7 posts in this topic

Posted

Pete Williams | June 30th, 2014

"The U.S. Supreme Court, in a limited decision, ruled Monday that closely held, for-profit companies can claim a religious exemption to the Obamacare requirement that they provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives." --nbcnews.com

Hobby Lobby Ruling: Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Do you believe that today's ruling by the Supreme Court will open the door for such companies to refuse insurance coverage for medical services other than contraceptives?

Could this ruling potentially create the way for every gain the TGBL and especially trans people have achieved, to be unravelled?

What's to stop these companies from using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act until they have whittled down the insurance benefits they provide to only those procedures and prescriptions they decide aren't against their religious beliefs?

Check out 18 post-ruling tweets on advocate.com

UPDATE 7:29PM: Why LGBT Americans Are Leery of...Ruling - advocate.com

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, I believe they will make the case that tampering with our God-given bodies and our destinies, we are abominations, just as they've claimed of all TLBGQ animals. I don't know what the courts will decide, where they will draw a line, as SCOTUS tried to do by writing that this ruling applies _only_ to closely held firms funding of ACA insurance benefits.

Since our opposition will be cherry-picking, I hope everyone likes pie.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I hope that I am not starting a firestorm here, coming from one of the faithful with respect to  Christianity. The TLBGQ or whatever aphabet soup you want to use for an ID you are not an animal or an abomination. You are a priceless creation of God (just like me) and as my pastor says, God is crazy nuts in love with you. It's my fellow believers that treat you poorly is the problem. I cannot emphasize this enough. I can see where they are coming from; it does not  give them (the TLBGQ community) license to treat you poorly, I just do not know where I stand  (Whether I an accepted as a member or not. I want to give you that mark of respect, because I am new and still learning). 

When it comes to the rub with conservative Christians, the issue is NEVER the person the only issue is the sexual act of sodomy and that's it. They are simply pointing out "what is wrong so you can correct yourself before judgement day." In their eyes it's better to be judged by them, and not by God. This is because God's judgement is final and unchanging, ironically this backfired and rightfully alienated you. This is not a defense, just the why, so we can start having a conversation.

This is why I need to learn as much as I can. I fully understand the scriptures, but this is only one part of the equation, piece of the puzzle, etc.  (I am a trained Marine Engineer, or ship engineering officer), and I need to understand the full picture so I can be effective at the very least. Personally in matters of intimacy (which should be safeguarded as sacred) as long as consent is given free as an act of free will, the issue is not my business. I will defend all things sacred with every fiber of my being. My salvation and relationship with God is not dependent on you, vise versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My understanding of the Christian Right's argument is that LGBTQ people are not acceptable because in their minds we are a mistake, and, "God doesn't make mistakes." That argument doesn't hold water.

We don't call people with cleft palates, conjoined twins, those born with heart defects, or those who are left-handed, blue-eyed, or blond, mistakes, do we? I'm not very religious but I was taught (Episcopalian) that we are all born in God's image, and equally loved and deserving of everything life offers. 

I think what's actually going on for these people is that they are afraid of us. Why? I have no idea. I guess it's like they are trying to add stability to their lives by attempting to control others. Well that's not going to work, we all know that - I hope. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Being in the Christian Right, this most common argument I encounter is being gay is a choice. The mind set is that all sex acts are voluntary (meaning that engaging in the sexual act is consentual, rape is another matter completely) Please forgive me here for grouping gay and transgender together (strictly for this topic of sodomy), I am fully aware and accept that there are significant differents. On a personal note, I don't say I am religious due to religion seems to be very legalistic of which I am not. 

I have a theory about birth defects, cleft palates, heart defects, etc. and if you want to conjoined  twins for this argument sure why not. My theory (biggest reason why I say threory is that we are the creation not the creator) is this God is showing us that we need each other; due to, we are only part of body. 

My best answer to the why is that people are weirded out by getting hitting on by a member of "sex" that you are not attracted to and the biggest concern being "Will I be violated?". (Please understand and accept that there are jerks on both sides here) Then one of these jerks disregarded the free will of the other person. I got hit on by a bisexual and gay guy when I was  younger, and to their credit they backed off when I told them I was not interested. I will be receptive to transgender women to hitting on me. 

Edited by Archangel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

To be honest, the weird societal "What if someone of my own gender hits on me?" panic is ridiculous.  You do the same thing you do when a person of your preferred sexual partner gender that you are not attracted to hits on you, you say no thank you and move on with your life.  This isn't hard.  It's not different, people make it different in their minds.  Everyone has the power to say no thank you (or whatever your favorite line is for "I do not return your interest, preferably a polite one because everyone's feelings matter").  People of both genders face getting hit on by people they'd rather not every day all across the globe, and they just say no.  THAT is the answer to what you do when someone hits on you of your own gender and you are not bi or gay.

As to the original topic, this is what angers me off about overly religious people putting others in a position where they can control them through legislative or financial means.  Those people can't handle making their decisions according to their own lives and allowing other to make what choices are right for them, but feel the need to force those decisions on others.  A lot of people bring up the don't like it don't work for them argument, which is flat out ridiculous.  There are large depressed areas of the country where ANY job is precious.  And this fallacy that people in a country that are struggling so hard to find jobs to afford to eat and afford what little medical care they can get since the current government seems intent on making healthcare only for the wealthy, pretending they can just go get another job with benefits, especially in an retail industry such as Hobby Lobby (the center of the court case this was about) is not only ridiculous, it's cruelly mocking.  Then add in if the woman in question whose access to birth control lives in my state, where Hobby Lobby DOES operate, this is not a hypothetical they are in my town and this is real issue for real people i know, also has no protection from losing her job in the event of a pregnancy (Ohio is a 'right to work' state which basically means businesses don't have to have a reason to fire you, and protections in place in other states don't apply here) and you are creating a real situation for harm.  Because some head honchos who will never meet those women working their cash registers thinks they knows better than they do what is best for them and their families not in the business sense of how they are conducting themselves and operating his stores, but in their personal lives outside the store. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now