Jesus Christ Superstore

Read between the lines, folks, contraception is just like communism.

Corporations aren’t just people, they’re ill-informed people whose factually-incorrect beliefs must be upheld because they sincerely believe them anyway. I guess it’s why at Hobby Lobby they feed their 16,000 employees with but 5 loafs and 2 fish.

Give a man a condom and he fucks for a day. Teach a man to craft a condom and he’ll never get that glitter out of his penis.

This entry was posted in Comedy, War On Women and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Christopher Foxx

    The embedded videos from The Daily Show and Colbert Report always auto-play, unlike videos from non-Comedy Central sources. Anything you can do about that?

    It would be nice to load the page and not have four things start playing at once.

    • JMAshby

      That’s strange. They don’t auto play for me in either Chrome or IE.

      They aren’t suppose to autoplay.

      • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com/ Bob Rutledge

        No autoplay here, either (Firefox). Not in the US, either, which I thought — until reading your comment Ashby — might be why I wasn’t getting the Dreaded Autoplay.

      • Christopher Foxx

        Hmmm. I’ll have to look into this further on my end then. I’m in Chrome and they all autoplay.

        Hmmm^2. No autoplay for me in IE or Firefox (although in FFox the still image of the video is replaced with a “a plugin is needed” message).

        Thanks for answering, JM. And 5 points from Foxxyndor for assuming the problem clearly couldn’t be on my side.

  • Badgerite

    So the Court who considers these cases, (and there will be more cases if this kind of ridiculous principle of law is accepted) cannot look into the truthfulness or the validity of these religious beliefs or even into whether these are truly held beliefs ? (Which makes sense because otherwise you would involve the Courts in determining what religious views are valid or not valid).
    Hmmm. Given Hobby Lobby’s past health insurance arrangements with its employees that did, indeed, involve provisions which covered the very types of contraception they NOW find so objectionable and their policy of buying 90% of their product from China, doesn’t the very existence of this particular case PROVE Justice Kagan’s concerns about lawsuits brought to evade a whole panoply of federal law requirements in the work place to be correct?

    • trgahan

      “Given Hobby Lobby’s past health insurance arrangements with its employees that did, indeed, involve provisions which covered the very types of contraception they
      NOW find so objectionable…”

      To the extent that the Tea Party was just a group of real Americans concerned about government spending and NOT an astroturfed PR stunt designed to rile up racial resentment prior to midterms, I am sure this lawsuit was not the result of some right wing think tank that was tasked the day after passage with developing as many Supreme Court worthy lawsuits against the ACA as possible to be shopped around to get a American company led by right wing ideologues to bring to court. I’d be very interested in who is paying Hobby Lobby’s legal bill for this case and/or how tax deductible their expenses are.

      Justice Kagan’s concerns are valid as GOP representatives have already secured “religious based exclusions” to several of President Obama’s expansions of civil rights to homosexual citizens.

      • Badgerite

        I understand where Justice Kennedy is coming from in considering whether an employer should have to cover abortions. I think he thinks that Roe v Wade and all subsequent decisions of the SCOTUS involving the issue have deeply divided the country and divided it along a fault line in terms of a fundamental moral issue. I think he is genuinely sensitive to their feelings on this point.
        I think that had a lot to do with him not going the whole nine yards with respect to the marriage equality issue. Saving that, perhaps, for another day.
        But Justice Kagan has pointed to a rather serious problem with any approach that accommodates this religious sentiment by putting restrictions into employees health care coverage. The principle itself, if accepted, will clearly involve the government in the tangle of litigation based on someone’s STATED religious objections. Unlike what Justice Roberts contends, ( that such an outcome can be limited by restricting the principle to ‘closely held’ corporations) , this principle, if accepted, cannot be limited to abortion coverage or birth control coverage. It can and will be extended to every manner of objection imaginable to any piece of federal legislation under the guise of the practice of a religion.