Archive for Hobby Lobby

Pro-choice bigot disrespects Jesus/Christianity over Hobby Lobby case

Posted in Anti-Christian Bigotry, Pro-choice mocking, Pro-choice People, Pro-choice protest church with tags , , , , , on January 12, 2015 by saynsumthn

This past summer, Toronto comedian Megan MacKay, uploaded a mockery video of Christians she called the, “Hobby Lobby Makeup Tutorial.”

This closely held corporation called Hobby Lobby which is a craft store company,” she begins, “recently went to the Supreme Court and said,’ We don’t want to have to pay for a woman’s contraception because we are Christian and we don’ believe in that and the Supreme County said ‘sure…”

Capture2

We could certainly debate her analysis of the Hobby Lobby case and what it was about another time. For this blog, we are pointing out MacKay’s outright disrespect of Christianity and specifically Jesus, something those who support abortion tend to do quite often.

She continues, “So, in light of the recent ruling in the Supreme Court…I thought we’d do a really cool makeup tutorial that’s a new “Christian extremist make-up look.”

Capture3

“Obviously, this isn’t for all Christians. Most Christians prefer a more subtle, loving look on their face? But, for the 1% of Christians who identify as Christian extremists this is the look for you. Hold onto your hats, because we’re going on a wild ride. It’s going to bring you to close to Jesus.”

Capture4

She begins by suggesting “Christians” take a prenatal vitamin because “you’re gonna get pregnant -because – you’re gonna. You know what they say, use your womb to help Jesus out of the tomb,” she says.

No Megan, what do “they” say? As a Christian since a young girl, I have NEVER heard that little cliche. Maybe you need to add some “concealer” to YOUR routine, so you are not so OBVIOUS in your anti-Christian bigotry. Just my little make-up tip….

Capture

MacKay spends the rest of the video speaking disrespectfully about Christianity and specifically Jesus.

To mock the 1% of Christians she claims she is referring to – she has no problem despairing the Lord who bled on the cross for the sins of the 99% of Christians she is also insulting.

Case in point, Megan MacKay ends her little mockery vid by suggesting the right “subtle” lipstick color because, she says,”Jesus might want to make out with you- but- closed mouth only” until she ends with “Jesus Loves Crafts” painted on her face:

Note to Megan MacKay- NOT FUNNY!

The Hobby Lobby burger?

Posted in Humor with tags , , , , , , , , , , on August 4, 2014 by saynsumthn

A Burger joint in Boston with a sense of humor has created the Hobby Lobby Burger which they will top with “whatever your boss wants to put on it.”

The image of the new menu item at Mr. Bartley’s was tweeted out by a reporter/producer for WGBH, Boston’s NPR and PBS station.

Mr Bartleys Hobby Lobby

The burger establishment appears to be cashing on on the latest news if a look at some of their menu items is any indication:

Mr Bartleys Menu

THE VIAGRA (rise to the occasion!) with blue cheese dressing, bacon, lettuce, tomato, and french fries

THE GAY MARRIAGE (they can’t be worse @ it) provolone cheese, peppers, jalapenos & black olives w/onion rings

THE BARACK OBAMA (keeps droning on) with feta cheese, lettuce, tomato, red onion, and french fries

THE PUTIN “attack your tastebuds” bbq sauce, bacon, jalapeno pineapple relish & grilled onions w/ baked beans

THE JOE BIDEN (LONG LIVE OBAMA!) with bacon, american cheese & BBQ sauce with fries (add mushrooms .85)

THE TAXACHU$ETT$ topped with Boston baked beans, sriracha, bacon and a fried egg with fries

THE OBAMACARE (NOBODY KNOWS WHAT’S IN IT! ….ask the liberal sitting next to you)

Mr Bartleys

One restaurant reviewer at TasteBuds described his experience with Mr. Bartley’s as humorous, “Scanning through the menu, I could see that Bartley’s had a personality, and a funny one at that. Their gourmet burgers are named after current cultural icons, such as “The Mark Zuckerberg (Richest geek in America)” and “The iPhone (Siri-ously delicious, ask her).” Our favorites were “The Eliot Spitzer (Try comptrolling yourself!!!!)” and one that might be a joke entry priced at trillions of dollars titled, “The Obamacare (NOBODY KNOWS WHAT’S IN IT… ask the liberal sitting next to you).”

“I was in the mood for something with bacon so I ordered, “The Joe Biden.” Our waiter was courteous and was interested in helping us pick the best burgers, something I didn’t expect at such a casual place.”

So far no one on either side of the Hobby Lobby case which struck down the ObamaCare mandate requiring that most employers pay for contraception and abortion pills of their employees, has commented on the new item as far as I can tell.

I guess a little humor is nice for a change !

Pro-choicers turn to Satan to save them from pro-life laws which protect unborn children

Posted in Abortion and Satanism, Witchcraft with tags , , , , , , on July 29, 2014 by saynsumthn

Following the Hail Satan chant in during laws that would restrict late term abortions in the state of Texas, a new effort is underway by the Satanic Temple to interject “religious protection for women with health needs that are being complicated by unreasonable laws.”

Satanic Temple Abortion

In a statement released Monday, the Satanic Temple said that it will use the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision to exempt its believers from state-mandated informed consent laws that require women considering abortions to read pro-life material.

MSNBC Lucein Graves

MSNBC which drank the Koolaid reports that,”in other words, the Satanic Temple wanted a conscience clause from laws intended to dissuade women from having abortions by mandating an ultrasound or that a doctor impart biased or medically-inaccurate information about abortion.”

“We will follow up with a legal suit if and when the exemption fails to be respected or recognized,” Lucien Greaves, a spokesman for the Satanic Temple, told msnbc. “We are not looking to proactively sue to have informed consent laws repealed.”

Greaves said that the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision bolsters their case. “While we feel we have a strong case for an exemption regardless of the Hobby Lobby ruling,” he said, “the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact. This was made clear when they allowed Hobby Lobby to claim certain contraceptives were abortifacients, which in fact they are not.”

Lucein Greaves

In a blog written by the follower of Satan, Greaves states, “Conveniently, the Supreme Court’s recent controversial Hobby Lobby ruling contributes to the standing of our argument for a religious exemption from informed consent, providing a solid precedent for which we may disregard any legislated medical information we find biased and objectionable. As I stated for our recent press release announcing the Informed Consent exemption initiative: “While we feel we have a strong case for an exemption regardless of the Hobby Lobby ruling, we were (previous to that ruling) concerned that states might drag us through the courts, forcing us to hire expert witnesses and demonstrate the fact that their mandated materials are indeed scientifically unsound. However, given that the Supreme Court has decided that religious belief can trump scientific fact — in allowing Hobby Lobby to claim certain contraceptives as abortifacients, when in fact they are not — it naturally follows that our belief in the illegitimacy of the so-called informational material is enough to exempt us, and those who hold our beliefs, from having to receive them.”

The “deeply-held belief” exemption shouldn’t be confined strictly to those who self-identify as Satanists. As Satanists for whom access to the best available information, undiluted by biased or false information, is fundamental to our religious beliefs, we are willing to argue on anybody’s behalf that such a position qualifies as a “deeply-held belief”, rather than a whimsical declaration of convenience.

He continues, “The Satanic Temple does support personal choice in the context of abortion, and as the first initiative in a multi-faceted Women’s Rights campaign, TST is now offering an exemption from State-mandated “informed consent” materials — “informational” materials which are often scientifically unfounded or medically invalid [1] – to those who share our deeply-held beliefs regarding informed choice. We believe that the body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone. Further, we strive to make all decisions regarding personal health based on the best scientific understanding of the world, regardless of the religious or political beliefs of others. We have devised a letter for women seeking an abortion to take to their care providers, placing the care provider on-notice that such materials violate the woman’s religious principles and, as such, must be withheld from contributing undue stress and confusion in what surely is already an unpleasant situation.”

The Devil worshiping group posted their letter for women wanting to sacrifice their children through abortion to their website:

The letter reads in part:

As an adherent to the principles of the Satanic Temple, my sincerely held religious beliefs are:

• My body is inviolable and subject to my will alone.

• I make any decision regarding my health based on the best scientific understanding of the world, even if the science does not comport with the religious or political beliefs of others.

• My inviolable body includes any fetal or embryonic tissue I carry so long as that tissue is unable to survive outside my body as an independent human being.

• I, and I alone, decide whether my inviolable body remains pregnant and I may, in good conscience, disregard the current or future condition of any fetal or embryonic tissue I carry in making that decision.

Satanic Abortion Consent 1Satanic Abortion Consent 2

To help raise funds for their pro-abortion cause, the group is selling these Satanic shirts:

Satanic Shirt

More links to Satan Worship and Abortion here and here.

EEOC posts new guidelines on pregnancy discrimination which include access to contraception and abortion

Posted in EEOC with tags , , , , , , , , on July 21, 2014 by saynsumthn

Screenshot 1

On July 14, 2014, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released their new EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues, which included contraception and abortion.

According to the EEOC, this is the first comprehensive update of the Commission’s guidance on the subject of discrimination against pregnant workers since the 1983 publication of a Compliance Manual chapter on the subject. This guidance supersedes that document and incorporates significant developments in the law during the past 30 years.

In their press release the EEOC states that in addition to addressing the requirements of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the guidance discusses the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended in 2008, to individuals who have pregnancy-related disabilities.

Pregnancy is not a justification for excluding women from jobs that they are qualified to perform, and it cannot be a basis for denying employment or treating women less favorably than co-workers similar in their ability or inability to work,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “Despite much progress, we continue to see a significant number of charges alleging pregnancy discrimination, and our investigations have revealed the persistence of overt pregnancy discrimination, as well as the emergence of more subtle discriminatory practices. This guidance will aid employers, job seekers, and workers in complying with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, and thus advance EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan priority of addressing the emerging issue of the interaction between these two anti-discrimination statutes.”

Much of the analysis in the enforcement guidance is an update of longstanding EEOC policy. The guidance sets out the fundamental Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) requirements that an employer may not discriminate against an employee on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions must be treated the same as other persons similar in their ability or inability to work.

But the government department which can go after employers also details their rules on contraception in section D entitled: Discrimination Based on Use of Contraception:

Depending on the specific circumstances, employment decisions based on a female employee’s use of contraceptives may constitute unlawful discrimination based on gender and/or pregnancy. Contraception is a means by which a woman can control her capacity to become pregnant, and, therefore, Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination based on potential pregnancy necessarily includes a prohibition on discrimination related to a woman’s use of contraceptives.38 For example, an employer could not discharge a female employee from her job because she uses contraceptives.39

Employers can violate Title VII by providing health insurance that excludes coverage of prescription contraceptives, whether the contraceptives are prescribed for birth control or for medical purposes.40 Because prescription contraceptives are available only for women, a health insurance plan facially discriminates against women on the basis of gender if it excludes prescription contraception but otherwise provides comprehensive coverage.41 To comply with Title VII, an employer’s health insurance plan must cover prescription contraceptives on the same basis as prescription drugs, devices, and services that are used to prevent the occurrence of medical conditions other than pregnancy.42 For example, if an employer’s health insurance plan covers preventive care for medical conditions other than pregnancy, such as vaccinations, physical examinations, prescription drugs that prevent high blood pressure or to lower cholesterol levels, and/or preventive dental care, then prescription contraceptives also must be covered..

EEOC Contraceptions

In addition to the RULES- I found the verbiage in the footnotes very interesting as well:

37 See, e.g., Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception (Dec. 14, 2000) (because prescription contraceptives are available only for women, employer’s explicit refusal to offer insurance coverage for them is, by definition, a sex-based exclusion), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html (last visited May 5, 2014).

38. What is written in the footnotes is even more eye opening: 38 Id.; see also Cooley v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 281 F. Supp. 2d 979, 984 (E.D. Mo. 2003) (“[A]s only women have the potential to become pregnant, denying a prescription medication that allows women to control their reproductive capacity is necessarily a sex-based exclusion.”); Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1271-72 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (exclusion of prescription contraceptives from employer’s generally comprehensive prescription drug plan violated PDA). The Eighth Circuit’s assertion in In re Union Pac. R.R. Employment Practices Litig., 479 F.3d 936, 942 (2007), that contraception is not “related to pregnancy” because “contraception is a treatment that is only indicated prior to pregnancy” is not persuasive because it is contrary to the Johnson Controls holding that the PDA applies to potential pregnancy.

39. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provides for religious exemption from a federal law, even if the law is of general applicability and neutral toward religion, if it substantially burdens a religious practice and the government is unable to show that its application would further a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering the interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. In a case decided in June 2014, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., — S. Ct. —, 82 U.S.L.W. 4636 (U.S. June 30, 2014) (Nos. 13-354 and 13-356), the Supreme Court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate violated the RFRA as applied to closely held family for-profit corporations whose owners had religious objections to providing certain types of contraceptives. The Supreme Court did not reach the question whether owners of such businesses can assert that the contraceptive mandate violates their rights under the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause. This enforcement guidance explains Title VII’s prohibition of pregnancy discrimination; it does not address whether certain employers might be exempt from Title VII’s requirements under the First Amendment or the RFRA.

40. See, e.g., Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception, supra note 37; see also Section 2713(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010) (requiring that non-grandfathered group or individual insurance coverage provide benefits for women’s preventive health services without cost sharing). On August 1, 2011, the Health Resources and Services Administration released guidelines requiring that contraceptive services be included as women’s preventive health services. These requirements became effective for most new and renewed health plans in August 2012. 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713T(b)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713(b)(1); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(b)(1) (plans and insurers must cover a newly recommended preventive service starting with the first plan year that begins on or after the date that is one year after the date on which the new recommendation is issued). The Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services issued regulations clarifying the criteria for the religious employer exemption from contraceptive coverage, accommodations with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement for group health plans established or maintained by eligible organizations (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans), and student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are institutions of higher education. Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act, 78 Fed. Reg. 39869 (July 2, 2013) (to be codified at 26 C.F.R. Part 54; 29 C.F.R. Parts 2510 and 2590; 45 C.F.R. Parts 147 and 1560). But see supra note 39.

41 See Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception, supra note 37; Erickson, 141 F. Supp. 2d at 1272 (“In light of the fact that prescription contraceptives are used only by women, [defendant’s] choice to exclude that particular benefit from its generally applicable benefit plan is discriminatory.”).

42 See supra note 37. The Commission disagrees with the conclusion in In re Union Pac. R.R. Employment Practices Litig., 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007), that contraception is gender-neutral because it applies to both men and women. Id. at 942. The court distinguished the EEOC’s decision on coverage of contraception by noting that the Commission decision involved a health insurance policy that denied coverage of prescription contraception but included coverage of vasectomies and tubal ligations while the employer in Union Pacific excluded all contraception for women and men, both prescription and surgical, when used solely for contraception and not for other medical purposes. However, the EEOC’s decision was not based on the fact that the plan at issue covered vasectomies and tubal ligations. Instead, the Commission reasoned that excluding prescription contraception while providing benefits for drugs and devices used to prevent other medical conditions is a sex-based exclusion because prescription contraceptives are available only for women. See also Union Pacific, 479 F.3d at 948-49 (Bye, J., dissenting) (contraception is “gender-specific, female issue because of the adverse health consequences of an unplanned pregnancy”; therefore, proper comparison is between preventive health coverage provided to each gender).

As for the EEOC’s guidelines on Pregnant women and Abortion – those read:

Title VII protects women from being fired for having an abortion or contemplating having an abortion. However, Title VII makes clear that an employer that offers health insurance is not required to pay for coverage of abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or medical complications have arisen from an abortion. The statute also makes clear that, although not required to do so, an employer is permitted to provide health insurance coverage for abortion. Title VII would similarly prohibit adverse employment actions against an employee based on her decision not to have an abortion. For example, it would be unlawful for a manager to pressure an employee to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion, in order to retain her job, get better assignments, or stay on a path for advancement.61

And…

b. Insurance Coverage of Abortion

The PDA [THE PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT] makes clear that if an employer provides health insurance benefits, it is not required to pay for health insurance coverage of abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. If complications arise during the course of an abortion, the health insurance plan is required to pay the costs attributable to those complications.

The statute also makes clear that an employer is not precluded from providing abortion benefits directly or through a collective bargaining agreement. If an employer decides to cover the costs of abortion, it must do so in the same manner and to the same degree as it covers other medical conditions.

One thing is puzzling- I have not seen where the EEOC actually defines when a “pregnancy” begins. I have not fully read through it all. If my readers can locate this, please post a comment !

But – given the way this administration has used many of their “agencies” to go after those who do not politically agree with them, are these “guidelines” the latest tool for the pro-abortion Obama administration to go after businesses who do not comply? We shall soon see…..

Megyn Kelly dismantles pro-choice lies that contraceptives Hobby Lobby did not offer are not abortive !

Posted in Abortion pill, Ella One, Megyn Kelly, Plan B with tags , , , , , , , , , on July 16, 2014 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood uses Lady Liberty to promote agenda of limiting births of “the poor and huddled masses”

Posted in Guttmacher, Margaret Sanger, Margaret Sanger License to Breed, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization, Planned Parenthood Free Birth Control with tags , , , , , , , , , , on July 8, 2014 by saynsumthn

STatue of Liberty

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

These lines from Emma Lazarus’s sonnet, “The New Colossus” are inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and imprinted on the American consciousness.

But – eugenics founded abortion giant Planned Parenthood has decided to use the image of Lady Liberty to call for population control

Blogger Jill Stanek found this tweet from Planned Parenthood which shows the Statue of Liberty holding birth control pills:

PP Lady Liberty BC pills

Of course, this ties in perfectly with Planned Parenthood’s agenda because we all know that they “want the poor!” so they can guarantee they do not procreate !

In 1964, Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger said she believed that it would take the US Government to accept “Population Control” to convince other nations to do the same.

I just don’t have the feeling that we can control it,” the Planned Parenthood founder lamented about the population explosion.

“I don’t see how we can control the birth rate until we get the government to agree that this is something which should be taken seriously. Other countries feel that if our government is against it, it must be bad. Americans would be much more acceptable when they go abroad to work on the problem if we get our government to approve it- perhaps under some such term as population control,” Sanger stated.

Sanger 1965 Population Control

guttmachr

In a 1969 article in Medical World News Reports, former Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher suggested the possibility that coercion will be used to control population, “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion,” writes Guttmacher, “and determine when and how it should be employed. At present the available means are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. Perhaps some day a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible”.

As late as 1970 Guttmacher called the idea of a limitation of families to only 2 children in America “desirable.”

This former Eugenics VP also suggested that the United Nations be brought in to control population, “ If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage,” Guttmacher told Boston Magazine in 1970.

Sanger-membAES

Guttmacher was following in the steps of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who in 1932, called for the U.S. government to set aside farms and what she called “open spaces” where certain groups of people would be segregated from the rest of society. She proposed that, among others, the illiterate, the unemployed and the poor should be forcibly kept in these areas until they developed “better moral conduct.” ~ The documentary film Maafa21.

Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“. So much for Choice , huh?

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once wrote that no one should have the right to bear a child and no permit for children shall give a couple the right the have more than one birth, requiring parents to obtain a “license to breed.”

In her “A License for Mothers to Have Babies” with the subtitle, “A code to stop the overproduction of children.” Sanger writes:

A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or State authorities to married couples , providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

This idea that the government has to pay for the birth control of the poor is really part of a eugenics agenda that began many years ago and Planned Parenthood who has been knee deep in Eugenics since it’s founding knows it.

To learn more about this agenda of Forced Population Control read my previous post here.

Ginsburg cards only net $100.00 donation for abortion giant Planned Parenthood

Posted in Ginsburg, Pro-choice People with tags , , , , , , on July 5, 2014 by saynsumthn

Ann Arbor, Michigan graphic designer Alisa Bobzien has designed Ruth Bader Ginsburg cards which she is selling on Etsy:

She has offered to give a donation for purchases of the cards of the radically pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice to Planned Parenthood. Ginsburg has been praised for her recent dissent in the Hobby Lobby case after the ruling agreed that the religious freedoms of the owners were in conflict with the Obama HHS abortion / birth control mandate to ObamaCare.

Tweet

il_570xN.516700456_tdut

il_570xN.516700486_abj9

il_570xN.516700520_mqxj

il_570xN.516700640_key5

_____________________________

The cards sole for $24.00 a set. The graphic designer bragged on twitter and facebook that she raised a whopping $100.00 for abortion giant Planned Parenthood which means she sold 4 sets !

100 PP

Alisa FB Page