      While I agree with your idea in principle, the problem is that you can’t just cancel Obamacare without them coming down on you with massive penalties.

    • AT

      How about, employers should be able to choose to offer policies consistent with the practices of which they morally approve and, if said policy doesn’t cover something you want, there are still many, many other means of attaining it than through your employer.

      Oh wait, that’s pretty much the ruling in a nutshell.

    • Corey Dennison

      While that would be a good idea, the ACA ensured that can’t happen.

  • Frank DiSalle

    Here’s an analogy: The Corp wants to get gift baskets for their employees. They shop around, and find only gift baskets with champagne in them. Finally, they decide to buy those, but they remove all the champagne bottles, because the principals don’t drink, and they don’t want to encourage drinking.
    Would that be illegal?
    UPDATE: The government requires companies to feed their employees if they work more than six hours a day, and they require that the meal include a dairy product and a meat product. The principals of the ZBX Company are Jewish and do not want to serve non-Kosher meals to their employees, irrespective of their religions.
    Can the government mandate include a provision that goes against the principals’ religious beliefs?
    I (and the Supreme Court) say ‘no’

    • alanstorm

      Illegality isn’t the issue. The issue is whether your comment is relevant.

      It isn’t.

      Champagne is not (according to most) a medicine, and government is not mandating gift baskets.

      nice example of a strawman, though!

      • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Although his point is not that far off, to be fair– it’s whether the boss had to give anything at ALL absent a state compulsion to do so, and if, by partially stiffing his workers, does that somehow give them any rights to something they never had, nor any real reason to believe they should expect?

      • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

        Champagne is not a medicine? Please tell me they haven’t taken my scotch off of the approved medicine list!

      • Frank DiSalle

        It’s not a straw man. Maybe not a perfect ananlogy, but it’s not a straw man. The point was that the employers’ choice deprived the employee of nothing, because he should not have been required to pay for contraception in the first place.

    • H50 ✓RAT

      Why wouldnt it be.
      Talking apples and oranges here since the government is not mandating the gift baskets in the first place.
      And the whole gift premise.

    • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

      Obviously not, but Hana is correct, you really need to impose a government mandate in your analogy. But, I like your analogy.

  • DG

    Strawmen arguments is all the Left has. The decision was Constitutional, logical, and reasonable. Even Ruth Ginsberg’s dissent was full of strawmen and non sequitors.

  • DG

    “Cenk Uygur ✔ @cenkuygurFollow
    #SCOTUS says corporations have religious freedoms. Were they endowed with those by their creator? Oh wait, that’s us. #ReligiousFreedom
    5:24 PM – 30 Jun 2014

    HA! Yes! According to the Bible!

  • PeterP

    Hobby Lobby pays its employees twice the minimum wage. That should cause a hitch in their boycott step.

    • DG

      Liberals don’t like it when we talk about that.

    • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

      The employees of Hobby Lobby some who might be current democrat voters certainly won’t appreciate being used by the left to gin up their mob. They may even lose democrat voters over this issue. There are folks who might presently vote democrat that recognize that this is all bunkum and hokum.

  • RedSoloCup

    My religious convictions prohibit me from associating with liberals.

  • E Quilibrate

    Liberal rationality is not definable it is nonexistent.

  • alanstorm

    Rational leftists?

    Contradiction in terms – as the tweets above clearly show.

    • MyrmidoNOT

      …’correctly’ addressed in a calm/soothing voice:
      “There, there…nice proggy, nice proggy. It’ll be OK….”

  • Zsuzsa Garrett

    No one is forced to work at Hobby Lobby if they don’t agree with their views. If you don’t like it, get an other JOB. …. and maybe you can have unprotected sex too, after all, the goverment be happy to help you out with a little birth control, go ahead have some fun

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmSIOoy6MlE&app=desktop Booker

    Libs always get angry at the laws that they propose. Wasn’t it Slick Willie that signed the RFRA? Now they are angry at employer provided insurance.

  • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    The Left are going to say that a woman who cannot get her boss to cover the cost of her birth control is not TRULY “free”– the nonsensical proposition that somehow it is the boss’s duty to make sure that her right to use birth control is not somehow illusory “because she cannot afford it.” Aside from the fact that, in practical real-world terms it IS affordable even to a woman of modest means (skip a manicure, hon), what this does is to argue that people have rights to material goods, as opposed to the right not to be prevented from having a material good.

    THAT’s what this was all about, at bottom– FDR’s profoundly stupid “Freedom from want” being enshrined alongside “Freedom of religious conscience” and the “Freedom of expression.” To the Lefties, the freedom of religious conscience is a silly piety that is meaningless except insofar as it means nobody’s forced to believe in a religion– they certainly cannot conceive of it meaning that people would actually act on religious principle, for heaven’s sake! So they also disregard the fourth freedom– “Freedom from fear,” the one which says that people have certain rights of life, liberty and property their government must not intrude upon (e.g., like the 4th Amendment)– and they go ahead and intrude on some people’s L, L, & P on behalf of others’ so-called “rights.”

    • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

      When did contraception become a right?

      • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        The right not to be prevented from accessing contraception, in Griswold v Ct 1965. There is no positive right TO have contraception. Nobody has to provide it to you. Don’t get tripped up on the Lefties’ concept of the right to something entailing anyone else’s duty to provide it.

        • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

          Then nothing has changed they still have access to contraception. That’s not what they are wetting their pants over.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Well, YOU know that, and I know that, but the lo-fo-vo’s out there are easily bamboozled and buffaloed– they want their goodies and they want them NOW!

      • LegalizeShemp

        When liberals heard they could get it for free.

    • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

      I thought it was “sexual harassment” when the boss took too active an interest in a female employee’s sex life.

      • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Well, he’s got to be “dispassionate” about it, if you will…

  • LinTaylor ✓vitrified

    The way these people have been acting all day, you’d think the Supreme Court made cannibalism mandatory or something.

    • marcellucci

      Sadly, no. You can only use human flesh to power hospitals at this point….
      But, chin up….there’s always a chance we could harness the wind power of the liberal’s blowholes to power Congress..

      • nc ✓s & balances

        Oh man, I had forgotten about that…

    • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

      Mandatory, no . . . but allowable . . . just so long as it is liberals eating their own.

  • http://www.black-and-right.com/ Ice Cold Troll

    Haha, I think I said it before but it’s SO much fun seeing leftards having meltdowns!

    • LegalizeShemp

      They’re showing their disdain for the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th amendments and the Constitution in general.

    • old motorcycle enthusiast

      I’m having loads of fun reading their meltdowns.

    • nc ✓s & balances

      That’s ok. You can say that again!

  • LegalizeShemp

    Liberals insist that employers pay for health insurance, and give up their Constitutional rights also. Liberalism Uber Alles !

  • conservativeinaliberalcity

    I don’t know if I should make fun of the leftists who are raging over Hobby Lobby or pray that God have mercy on their souls.

    • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

      I’m not filling in THAT blank.

      • conservativeinaliberalcity

        Sorry, hit the return key.
        Hate laptop keyboards.

  • old motorcycle enthusiast

    Leftists will not be satisfied until the government literally wipes their posteriors after a #2, for FREE!!

  • Blake Waymire

    The butthurt… I love it!

  • Mehow

    It’s just incredible how insane the left is. There is no war against women. Women’s access to bc is the same now as it was before this decision. The feminist simply has to pay for it and it’s not usually that expensive and if she cannot she sure as heck should not risk pregnancy since she cannot pay for a child which is much more costly or even an abortion. The employer simply does not HAVE to pay for it, they are not making ANY bc decision for any female, working at their firm or not.

  • Mary Mommy Happy 2016!

    I love how liberals ignore that it was a great victory for the First Amendment and religious freedom. In preserving the nation’s first freedom, the court rejected the government imposing its will and agenda on people of faith who run companies and organizations. It also rejected the government’s heavy handed attempt to punish these corporations and citizens through financially ruinous faith fines the government sought to impose on people who choose not to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

    • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

      Rights are only for liberals . . . not permitted for their enemies.

      (They are not real good with definitions . . . or abstract concepts.)

    • JBE

      Liberals are also using the First Amendment’s Establishment clause to say the ruling was bad.

      • Corey Dennison

        It’s a shame that none of them seem to understand the Establishment Clause then.

      • Mary Mommy Happy 2016!

        Liberals are double standards hypocrites WhoDat.

  • AT

    “Some people aren’t even pretending to understand what the case was about.”

    I liked what Redstate had to say about it today.

    Two kinds of people commenting about the Hobby Lobby case – the people who are familiar with the case and what was being argued; and then there’s the Activist Left.

  • ICOYAR

    These idiots would all deny God, even when it leads them into the mass graves, much like how atheism did in the past. And yet they deny that it ever happened. These creeps also want to destroy as much innocent life as possible, via abortions, while keeping those who kill others alive at all costs. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were all for “population control” and “eugenics”.

  • reddarin

    BREAKING: SCOTUS rules that every American has to work for Hobby Lobby and can only make health related purchased through the company.

  • Jake Bradford

    Liberals skew every election with voter fraud

    • ICOYAR

      Fitting, seeing how all Leftists are fraudulent.

  • Corey Dennison

    Wendi McLendon-Covey…you mean the actress whose most famous role was playing a slutty sheriff’s deputy on Reno 911?

    Yeah, let’s take her seriously.

  • Spasmolytic

    This nervous breakdown by liberals is less about a woman’s access to contraceptives and more about their hatred for religion.

  • NonPCconservative

    Bethany Cosentino already knows that women who use birth control for reasons other than preventing pregnancy should be amply covered by the 16 types of birth control that Hobby Lobby did not litigate against, which, coincidentally, prevent pregnancy. This whole case is about the other 4 types which Hobby Lobby rejected on religious grounds as they are abortifacients.

    Talk about manufactured outrage.

    Or is Bethany Cosentino so stupid that she makes completely uninformed public comments?

  • Okie_pastor

    Their animosity is as humorous as it is revealing!

  • nc ✓s & balances

    If you click on Robin Abcarian’s link above, it takes you to her column in today’s LA Times, where she writes this tidbit:
    ————-
    It is worth noting that the Green family, who are Christian, oppose on religious grounds only four of 20 forms of birth control approved by the FDA. Specifically, they object to two kinds of IUDs and two types of “morning after” pills. Each of those, they claim, prevents the implantation of an already-fertilized egg. Because the Greens believe that life begins at conception, they say these methods effectively end pregnancy, rather than
    prevent it.

    That may be their sincere belief, but it is wildly at odds with the scientific consensus that a pregnancy begins at implantation, as I noted here.
    —————–
    “Scientific consensus!” There you have it! End of discussion, you slack-jawed rubes.

  • Paladin

    I swear if this isn’t the trigger of a civil war, I dunno what is.

    I’d leave, since this country has literally hit the rock bottom of “tolerance” but I have bloody nowhere else to go. There is no bastion of common sense in th world any longer, it’s all gone to mass chaos.

  • John_LC_Silvoney

    Remember when these shallow ,ignorant,sloganeering dimwits had the transcendent gall to label themselves the “reality based community”?
    Good times.