Woman Citing ‘Religious Freedom’ Suing Clinic That Wouldn’t Hire Her Because She Won’t Prescribe Birth Control

stewart-religionAnd this is what people talked about when they said the “floodgates” had now been opened up following the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling a few weeks ago.

Now there’s a woman in Florida suing a health clinic that wouldn’t hire her because, if given the job, she wouldn’t prescribe most forms of birth control.  Essentially she’s arguing that her “pro-life” religious views should trump medical science when it comes to dealing with patients.

Sara Hellwege, a nurse-midwife in Tampa, Florida, opposes most forms of birth control, including the birth control pill.  Well, when she applied for a position with the Tampa Family Health Centers she was asked about her affiliation with anti-contraception groups.  That’s when she informed human resources that she would refuse to prescribe birth control to people who specifically requested it.

Needless to say, she was informed that prescribing birth control was a part of the job – and she wasn’t hired.

Now Hellwege is suing the clinic, claiming she’s being discriminated against based on her religious views.

Think about that for a moment.  Someone wanting to work in the medical industry seems to believe that her religious views are more important than the rights of patients to get medical treatment based on medical science – not her personal religious beliefs.

Imagine if she actually won this lawsuit.  This would essentially place the religious beliefs of people working in the medical industry over the science of medicine when it comes to patient care.

This is absurd.  If she opposes birth control, that’s fine, she doesn’t have to use it.  But if she wants to work in the medical industry, she has to base her prescriptions on medicine, not religion.  What she’s trying to claim is that since she opposes birth control, that gives her the right to prevent other people from gaining access to it.  Even though she was seeking employment from a company that doesn’t oppose birth control.

In other words, her religious views not only trump the views of the people she would be treating, but the business for which she would be working.  Even though that business views the willingness to prescribe birth control pills if patients want them as a requirement for that position.

That’s like me owning a bar and having someone apply to be a bartender who told me during the interview that they would refuse to serve alcohol to customers based on their religious views.  Then that person suing me after I didn’t hire them because they would have refused to perform the duties required for the job for which they were applying.

So, to these people, “religious freedom” more or less overrules everything.  Business policies, medical science, the rights of others to not have another person’s views forced on them – none of that matters.

See why this Hobby Lobby ruling was so troublesome?  It’s essentially made “religious freedom” the trump card in any argument where religion is even remotely related.

Because this is just the beginning.  I’m sure we’re going to see more and more stories similar to this pop up where people claim “religious discrimination” because their attempts to force their religious views on others were denied.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • adcbeast

    I support retro-active abortion for religious nutters

    • lkl

      This is the best comment I’ve seen in quite a while. Thanks for the laugh!

    • Chomper Lomper Tawee

      I’m stealing that!

    • davehorne

      Can I lease that line from you … or at the very least, give you credit every time I use it?

      • adcbeast

        Please feel free

    • dddd

      Murdering people you disagree with is hilarious!!!!

      • I’m glad I wasn’t the only person who read it like this.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        “Murdering people you disagree with” seems to be the standard with the right. You got one right wing politician who thinks gays should be stoned, another one who thinks you should kill your disobedient kids and that guy in Indiana who thinks the poor should be “allowed to wither and die.” I’ve never heard of a liberal shoot an abortion doctor or bomb an abortion clinic. Come to think of it, I’ve never heard of a liberal bomb a church or shoot a pro-birther. (I don’t call them “pro-life” because their concern for life ends at birth).

        And he was being sarcastic, dolt.

      • ff

        Liberals do enough killing *inside* the abortion clinics as it is! And that isn’t sarcastic, unfortunately. And you’re a doofus! See, I can call people names, too! Hooray for calling people names!!!

      • Cemetery Girl

        Far better for them to born so they can later be used in military service

      • chrisgogh

        Or starve, thanks to “pro-lifers” cutting welfare programs.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And I will never understand that. “Pro-life” should mean all stages of life, not just the pre-born state.

      • chrisgogh

        It should, but it doesn’t. The loud “pro-life” people aren’t really pro-life, but are anti-choice. There are some decent people out there who actually do believe life begins at conception, and many of those people do understand that abortion is at least sometimes necessary, but they’re not the ones who are harassing women as they try to enter family planning clinics and trying to make abortion illegal. The loud ones aren’t pro-life. The loud ones just want to punish women for enjoying sex without becoming incubators.

      • jimv1983

        How is being pro-life being against choice. If anything it is the opposite. I’m pro-life because all innocent human life should be able to CHOOSE for itself. Being “pro-choice” stands in the way of that.

        And yes life does start at conception. That is just biology.

      • chrisgogh

        An embryo doesn’t have the capability to choose one way or the other. It doesn’t know it exists, it can’t feel pain nor fear, and it won’t know if it ceases to exist.

      • jimv1983

        You are generalizing. I am pro-life and I don’t support cutting welfare programs. However, I do support actions that would help people not need welfare anymore like higher minimum wage.

      • chrisgogh

        Maybe I am generalizing, but only about the “loud” pro-life people, not about *all* pro-life people in general. I’m talking about those who stand outside reproductive healthcare clinics and bully every woman who tries to enter, whether it’s for an abortion, health screening, contraceptives, prenatal care, or for any other purpose. I even read a story recently about protestors who stand outside clinics that don’t perform abortions, because these protestors believe contraception is the same as abortion.

        I believe your motives are good, Jim, even though I don’t agree with your conclusions concerning the “rights” of a non-sentient potential human. I don’t lump you in with the “loud” pro-life people, but I also hope that you don’t try to force your beliefs into our laws.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        YAWN. WHat is with you clowns and “liberalism?” We believe in choice: the woman, not the government and certainly not YOU, has the CHOICE of what to do with a pregnancy. I’m an OB physician. I don’t do abortions, but I also don’t try to talk women into an abortion or continuing her pregnancy. That is HER decision, not yours.

      • jimv1983

        If you support abortion you don’t believe in choice. Every time a woman gets an abortion she is making a choice for someone other than herself. She is taking away the choice to live.

        And by the way I’m not a conservative or religious. I am a mostly liberal atheist. I just support the right for all innocent human life to choose for themselves.

      • adcbeast

        @ff .. You can’t kill something that is not born

        NEXT !!

      • jimv1983

        You don’t have to be born to be alive.

      • adcbeast

        @jimv1983:disqus .. Nothing is alive until it leaves it’s mother. Until it leaves it is part of the mother.

      • jimv1983

        You obviously don’t don’t understand what the criteria is for being alive. You need to refresh your understanding of simple high school biology.

      • adcbeast

        @jimv1983:disqus … Actually I do D____BREATH …

        Nothing is alive until it is born.. until a fetus is born it is PART of the mother

      • jimv1983

        “Nothing is alive until it is born…”

        Are you kidding? When an egg is fertilized a single human cell exists (genetically unique from the mother). 9 months later a fully developed baby exists. So what is happening during that 9 months? All that growth and development is evidence of BEING ALIVE. If it wasn’t alive it never would have gotten past being a fertilized egg. What about babies that are born prematurely? If a baby is born at like 28 weeks then it is alive because it has been born but if it goes full term then it still isn’t alive because it hasn’t been born even through is more developed and capable of the same biological processes as the premature baby?

        Of course it’s alive. Look up “characteristics of life”.

      • adcbeast

        @jimv1983:disqus .. Nope Jim .. you are STRUGGLING ..

        Fetuses are NOT alive until they born … until they are born they are part of the mother like a finger ..

        Without being attached to the mother the fetus dies .. just like a finger ..

        This is why the US Constitution says that to have the rights granted by God that you must be born ..

        The fact that something is developing to a become “alive” on it’s own does not mean it is alive ..

        Your philosophy needs some work

      • jimv1983

        Look up characteristics of life. Simple high school biology. The things that are happening during development are all signs of LIFE. If a fetus wasn’t alive those things WOULDN’T BE HAPPENING.

        “…until they are born they are part of the mother like a finger…”

        That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Part of is not the same thing as inside of. That is like saying if you are in your car you are part of your car.

      • WeNeedCommonSense

        Not every liberal thinks abortion is ok or the proper choice. Not every liberal respects the actions of people that choice to abort a life. But, liberals know that a woman has the right to make reproduction choices. We may not like the choice made, but understand that a woman has the freedom to choose for herself. NO ONE can force people to do anything. Not for religious reasons, not for “family values”.

      • jimv1983

        As a liberal myself I support the right for everyone to choose for themselves. Abortion takes that right away.

        You say no one can force people to do anything but that is what a woman is doing every time she has an abortion. She is forcing someone to die.

      • Let’s not pretend that Conservatives have a monopoly on violent speech. I mean, one need look no farther than Moms Demand Action’s twitter feed to see tons of people wishing violence and death on people and their families for holding different beliefs. And let’s not forget that Chris Dorner (shooter), James Blanning (failed bomber), Bill Ayers (bomber), and the various groups that walk the thin line between terrorism and activism (ALF and ELF) are all Liberals.

        Violence is not a political problem. It’s a human problem. Advocating the mass murder of people who disagree with you, even in jest, is still savagely violent.

      • Linda

        The difference is this was a joke. Conservatives aren’t joking when they’re spewing their hate!

      • Read the last sentence of the post you responded to.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What makes you think Dorner and Blanning were liberals? And, having grown up in the 1960s, Ayers would be considered a left-wing radical, not a liberal. Moms Demand Action don’t want whack jobs carrying guns in Target stores; they are not “wishing violence and death on people and their families for holding different beliefs.”

        Intolerance and violence are hallmarks of modern conservatives.

      • I think Dorner was a Liberal because his Manifesto listed support for Pres. Obama and Mrs. Obama, Biden, Hillary, and Gun Control; his fandom of MSNBC, CNN, and Piers Morgan; his disdain for Zimmerman and support of Trayvon Martin; and that he hates the NRA. He certainly sounds like the “Left” to me.
        I think Blanning was a Liberal because his suicide note included his hatred for Rove, Cheney, and Bush. I’ll give you, this is certainly less telling than Dorner’s note; but I think it’s fair to say that he was, at the very least, not a conservative.
        Moms Demand Action may not officially conduct violence, but they are not above espousing messages that advocate for it; both via retweets, and the fact that they selectively prune arguments on their page, but ignore advocation or wishes of violence towards gun owners and their families. At the very least, this demonstrates the belief that it’s morally acceptable to publicly threaten people’s children so long as they disagree with you; and at worst, it shows that they believe that it’s morally justifiable to do so.
        Though I notice that a justification for Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front were conspicuously missing from your challenge. And, to be honest, trying to say that “Ayers was a Left-Wing Radical” and therefore doesn’t count, then turn around and say that “intolerance and violence are hallmarks of Conservatism” (discounting even the possibility that the Extremist-Liberal corollary may apply here, as well) seems disingenuous, at best. I mean, I’m 100% certain that I could switch over to Huffington Post *right now* and find a Liberal Antitheist being intolerant.
        Sure, conservatives tend to be more confrontational then liberals. I’ll give you that. But if you’re suggesting that violence is somehow exclusively a problem in the right-wing of politics, then you clearly missed the entire Cold War.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Dorner sounded more like a nutcase. Liberals generally aren’t into violence. Wackos on both sides are, but conservatism seems to be the far more intolerant. Or maybe it’s just because they get more airtime.

        And I thought ALF was a TV show and ELF worked for Santa. Wasn’t aware of the acronyms.

      • That’s all I’m saying. Trying to characterize the other side as villains prevents real conversation, because it turns any discussion into a shouting match. I mean, look at how interviews go on Fox News. There exists violence and extremism on both sides of the spectrum.

        It just turns out that the political right’s intolerance happens to be less socially acceptable than the political left’s intolerance. Partly because it’s not ok for me, as a black man, to use racial slurs against a white person. But people will get a lot less upset about it than if a white person were to use slurs against me.

      • jimv1983

        People get a lot more upset about whites using slurs against blacks than blacks using slurs against whites.

      • Lauren Lubaroff

        There are definitely violent extremists on both sides of the aisle. The difference is that the handful of Leftist crazies are way out on the fringe. Whenever a new Republican scandal comes to light, the Right-Wingers pull out their favorite line, “Democrats are just as bad!”, and list the same few examples you mentioned.
        The problem with today’s Republican Party is that those who used to be the fringe extremists now make up a majority of the party. And unlike the same old examples you gave above, I could list hundreds of Republicans who are violent wing nuts and thousands who are corrupt, heartless monsters who prey on the children, the disabled & the elderly, beginning with 99% of those who either currently hold or are running for public office.
        The Left may have a few bad apples, just like any group of individuals, but on the Right the whole apple tree is rotten – greed and hatred stemming from the heart of the party. And the Republican politicians continue feeding that tree – with the help of the Right-Wing media – by using fear, intimidation, & lies to brainwash uninformed voters into electing them again & again.
        But the American people are seeing what the Republican Party has become – a party of lies, hatred & hypocrisy that caters to the rich (who line their pockets in return). And as long as the unconstitutional voting laws don’t succeed in denying too many Americans one of their most fundamental rights, and Faux News continues to be exposed as the paid off lobbyists that they are, the November elections will give the Democrats control of the Senate AND the House, and President Obama will finally be able to execute some real changes without the Obstructionist Do-Nothing Party standing in the way of what the people want! (As he said to Boner – and I’m paraphrasing here – “I believe in doing what’s right for the people & for this country. So sue me!” LMAO!)

      • Cynthia Wheaton

        The term “sides of the aisle” generally refers to the divide between Democrats and Republicans in the two Houses of the U.S. Legislature. Are you saying there are violent extremists among our elected represenatives in the House and Senate?
        I don’t believe blatant exaggeration like this serves the purpose of seeing what needs to be done and making a start at doing it.

      • jimv1983

        What does supporting Trayvon Martin or hating the NRA have to do with being liberal?

        Also, hatred of Bush, Chaney and Rove doesn’t have to be a political issue. They did horrible things. People from both parties should realize that.

      • Kenneth Stoner

        Lumping ALF and ELF with Liberals is the same thing as lumping the KKK and the Army of God with Conservatives. If you want to assign blame for Bill Ayers to Liberals then Conservatives have to accept blame for Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh. Your point argues against itself – Extremists are not liberal or conservative. They are extremists. Your second point seems to acknowledge this fact while at the same time jumping off into la-la land all on it’s own.

        Irony, sarcasm and sardonic humor are no more violent than a cream-pie to the face of circus clown. Indeed, claiming that the use of such constitutes “savage violence” is itself doing violence to the exercise of rational debate. When people are afraid to crack an ironic or sardonic joke for fear of incurring the wrath of self-appointed non-violence police, then you can be sure that they are afraid to say much else besides.

      • You missed the segue discussion, where I explained: “Trying to characterize the other side as villains prevents real conversation, because it turns any discussion into a shouting match. I mean, look at how interviews go on Fox News. There exists violence and extremism on both sides of the spectrum.”

        This is in the post that shows up directly above yours, but is not the post you replied to. My point is not, and never was, that “Liberals are violent and so Conservative violence is ok”; but that violence is a human problem, not a political one.

        However, I stand by the notion that advocating violence *is* intrinsically violent. Irony, sarcasm, and sardonicism certainly have a place; but they also tend to undermine rational conversation and are often just a strawman argument dressed up as humor.

      • adcbeast

        Steven DOOOSH … You need a mental health evaluation ..

      • Douche*

      • adcbeast

        DOOOSH .. passes all autocensors ..

      • Then your computer is just as bad at spelling as you are. There are no words in the English language with three consecutive repeating letters. The word you’re looking for is “Douche”. Perhaps “douche-nozzle”, “douche-bag”, “douche-for-brains”, “douche-water”, or some creative portmanteaus: “douche-tastic”, “douche-tabulous”, “douche-inator”, “douche-tacular”, “douche-stonishing”, “douche-nificent”, “douche-nanimous”, “douche-ceptional”, or “douche-eriffic”. Frankly, though, I think those portmanteaus should give away how offensive I think that word is. It’s a term of endearment in my circles.

      • adcbeast

        Steven DOOOSH … Your mom would say hi but she has something in her mouth

        It is not my computer … it is autocensor software on websites … You are a NOVICE

      • Interesting. Because “douche” isn’t a curse word. This website doesn’t censor it at all. BTW, tell my mom I said “hi”.

      • adcbeast

        Steven DOOOSH .. a word need not be a “curse” word for a website to censor it

      • Orphan

        You’re a fucking idiot.

      • adcbeast

        Orphan DOOOSH … PhD + JD Georgetown … NEXT !!!

      • jimv1983

        Not everyone who is pro-life stops caring after birth. I am pro-life and I don’t stop caring after birth. I’m also not a republican or religious. I am a mostly liberal atheist.

      • chrisgogh

        My previous comments were based on the assumption that you were a theist, because I’m not used to hearing atheists argue that life begins at conception.

        The fact that you’re an atheist removes any possible “soul” argument, so we should be able to go straight to using logic. Why do you believe it is wrong to terminate a life that can’t think or feel or even know of its own existence? From a strictly secular point of view, how can it be morally wrong to terminate a life-form that isn’t self-aware? How can it be morally right to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? How can it be morally right to force a child into this world, only to give it up for adoption and have it believe it was unwanted, or to wonder who its biological parents are? Or worse, for this child to end up in the foster system, where it can go from one abusive family to another?

      • jimv1983

        To be honest it always really surprised me that more atheists aren’t pro-life and don’t accept that life begins at conception.

        In a religious world view our time on earth is almost nothing compared to the infinite after-life. As an atheist I realize that this life is all we have and it isn’t right to deny someone else the same right that you and I have.

        The life beginning at conception part is just science. Over a period of about 9 months after the moment of conception a fertilized egg grows to become a fully formed baby. That in between process wouldn’t happen if the fertilized egg was not alive. I also want to add that just because a human life isn’t “born” yet doesn’t mean anything. Fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, child, teen, adult, etc are all different stages of human development. All are human, all are alive and all have the same worth.

        I support the same rights for all innocent human life. If you are innocent, human and alive you are equal to every other innocent human life. Assigning more value to one human life over another just because of the level of physical or mental development is the most immoral thing I can think of. I don’t consider myself better than someone who is less developed so how could I put less value on their life than my own?

        Let me put it another way. My life is my own. If anyone is going to make a decision that will result in the end of my life that decision should belong to me and me alone. That is true now and has been true since the moment my life came into existence(conception). It should have always been my decision and it is a right that everyone should have. Whether or not I was self-aware, wouldn’t feel pain or wouldn’t remember is irrelevant.

        When it comes to abortion you have a situation where 95% of the time a woman’s convenience is being put above the value of another innocent human life that is not her own. I have a huge problem with that and it makes me sad to think that others aren’t. I wouldn’t be able to live with myself knowing that I put my own convenience above another innocent human life.

        There are cases where the mother’s life is in danger and in those cases it’s no different than a case of killing in self defense. If someone is a threat to your life(intentionally or not) then protecting yourself is justified even if it means killing someone but it is still killing.

        As far as rape goes it is still something I have a hard time making an opinion about. On the one hand, the thought of a woman having to keep a child that was created as the result of a rape is a terrible thing. On the other hand punishing the unborn child for a crime that their father committed isn’t right either.

      • adcbeast

        dddd …. Please tell us where Jesus spoke about abortion …

        I can tell you that Jesus NEVER did ..

        Jesus never said life begins at conception ..

        Jesus never said birth control was a sin or even paying for it was a sin ..

        NEXT !!!

      • Kevin

        And it’s hilarious that you think that.

    • Debra Baker

      good one

  • Shadow8088

    Grab your hip waders and your umbrella… shitstorm incoming…

  • Luke

    I’m excited to see where all the GOP free marketeers come down on this.

    An employee openly refuses to perform a service as her employer requires. Now said potential employee wants the government to step in and support her right to willfully disregard the requirements of the company that was to pay her.

    Small government, right?

    • Nemisis

      I get your point, but the woman was not even an employee, just an applicant.

      • RickFlash

        SHE”S SUING THE EMPLOYER! Talk about wasting taxpayer money and getting nothing done. Thanks again, GOP!

      • Bob

        With respect, you failed to read your own bold caps. “SHE”S SUING THE EMPLOYER! ”

        This case has nothing to do with the GOP. She is spending her own money, not the taxpayers’.

      • Ankynan

        I would give odds that not one penny of her own money is involved, that she, like Hobby Lobby, is a willing “front” for the moneyed sponsors of the anti-American attack on our system of government.

        Read Max Blumenthal’s 2009 book Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party. Documented & factual, not “opinion”.

      • Bob

        That most certainly is a possibility. There seems to be a lot of that going around on both sides.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        She’d be better off actually getting a job instead of wasting money on a frivolous lawsuit.

      • Nemisis

        Rick, to a point the taxpayer pays for the court the judge, and the entire circus involved in that. However filing fees and court fees are all paid by the plaintiff and then eventually by the defendant if the case is lost.

        Is it a waste of time? No more so than a wanna-be armed robber suing the people he tried to rob at gun point because they beat the crap out of him.
        In other words, a complete waste of time.

        Is it our process? Yes, like it or not we must suffer this waste of time, because the next case maybe yours or mine and someone else may think it’s a waste of time.

        Will she win? Prior to the SCOTUS ruling. I would have said not a snowball’s chance in hell. Now the courts have all been given the mandate from SCOTUS through their ruling to allow her to win.
        The only problem this lower court faces is do they rule in favor of the corporate person, or the fleshy person.

      • Fortunately, the SCOTUS ruling was a lot narrower than most people think. She’ll still lose the case.

      • Nemisis

        The ruling SCOTUS put out, and then later expanded, by it’s very nature is dangerous.

        It opens a crack in the 1st amendment

        A good attorney could argue that the SCOTUS ruling suggests that special considerations be given in light of the rule. IE: SCOTUS did that already in a Wheaton College complaint that merely filing for a paper that states they are a religious objector to ACA contraceptive law which exempts them from the law, violates their religion and that because Wheaton objects and is allowed to be exempt that a proxy is created and the proxy is allowing for contraceptive dispersal. Thereby, the proxy is acting on behalf of Wheaton College and thus violating their religious beliefs. SCOTUS….stepped in BEFORE the case was finished in lower courts, something not unheard of but very rarely used, and ruled in favor of Wheaton College. Narrow ruling indeed.

        Now what the Wheaton ruling can mean.
        It expands on the premise of HL that religious exemption is ok, exemption from merely stating religious objection is ok, and this is the real dangerous part. A religious objection is now not only extended from an employer to the employee, but from the religion to the non-religious mass via proxy regardless of actual proxy. To wit the mere existence of the drug is a violation of the religious belief. Therefore, in light of HL ruling the drugs must be made unavailable to anyone, because they violate the beliefs of a *person who interprets them to be an assault on their religion. *Person being a brick and mortar person IE: corporation or institution first and flesh and blood person second. Establishing a F&B person as a second class person due to the HL and WC rulings that found corporate and institutional beliefs out weigh those of the individual.

        We see that commonly in theocratic states such as Iran and Afghanistan (under the Taliban), and Iraq.

      • After having read both of these rulings, I disagree with your assessment. The SCOTUS ruling on Hobby Lobby does not “deny” contraceptives to employees; it simply states that the human beings that own a “closely held” (read: “private”) corporation still retain religious protections. They explain that the court did not believe that Congress’ intent was to force religious people to choose between their rights to religious protection, and their right to benefit from owning a corporation (buffering your finances from your company’s, or being able to enter the company into a contract; neither of which are unusual, but are the legal basis for a corporation). The court did not, however, say that employees of Hobby Lobby were not entitled to the same medical care; they said that people who own a company cannot be forced, by the government, to run that company in a way that conflicts with their religious beliefs. It is my understanding that this is where the dreaded “permission slip” came from; which brings me to Wheaton.

        The Wheaton ruling holds that religious institutions cannot be made to issue “permission slips” (EBSA Form 700); but continues, explaining that “nothing in this order precludes the Government from relying on this notice, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage under the [Affordable Care] Act.”
        Now, I’m not a lawyer. But it is my interpretation, between these cases, that people are still free to seek medical care, and are still free to acquire and use contraception; the Wheaton ruling even seems to indicate that the Government is willing to pick up the tab. So then my question is, if my interpretation is correct, then what exactly is the problem? Is it that people aren’t getting the medical care you believe they should receive (which I do not believe is the case), or is it that the secular world is unable to enforce their will on someone else?

        On an unrelated note, I have to say that, as someone who has been to the middle east, and spent time in theocratic states, that comparing Hobby Lobby to the Taliban makes that last point sound absolutely ridiculous; and (for me) it degrades the credibility of the entire argument.

      • Nemisis

        My argument using the Taliban, Iran and Iraq was an illustration of a theocratic state, and not directed at HL. It was not my intent to infer that. Which is why the two did not appear in the same paragraph.
        My use of Iraq is meant as an example of how a theocratic state evolves from a democratic state.
        Just to be sure that there is no confusion. I am not stating that all democracies become theocracies.

        The Wheaton case is an extension of the HL ruling while separate they both pertain to establishing a brick and mortar religious institution as having more rights than a flesh and blood person not just secular. If the courts intent is to have personal opinions / beliefs extended through the use of a corporation then I contend that they, the corporation and the owner are no longer separate and are in fact now one and the same and liability now extends back unto the owner for the actions of the corporation. (removing the protections enjoyed via incorporating a business).

        Back to Wheaton.
        Wheaton claims that their religious-not for profit status should be considered as a statement that they object to PPACA contraceptive laws.
        This can not be allowed, as Wheaton should know that they are not the only religion on earth and not all religions are objecting to providing health insurance that the employee pays a premium on that happens to cover reproductive control methods. Our government must provide a form, which they do, that gives the institution the ability to opt-out. It’s not a long form, one page with these questions. Name of organization, address of organization, name of person filing the form. Done. Not so hard. However Wheaton asserts that because they file for exemption that they have now created a proxy that would then step in an pay for the coverage that Wheaton opted not to pay and therefore the rights of Wheaton have been infringed.

        I assert that if an organization wants to be non-taxed they have no say in how taxes are spent.
        If a religion wants to be free of government influence then the government should be free of that religions influence as well.

        As for this woman and her case.
        Seriously?! This case is about a person suing a company she applied to work for and told the company, before being hired, that she would not preform the duties assigned if hired….
        I can’t wait to see how long it will take SCOTUS to rule one this one…That’s a jab a scotus for ruling on wheaton before the case was presented.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Nemesis said: “Yes, like it or not we must suffer this waste of time, because the next
        case maybe yours or mine and someone else may think it’s a waste of

        Wrong. Personal injury attorneys routinely turn down suits they don’t believe they have a good chance of winning.

      • Nemisis

        “Wrong. Personal injury attorneys routinely turn down suits they don’t believe they have a good chance of winning.”

        Wrong, just because some attorneys turn down a case does not mean another would. Also Nothing prevents a non-attorney from filing a case and representing themselves. A suprising number of cases are lost to non-represented persons filing suit because they defendant thinks there needs to be an attorney and fails to respond to the complaint. The result is an automatic win for the plaintiff when the defendant fails to show or respond to the complaint.

        Tip: How to find a good personal injury attorney.
        Find one not advertising, especially not on TV.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        A good attorney isn’t going to waste his/her time with something frivolous. Someone wanting to make a name for himself/herself or looking for publicity will take something like this. So, no, it is not inevitable that every stupid suit will be taken up, because some are money-losers.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        There has to be a lawyer taking the case. S/he should be disbarred.

      • Luke

        Yeah, my comment was moderately hamfisted. I should have been more careful with “potential employee” and “prospective employer” and all that.

        The fact remains though. Small government, except for if the government is acting as the enforcement arm of the church – then it’s open season…

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So? An employer is not obligated to hire you just because you applied, contrary to the popular belief among some of the youngsters out there.

  • Sunny Ray

    That’s a good thing ! I hope we are going to see millions of same stories popping up in the whole country, and maybe the “for sale supreme court” will realize what stupid thing they did.

    • Ibicella Lutae

      They already know and they don’t care (the Five assholes that ruled in favor). They are corrupt, not stupid. They are happily sucking the cocks of corperations. So long as the corperations keep cumming cash, they will keep happily sucking away.

    • Bob

      Perhaps it is we, the people, who should realize how ill conceived it was allowing them to assume such authority in the first place.

  • Veritas vos Liberabit

    Go work for the Hobby Lobby. Problem solved!

  • Jillz

    This should be interesting – looking forward to hearing the outcome.

  • Tim Anderson

    I thought conservatives were for the Boss’s rights first? So you can sue for racial, age, sex, and now religious discrimination? I hope Alito was right when he said Hobby Lobby was a narrow set of criteria.

  • Lori

    Although I am a Christian, I agree with the Planned Parenthood here. This is no different than a homosexual being fired from a private Christian school for being a homosexual which is against the standards of the school. This woman should have never applied for this job, just as the homosexual teacher should have never applied for their job. Although one article I read I thought was funny. Throughout the Hobby Lobby case, the liberal new sources were saying Hobby Lobby wants to take away all forms of oral birth control from their employees, when in fact it was just those classified as abortion pills, but our government and the media made it all sound like birth control (there is a difference with the use of 2 different hormones). Now, in an article I read the same liberal media wants to separate them. Make up your minds are the BCP and abortion pills the same classification or not. Also we have not heard from this woman if this is her issue, that she will not prescribe the morning after pill or Plan B, or is it all forms of oral contraception she is opposed to.

    • Laura Hurt

      get your facts right Lori, the pills that HL deems to be abortifacients, are not, in fact, abortifacients. Scientifically spoken, a pregnancy starts after an egg attaches itself to the uterus wall. Those 4 meds either prevent an egg from being fertilized or prevent a fertilized egg from nesting. Scientifically spoken, those meds do not cause abortion. HL may sincerely believe that they do, but they don’t. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the HL on basis of faulty scientific facts.

    • Denise Diggs Adams

      No Lori! Sorry but there’s a huge difference! A homosexual person does not refuse to do their job! The so called Christian school is a bunch of bigots who are also trying to force their misinformed religious beliefs on everyone else and then claiming that homosexual people are trying to force their “lifestyle” on them! Bigotry!

      • Kevin

        No, idiot. It is the exact same thing. Since you are so clearly versed in religion, it should be very obvious to you that a homosexual person shouldn’t work, or apply to work at a strict religious institution, and then act surprised that they have anti homosexual views. Really? Guess what that religious institution has the right to be anti homosexual, because that is what their Bible or whatever book they use, teaches them. And per the Constitution, they have as much right to their ridiculous views as you do to your idiotic ones.

      • Denise Diggs Adams

        You’re pretty angry there dumb fuck kevin! The guy that got fired was an alumni of that school and great at his job! We have laws against discrimination towards people because of race, gender, or even sexual orientation! Completely different to fire someone because they dont agree with something they do in their PERSONAL life and not do to them being UNWILLING to do the job at hand! Take your bitch ass somewhere there’s other neanderthal minds like your own!

      • Kevin

        Who’s angry? Ummm…… Yeah. There is no difference because it is her personal views that she is unwilling to do the job at hand. And she has no right to sue them. And what you’re effectively saying is that because you think religious people’s views are misinformed, that they don’t have the right to have them. When you work at a religious institution, and they later discover that you’re gay, you also don’t have the right to sue when they fire you for it. You’re talking about two rights clearly given in the Constitution, so at that point, it’s a matter of which trumps which. Obviously they don’t. The Constitution doesn’t work that way, so sorry. The churches have just as much right to their beliefs as you do to yours, and you can’t sue just because you don’t agree with them. Yes, there are laws against sexuality discrimination, but, the church is also protected by those exact same laws. So, effectively, they actually do have the right to duscriminate against homosexuaks. Study the Constitution….. It may enlighten you, but, I highly doubt it.

      • Denise Diggs Adams

        You’re ASSuming a lot there little boy! In the church situation, they already knew he was gay! At least argue facts that you know about! It had nothing to do with job performance which is the point and they have a right to not hire someone but they do not have a right to fire someone who’s doing their job extreme well because all of a sudden they change their minds! They hired him knowing he was gay and that’s where the difference come in! Can you see? I’m not sure I can make it any more simple for you!

      • Random_Joe

        I find it amazing how quickly you both resort to name calling and belittling just because you don’t agree with each other. Is that what people are taught? Hate those that have a different opinion? Or did you figure it out on your own?

      • Denise Diggs Adams

        Both? LOL. I won’t allow some guy who doesn’t have a clue speak to me like that and call me names without coming back harder! I won’t lay down for anyone! If he’s giving, I’ll give back so you think these idiots with internet balls would come at me like that in real life? No! Because they’re weak! This is the only place people like Kevin feel superior!

      • Random_Joe

        I think that’s the problem. Everyone feels the need fight fire with fire when water works so much better. Try the high road once in a while. Chances are, far more people will listen including the hater you are addressing and honestly you might just feel better about it. I’m mean, really, who cares how superior Kevin feels? Just my two cents.

      • Denise Diggs Adams

        Some only understand the fire! And I don’t care if he listens. The most ignorant seem to speak the loudest!

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        Exactly! If you slap me, then I’ll slap you harder!

      • Kevin

        Sounds like you’re assuming quite a bit there too. No one gets fired for doing an excellent job. Good for the church to hire a gay person, but, you said earlier that they cited that he was “trying to teach the gay culture” or something to that effect. Well, if that’s the case, or even if he was merely suggesting that being gay wasn’t a sin, well, that directly contradicts church teaching doesn’t it? I’m sure he said something to that affect, as I said people don’t get fired for doing an excellent job. Now, just to be clear these wacko religious views, are not MY views. I just go by the Constitution. They have the right to have them just as much as everyone else has to theirs.

      • Denise Diggs Adams

        I did not say anything like that! The so called reason was because one bigoted parent found out and complained so they fired him! Like I said….he did a great job per the administration and had been promoted for his great performance!

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        If part of that person’s job description was “Teach children that homosexuality is evil” and the teacher refused to, then they would have grounds for firing, not for the teacher being gay, but for refusing to do their job. However, if that’s not in the teacher’s job description, then what they do with their genitals in their own time is not the employer’s business. Is this school also firing people for performing other acts that are seen as being sins?

      • Random_Joe

        It should also be pointed out that if it is a Christian school, then it is a private school. Private schools can have a whole list of employment requirements that don’t exist in the public sector, each being a firing offense should the school deem it appropriate. It is possible that being heterosexual was a requirement, whether directly stated or implied by such terminology as “required to abide by the morals and ethics taught at this institution” or the like. I don’t have any of this information on this particular case so it would be hard for me to form an opinion on the right or wrong of the action. It is an interesting story, though, and if there is any more info you can offer on it, Denise, I would like to read it.

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        If they want to say ‘required to abide by the morals and ethics taught at this institution’ then they could fire people for disrespecting their parents, eating shellfish or pork, wearing clothing of mixed fibers, cutting their hair and/or beard, or any other rule from the bible that christians tend to ignore. Also, the laws against discrimination against people for sexual preference prevent employers from having a ‘you can’t be gay’ rule at their place of business.

      • Random_Joe

        I wonder if, because of the church relationship, they can consider their place of business the same as their place of worship. With the SCOTUS decision, I’m pretty sure they can get away with it. As it is, I doubt they hire many Muslim teachers at that school. Maybe none have applied. But if one did, would they be able to discriminate against him/her for that reason? I don’t know.

        Please understand that I in no way agree with any of that since it doesn’t matter what life style a teacher lives if he/she teaches math or English or physics correctly. I might understand if a class was directly related to learning about the religion that they would want someone of that religion to teach it. I was simply stating that there may be a legal or perceived legal reason allowing them to do so. More likely pressure from parents. That doesn’t make it right.

      • Denise Diggs Adams

        He was teaching for many years and got promoted for doing a great job! And exactly! Unless they’re digging into everyone’s sex life, they shouldn’t have fired him.

    • stokes

      The day after the SCOTUS ruling Justice Roberts expanded the ruling to include ALL birth control methods. Not so narrow now. The real fact is none of the 4 birth control methods cited are abortive to begin with, never mind the fact that Hobby Lobby’s 401K plan is heavily invested in the pharmaceutical company that makes Plan B. Oh and then of course most of their products come from China where more abortions are done than anywhere else in the world.

    • willyshock

      When you conflate contraception with same gender coupling, everything else you may utter is not worth reading. Stop. People have a right to medical privacy. Period. People have a right to adore and couple with whomever they might find without the judgement of The State or a church. People also have the right to be able to choose their specific destiny without having the ‘values’ of undefined others determining (by proxy) what that destiny might be. I’ve been polite… Now, less so: Mind your own business.

    • Retrodude

      Liberal media…….lol…

    • Taymie

      What happened in Hobby Lobby was the court ruled that it didn’t matter what the pills did, if the company THINKS they are ‘abortion pills’ but they AREN’T, they can refuse those pills based on that belief.

      So, now if an employer BELIEVES something, regardless of if it is true, the SCOTUS has decided that trumps science when it comes to medical care.

    • Curtis Scarbrough

      Then supreme court later specified that the HL decision applies to ALL forms of birth control. Also, none of the forms of birth control in question cause abortions.

      • Karenin virginia

        So lets take this to th next level. Lets just say your employer is Jewish, you are diabetic, some diabetes medicine is derived from pigs, does your employer have the right to not cover those medications derived from pigs? YES, because it against thier religious to use anything from a pig.

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        The employer isn’t using the products derived from a pig. They’re just providing insurance (which is part of your compensation for doing your job) which happens to cover a treatment they don’t approve of.

      • Karenin virginia

        The employer isn’t using the birth control either so why does he get to tell his female employees what they can use?

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        I agree with you 100%. I may have misspoke at some point and made it look like I was siding with the people crying ‘religious freedom’ to get their way.

      • Karenin virginia

        Right like part of my paycheck.

      • No, because the HL ruling specifically says that it only applies to contraceptives.

      • Karenin virginia

        Actually it says any undue burden on a company agains their religious beliefs.

      • “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.” (pp. 5-6)

      • www (dot) supremecourt (dot) gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

    • Dianne

      Lori, I have to disagree. If Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, and therefore have the right to fire someone, then they should be firing people for all the things they believe are sins. When you target one group, that is discrimination, not religious values. Otherwise the standards would be only non sinners may apply. Applying for a job and stating you won’t perform the duties is not the same thing as someone willing to do the duties but has a different sexual orientation.

  • Nyssa

    Here in Italy 80% of gynecologist don’t perform abortions for religious reasons (conscientious objectors). Not only they are allowed to practice, but they are even favored in their career advancement.
    I hope it will work out better for you guys in the US.

    • Caren Osgood

      If they have their own private practice, then that’s their choice to make because they are their own boss. If they were applying for a job which had performing abortions as a part of the job description, and then said they wouldn’t do it, they should not expect to be hired. Two very different things there.

      • Nyssa

        Sorry, I was not clear.
        80% of gynecologist in public hospitals.

  • HD

    Sign me up for the religion that doesn’t believe in paying student loans.

    • drixnot3

      Ohhhhhh…. we need to start that one.

  • chitownmom

    I’m tired of people who choose to frequent a business or who now apparently attempt to be hired by a business for the sole purpose of gaining media attention for their particular cause. And even more tired of those who sue to force the business to submit.

  • Anonymous

    Regardless, you signed up to be a nurse first. You want to be a nurse or a doctor, you need to keep your religious opinions/views inside and do your damn job. Best part is, she wasn’t even an employee so what is she suing for? The lack of receiving a job? lol

    • Robocop5626

      Why not, we pay people to sit home and not work. Same difference….

      • Andy Kinnard

        The best part about that comment is that you think it’s relevant.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Who do we pay to sit at home and not work? Names, please?

      • chrisgogh

        I know one person who sits on her butt and abuses the welfare system, although I believe most who use it would prefer to find a good-paying job and get off welfare.

      • kathimc63

        See, this angers me. If you have proof that this person is abusing the welfare system, report her! There’s a hotline to report abuse.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So you’re going to be all rabid about ONE person? How about being rabid over the $6 trillion we wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan?

      • chrisgogh

        Agreed. I’m still not completely certain about Afghanistan, but we had absolutely no good reason to go into Iraq. I knew from the moment that it was first announced that the whole premise was bullshit. Dubya said in his campaign speeches that he would go after Hussein, plus Hussein and bin Laden despised each other, so I knew there was no connection there, and it was all just an excuse to invade Iraq.

      • jimv1983

        What about Afghanistan are you not certain about? The United States declared war on a country who’s government, although not our friends, did nothing to provoke the invasion.

      • chrisgogh

        It angers me, too. If I knew her last name and where she lived, I would gladly report her. Unfortunately, all I have are her words and her first name. Do you know how many Barbs there are in the US?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        As do I. There are people working full-time who rely on food stamps. My son was one of them.

    • Cathy Neal

      This is a situation in which employers do have the right to not provide employment to applicants who do not fulfill the requirements of the job. You often hear of pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives or morning after pills to those who have legitimate prescriptions all because of their religious beliefs. It seems obvious to me that these folks have chosen the wrong profession and should look for employment in a field which more closely fits with their ideals. The woman in the article is a nurse/midwife but i would never want her near me when delivering a child. I’m sure she does not believe in the use of anesthesia or any pain medications because the Bible says women must bear children in horrendous pain as punishment for something Eve did. She is not qualified to work in any medical facility. Her suit should be dismissed as frivolous.

      • TheThinkfulProgressive

        Not only that, but the state nurses board should probably review her credentials, and if she’s in violation of her oath, should revoke them.

      • Ankynan

        She’d probably then sue them for “unlawfully depriving her of her livelihood by religious discrimination”. And require that religious objections should be added to the oath as exemptions.

      • chrisgogh

        Indeed, she should have her credentials revoked. Her refusal to perform an important aspect of the job is enough to turn her down for the position. The fact that she’s fine with some contraceptions but is opposed to the pill on religious grounds seems to indicate that she believes the pill to be an abortifacient, which would make her too incompetent to do the job anyway.

  • Addison

    It saddens me. I go to a doctor’s office for a professional atmosphere, to get check ups and medication if and when I need it. This is a tad absurd. She didn’t get the job for a logical reason and now she is complaining her religious views are being fucked with. Your job is to be a Professional Nurse/Doctor, you need to understand that you can’t let religion, gender, or anything idiotic/meaningless get in the way of your job. Otherwise you will lose it faster than you can get it.

    I am going to laugh if this flops on her, want to know why? She will never be able to get a Nurse/Doctor’s job anywhere that knows about this article. She better have a good lawyer because; establishments like this take nonsense like this very seriously. In the end; I wish her the best of luck; but she really could of handled this entire situation better.

    Just my 2cents, in before hate comments. I’m being realistic here.

    • Caren Osgood

      Unfortunately all she’ll have to do is apply at one of the many catholic hospitals in the country and she’ll probably be welcomed.

      • LL11

        And THAT is why I oppose catholic run hospitals. Many HMOs only give you one choice for in-network hospital, those may be Catholic run. My niece needed a hysterectomy after medical problems, the hospital, a “St Francis” wouldn’t give her one. She had to jump through hoops as did her doctor, to get to another hospital to get that procedure. Ridiculous. Let me be clear and even if it were her choice to get her tubes tied or her husband a vasectomy, that is a legitimate medical procedure. They shouldn’t be able to reject it based on their “views”.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I did my residency in a Catholic hospital and we did hysterectomies all the time.

      • chrisgogh

        As I often say about churches, you can have two within the same denomination that barely resemble each other. One might expect Catholics to be different because they have a centralized Church, but I think most Catholic people aren’t opposed to contraception, despite official Catholic doctrine stating that sex should only be used for procreation.

        I am leery of any clinic that emphasizes their religion on their sign, for fear that they may put religion above good, sound medical science. However, just as two churches of the same denomination can be vastly different, so can two clinics or two hospitals, and I have heard some good things about quite a few hospitals with “Saint” in their name.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Most Catholics aren’t opposed to contraception and that has been borne out by some surveys.

        One of my favorite Catholic hospitals was a model of humility. There was a sign in one of the elevators: “We provide very good care” instead of the usual bragging about “excellence” and “state of the art” and whatever other marketing crap is out there.

      • chrisgogh

        I think I like that hospital already. 🙂

      • LL11

        Don’t know what to tell you…. different policies? This one did not.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I’ve heard stories of physicians and patients gaming the system by claiming “medical necessity” for a hysterectomy when the aim was sterilization, but that was 40 some years ago.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Having had a hysterectomy, that’s a severe form of birth control. The procedure has become less invasive (small incisions now) than it used to be and it is still no picnic to recover from! I haven’t heard of hysterectomy just for pregnancy prevention, but I’ve heard people accuse anyone having a D&C of doing it to end a pregnancy. (Which is a very cruel accusation to make when a woman has had it because of miscarriage.)

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        *SNICKER* I remember when Catholic hospitals were still run by nuns. Now they are run by corporate types and I don’t think she’d be welcomed with opened arms. She’s already proved she is a PITA.

      • jimv1983

        Hospitals shouldn’t be ran by nuns or “corporate types”. They should be ran by DOCTORS.

  • Paul Marcum

    Religious freedom is fine, I’m all for it. Religious tyranny, on the other hand, is total BS. I’ve heard that in great Britain, muslim nurses have been allowed to forgo hand-washing because washing hands offends their religion. Ridiculous! If you can’t do the job because of your religion, then get lost! This case should never see a judge, the lawsuit papers should be placed in the nearest trashcan, and this woman should forget the real world and go back where she came from.

    • smh

      You heard? Please provide credible evidence of such a claim. It is gossip based on ethnic hatred. You should be ashamed of spreading such nonsense.

      • strayaway

        Google, “muslim nurse refuse hand wash”. A couple of links say this is not so. Other links, I would rely on the British press, say it is true.

      • smh

        Nope. Double shame on you.

        the telegraph:
        Women training in several hospitals in England have raised objections to
        removing their arm coverings in theatre and to rolling up their sleeves
        when washing their hands, because it is regarded as immodest in Islam.

        the dailymail:
        The Department of Health has announced that female Muslim staff will be
        permitted to cover their arms on hospital wards to preserve their modesty.

        Channel 4 FactCheck”
        However, the party’s top-line claim that hygiene measures have been
        relaxed to “allow Muslim staff not to wash before attending to patients”
        is incorrect. While guidance seeks to accommodate cultural differences,
        it makes it clear that “strict procedures for washing hands and wrists
        must still be observed”.

      • strayaway

        the dailymail:

        Muslim doctors and nurses are to be allowed for religious reasons to opt out of strict NHS dress codes introduced to prevent the spread of deadly hospital superbugs.

        This is despite earlier guidance that all staff should be ‘bare below the elbow’ after long sleeves were blamed for spreading bacteria, leading to superbug deaths.


        Staff in several hospitals had reportedly refused to expose their arms for hand washing and ‘scrubbing in’ procedures before surgery.

      • smh

        Objection is to “Expose their arms” not “to wash hands”.

        This is an opportunity for you to see how you have been manipulated by the media with sensationalized over the top language to believe something that simply is not true. Do you really want to be a vector of misinformation? Misinformation makes the world a worse place.

      • strayaway

        Paul Marcum, whom you arrogantly insulted above, was more on the mark than you are because there were three issues; hands, the proper procedure for washing hands, and (this is the biggee) spreading germs.

        “Staff in several hospitals had reportedly refused to expose their arms for hand washing and ‘scrubbing in’ procedures before surgery.” “This is despite earlier guidance that all staff should be ‘bare below the elbow’ after long sleeves were blamed for spreading bacteria, leading to superbug deaths.” From your response to Paul Marcum, “(not washing hands) is gossip based on ethnic hatred. You should be ashamed of spreading such nonsense.” But, apparently, you consider not washing hands properly with sleeves removed and then spreading bacteria as another unrelated matter and not related to ethnic hatred. That’s where we disagree. Personally, I wouldn’t care whether I was infected from someone’s hands, wrist, or sleeve.
        Paul Marcum 2 (for procedure and spreading germs) – smh 1 (hands).

      • chrisgogh

        You can’t rely on the Daily Fail for accurate information.

      • smh

        There is no credible evidence supporting the following statement: “muslim nurses have been allowed to forgo hand-washing because washing hands offends their religion.” Period.

        Channel 4 FactCheck:

        The claim

        “The National Health Service has amended its hygiene rules to allow Muslim staff not to wash before attending to patients.”

        BNP News, British National Party website, 11 April 2010

        The background

        Hygiene guidance for NHS staff has been attacked on the BNP’s
        website, which claims that it allows Muslim staff not to wash before
        attending to patients.

        The article follows the revision of NHS’s guidance to offer advice on dealing with cultural issues associated with workwear.

        According to the party, female Muslim staff will now be exempt from
        the rule that all staff should be scrubbed and bare below the elbow. It
        notes that long sleeves have been identified as one of the leading
        causes of the spread of bacteria responsible for the superbugs and
        describes the alternative of disposable sleeves as “utterly pathetic”.

        The party says “the open display of anti-British bias will now put
        patients in hospitals at even greater risk of infection by the
        ‘superbug’ epidemic which has directly paralleled the increasing numbers
        of ethnic NHS staff.”

        So will the BNP’s hygiene claims wash with FactCheck?

        The analysis

        The BNP does not provide a link to the announcement in question. However, the guidance published on 26 March 2010 on uniform and workwear contains advice on cultural issues.

        This revision provides advice for NHS employers on how cultural
        issues affecting uniform policy should be dealt with. It attempts to
        minimise the risk of any challenge to uniform and workwear codes.

        The policy document supplements guidance from 2007,
        which advises staff to wear short-sleeved shirts or blouses because
        cuffs become heavily contaminated and are more likely to come into
        contact with patients.

        It says although exposure of the forearm is a necessary part of hand
        and wrist hygiene during direct patient care activity, the uniform code
        should “allow for covering of the forearm at other times”.

        It goes on to say that “uniforms and workwear should not impede
        effective hand hygiene, and should not unintentionally come into contact
        with patients during direct patient care activity”.

        The document adds that where members of staff wish to cover their
        forearms for religious reasons, “when not engaged in patient care”, they
        should ensure that sleeves “can be pushed up the arm and secured in
        place for hand washing and direct patient care activity”.

        The guidance says disposable oversleeves can be used to cover bare
        forearms during patient care, but “strict adherence to washing hands and
        wrists must be observed before and after use”. Oversleeves must be
        discarded in exactly the same way as disposable gloves.

        The Department of Health added that bare arms covered in disposable sleeves must also be washed between treating patients.

        These guidelines were developed in consultation with Muslim Spiritual
        Care Provision in the NHS, a joint project between the Department of
        Health and the Muslim Council of Britain.

        Its recommendations – most of which have been adopted in the guidance
        – makes it clear that hand disinfection gels containing synthetic
        alcohol comply with Islamic prohibition laws.

        We asked the BNP to respond to this FactCheck enquiry. The party
        said: “The content of the story makes it very clear that reference is
        being made to the bare and scrubbed ‘below the elbows’ rule which is no
        longer being applied to female Muslim NHS staff.

        “No less than six entire paragraphs make it crystal clear that it is
        the bare below the elbows and long sleeves to which reference is being

        “We dismiss your attempts to distort the story and stand by the
        widely reported reality that Muslim female staff have been excused
        normal NHS hygiene rules because of their religion.”

        The verdict

        The BNP is factually correct in highlighting the guidance’s
        proposed alternative of disposable sleeves for NHS staff on religious
        grounds, which is mentioned in the policy document.

        The party is also right when it points out that staff can now opt for
        long sleeves. But the guidance states that this only applies when they
        are “not engaged in patient care”. The BNP fails to make this clear –
        that long sleeves are allowed when not directly dealing with patients
        – in its article.

        However, the party’s top-line claim that hygiene measures have been
        relaxed to “allow Muslim staff not to wash before attending to patients”
        is incorrect. While guidance seeks to accommodate cultural differences,
        it makes it clear that “strict procedures for washing hands and wrists
        must still be observed”.

      • strayaway

        We weren’t debating whatever the British national Party claimed new guidelines are. I was addressing your previous insult to Paul Markum about the use of hands, the proper procedure for washing hands, and (this is the biggee) spreading germs; incidents that happened according to the Daily Mail. There is a difference between what whether something happened and whether an obscure political party claimed something about resulting guidelines according to “channel 4 (which channel 4?) fact check”. Try to stay on topic.

      • smh

        “Muslim nurses have been allowed to forgo hand-washing because washing hands offends their religion.”That was the original statement and it is not true. That is the topic. Please stop spreading lies.

      • strayaway

        My original post did not even take a position, I wrote, “Google, “muslim nurse refuse hand wash”. A couple of links say this is not so. Other links, I would rely on the British press, say it is true.” Thanks to your reading comprehension error and the links you provided, I looked into this a bit more and it does seem like there was a sanitation issue here. “There were three issues; hands, the proper procedure for washing hands, and (this is the biggee) spreading germs.” You were right about the hands themselves not being the issue but you choose to evade the larger issue of sanitation revolving around washing hands with long sleeves. You did try to shift the topic to a political party’s interpretation of follow up rules but you are working overtime at evading Paul Marcum’s concern about sanitation after critiquing him as presenting ethnic hatred and nonsense. It turns out that he was essentially right.

        From your Daily Mail link: “Staff in several hospitals had reportedly refused to expose their arms for hand washing and ‘scrubbing in’ procedures before surgery.” “This is despite earlier guidance that all staff should be ‘bare below the elbow’ after long sleeves were blamed for spreading bacteria, leading to superbug deaths.”

      • smh

        The original post in this thread was not posted by you. Start your own thread with your own topic.

      • strayaway

        How’s this? My original post which you responded to. If you can’t keep up, you probably shouldn’t keep commenting but thanks for the entertainment.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        Google it!

  • Paul Marcum

    Like a orthodox jew applying for a job at a barbecue joint…

    • jimv1983

      Or a Muslim at a pizza place.

  • labman57

    Kind of like a Jehovah’s Witness applying for a job as a phlebotomist at a Red Cross blood bank.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Can I use that line?

    • jimv1983

      Or a Muslim trying to get a job at a pizza place.

  • chrisgogh

    If this woman truly believes that the pill is against her religion but not all contraceptives are, then she doesn’t know enough about the medications to write prescriptions in the first place. I don’t care if she would be merely writing down what a doctor tells her; if a patient asks her how it works, the nurse would probably (falsely) claim it’s an abortifacient.

    • sage-femme

      She’s a CNM. Nurse-midwives prescribe; management of contraception is one of our core competencies.

      • chrisgogh

        Which makes her even more unqualified for the job than I initially thought.

  • Bridget

    Here’s hoping the clinic fights back with “our religious views are that women are entitled to birth control if they want it” so our religious views, as a potential employer, will trump yours as our employee, and then cite the Hobby Lobby ruling where the employer’s religious beliefs trump their employee’s beliefs.

    • Why? They’d have better luck with just telling the truth: that she told them she refused to do the job she was interviewed for.

    • chrisgogh

      If you can’t (or refuse to) do the job, you can’t get the job. But yeah, I would love the irony of using the Hobby Lobby ruling against her.

  • Opticonica

    How is this any different than the executive order Obama signed yesterday? smh moonbats

    • She outright admitted that she refused to do the job she was being interviewed for.

      • Opticonica

        So the sole job description was writing scripts for contraception? You’re being intellectually dishonest. Albeit, I think her position is as ridiculous as some guy dressing up as a woman, when there is a dress code, and then claiming gender discrimination. Both are equally asinine.

      • I’m not being dishonest. Refusing to do part of the job is the same as refusing to do all of the job. It’s no different than if a Muslim or a Jew were to sue Chili’s for not hiring them, on the grounds that they refused to prepare dishes containing certain foods.

        Prescribing birth control is part of the job. She refuses to perform the job she is being hired for, in its entirety. Therefore she was not hired.

        This is distinguished from the executive order because refusing to fully perform the job you are being paid to perform is not equivalent to not wearing the clothes your employer wanted you to wear. It’s also distinguished because the executive order only applies to federal agencies and contractors, while this nurse was applying to work at a private organization.

        In other words: telling an interviewer at a private company that you refuse to do parts of the job you’re applying for is NOT the same as showing up to work at a government job in a skirt.

      • Opticonica

        Again intellectually dishonest. As if “only gov contracts” defers prejudice. What do you think legal precedent is derived from. Like I said above, both are ridiculous, and equally vacuous.

      • Are you denying that refusing to write prescriptions for certain medications is the same as refusing to perform part of the job? Or are you claiming that refusing to do part of your job is equivalent to a man wearing a skirt? Or did you get your news about the “offending” executive order from a news source instead of reading the order, yourself?

        Tampa Family Health Center is a private organization. Part of that organization’s job is to prescribe medicines, to include birth control. This woman told the interviewer that she would refuse to prescribe birth control to people. Her suiing the clinic for discrimination is LITERALLY the exact same thing as an Orthodox Jew or a Muslim suing Rib Crib for discrimination, on the basis that they wouldn’t cook ribs for the customers.

        That’s it. You cannot deny that she told an interviewer that she refused to do part of the job, because part of the job is prescribing birth control, and she told the interviewer that she refused to do that. Therefore, she was not hired.

        This is in contrast to the organizations affected by the executive order: public sector jobs that answer to the President. The FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. (and the contractors they hire) can no longer legally discriminate against people based on “sexual orientation, or sexual identity”. “But they’re contractors!” Great. Executive Order 11246 is a list of rules that these contracts will include, or else the government will not contract with them. If a government contractor does not want to hire gay people, fine–but the government is not obligated to use those contractors, and is free to take its business elsewhere.

        People who pay taxes into the government deserve to receive the same benefits and opportunities from that government, regardless of your personal phobias or biases.

  • Ibicella Lutae

    The first rule of medicine is the PATIENT has the final say in any and all treatment options. If you cannot deal with that, you have NO business being in medicine.

    No doctor, no nurse, no pharmacist should EVER be allowed the right to opt out of doing their damned job over something this arbitrary. I hope this dumb cow goes into massive debt for wasting court time as well as being blacklisted from being allowed to go anywhere near a patient.

  • Bob

    Is this a “religious liberty” case, or is it an “anti-discrimination case?

  • I’m going to start by saying that I identify as a Christian, and I support the Hobby Lobby decision. Now that that’s out of the way…

    What this woman is doing is the religious equivalent of race-baiting. I can say with 100% certainty that this is NOT a case of religious persecution, and that it doesn’t fit the mold of the Hobby Lobby ruling. The government is not forcing her to do anything that violates her religion. She is someone who was declined a job on the basis that she admitted that she would refuse to do the job for which she was being interviewed.

    She is trying to use the force of government to coerce an employer to pay her to DO NOTHING. I can say with near certainty that she will lose this suit, because it’s ridiculous. In the mean time, chuckle at her expense, and don’t sweat it. Undoubtedly, Ultra-Conservatives will get butthurt about her inevitable loss; but that lands firmly within the realm of “shit I don’t care about.”

    • chrisgogh

      I wholeheartedly agree with you about this nurse, but I disagree about the Hobby Lobby ruling. Corporations are NOT people. The SCOTUS ruling made it possible for corporations to infringe upon their employees’ religious rights.

      • William Fite

        Would you please get an understanding of what type of company Hobby Lobby is considered. Hobby Lobby may be a corporation, but not a PUBLIC corporation. It is a privately owned corporation. Therefore the owners make the decision. A publicly traded corporation is run by the stockholders. You are comparing apples to oranges. Citizens United has nothing to do with the Hobby Lobby case. And no the Supreme Court decision did not make it possible for this to happen for those reasons.

      • chrisgogh

        Being privately owned doesn’t allow them to violate their employees’ other rights like minimum wage and safety conditions, so why do you believe they should be able to violate their employees’ right to certain types of health care? Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation, not a church.

      • jimv1983

        Whether a company is public or private shouldn’t matter when it comes to employee rights.

    • Cemetery Girl

      The two are similar, although HL is more outrageous. HL wished to keep birth control out of employee benefits (even though typically employees help pay for the premiums of these benefits and insurance companies that do offer birth control options are used, thus making the HL claim that they don’t want their money going to birth control which violates their religious views) and can argue that employees are still free to purchase birth control at their full expense. This woman can argue that birth control violates her religious beliefs, that she could still preform other duties (prenatal care, deliveries), and any patient that wishes to obtain birth control is free to make another appointment with another member of the practice, thus the rights of the patient aren’t being infringed. The only difference is one is very indirectly violating the religious views of a corporation (which they don’t mind violating for the sake of investment returns) and the other is the direct violation of an individual’s religious views.

      • I understand what you’re saying, but I disagree with your assessment of the situation. The Hobby Lobby case was not about a corporation’s right to religious freedom; it was about the owners’ right to religious freedom. Hobby Lobby cannot refuse to hire workers for not sharing their religious convictions; but the owners of that corporation also cannot be legally mandated to conduct or finance activities which genuinely violate their religious principles. Nobody’s religious rights were violated; not even indirectly. Suggesting otherwise just highlights a misunderstanding of what religious protection means.
        This is in contrast to the nurse. She was being hired to do a job, but she admitted that she is unwilling to perform that job in its entirety. Her justifications for doing so are, ultimately, of no consequence; if they hired her, they’d still need to hire another nurse to fully cover the position. You wouldn’t hire someone to work at a barbecue if they could only cook some types of meat, because then you’d still need to hire someone else to cook those other meats. She self-identified as someone who was unable to do the job she applied for, and so she wasn’t hired. Her religious views weren’t violated… she just didn’t fit the needs of the company.

      • Martha Sutton Lamb

        What about the fact that Hobby Lobby covered all forms of birth control with no complaint prior to the Affordable Care Act? Why are they suddenly opposed? Why does their retirement plan invest in the very companies that make these contraceptives they oppose? Why does the vast majority of their stock in their stores come from China where abortions number 13 million a year? Why does a corporation’s owner’s closely held religious beliefs that some of the contraceptives are abortifacients trump the fact that they are not abortifacients? Believing a lie does not make it a truth that you can use to deny others rights.

      • “What about the fact that Hobby Lobby covered all forms of birth control with no complaint prior to the Affordable Care Act? Why are they suddenly opposed?”

        This is mostly true, in the sense that you don’t complain about burglars in your home until you find out they’ve been there. Hobby Lobby provided all forms of birth control because they *didn’t know* that they were providing those forms of birth control; and so they dropped the coverage when they found out. Hence, the court case.

        “Why does their retirement plan invest in the very companies that make these contraceptives they oppose?”

        That data is from 2012, prior to when Hobby Lobby’s owners found out that they were funding these forms of birth control. I have found no newer data regarding this, but it also falls under the same category as above; nor do I know how closely Hobby Lobby monitors the mutual funds it offers for the 401(k) retirement plans. I’d wager “not very closely”, and so complaining about how their money is being invested… by organizations they pay to invest their money… based on data from two years ago, before they knew what was going on… is probably dishonest, at best.

        “Why does the vast majority of their stock in their stores come from China where abortions number 13 million a year?”

        This argument is both asinine and irrelevant. You could just as easily argue, “why would they sell supplies to America, where Abortions are legal?” It’s not like the stock is made of aborted babies; and so you’re just being deliberately obtuse.

        “Why does a corporation’s owner’s closely held religious beliefs that some of the contraceptives are abortifacients trupm the fact that they are not abortifacients?”

        Because, ultimately, the way the contraceptive works is irrelevant. The affected contraceptives are “emergency contraceptives”; so how they chemically operate is irrelevant, because they genuinely violate the religious and moral principles of the human being (with rights) who owns the company.

        “Believing a lie does not make it a truth”

        This is true.

        “… that you can use to deny others rights.”

        This part true, but it is also not happening. People are still able to get abortions, and they are still able to work at Hobby Lobby. Hell, you could get four abortions per year for 20 years, film it, and throw it on YouTube, and then still go to work for Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby just doesn’t have to finance it.

        I’d like to know why your desired end-goal isn’t to ensure the gap in coverage is provided, but rather that you get to use the force of government to coerce people with a moral objection to provide it. If the intent of the ACA is truly to provide affordable healthcare to human beings; and the intent of the SCOTUS ruling is to prevent people’s individual religious rights from being trampled; then it seems to me that the logical solution is to fill that gap in a way that meets the intent of both: by subsidizing the cost incurred on the individual, so that the coverage is essentially “free.” Anything less is nothing but thinly veiled disdain for people who don’t hold your beliefs, and the express desire to use the force of law to violate their rights.

      • jimv1983

        The beliefs of the individual doesn’t get to influence the business.

      • Who are you to tell me how I should run my business?

      • jimv1983

        I’m not. The Constitution is. Your freedom of religion doesn’t give you the right to make your employees live by your beliefs.

      • Go find the sentence in the constitution that I cannot base my business policies on my religious beliefs, and then we can have a conversation about it. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.

      • jimv1983

        It could easily fall under the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

        Also, it doesn’t have to be in the Constitution to be a LAW. There are laws about religious discrimination in the work place. By you running a business with policies based on YOUR religious beliefs that could be considered discrimination against your employees that have different religious beliefs or not religious beliefs at all.

        You couldn’t, for example, make it a policy of your business that at everyone has to pray at a certain time or no one is allowed to eat pork, etc.

        You couldn’t say “It is the policy of this company that no employees are allowed to use contraception.”

        Your religious beliefs are YOURS not your employees.

      • 1. It doesn’t fall under the establishment clause. The establishment clause prevents Texas from declaring itself a “Christian State” and establishing a “Church of Texas” a la England.

        2. David Green didn’t say that his employees can’t have abortions. He said he didn’t want to have to *pay* for them, because they violate his religion. You should change your example from “no one is allowed to eat pork” to “I will not be providing pork for my employees to eat for free.”

        Though, had you actually read the case files, you would know that they tried to have the clause of the Affordable Care Act that applies to religious non-profits to apply to Hobby Lobby employees, so that they would still have access to full coverage healthcare without having to violate the private owner’s religion. In fact, nothing about the case had anything to do with the employees EXCEPT trying to make sure that they continued to get full coverage… but that’s just a minor fact and shouldn’t stop you from complaining about Sharia Law.

      • jimv1983

        Hobby Lobby was never asked to pay for abortions and the contraception was covered as part of the basic policy(that is part of the ACA). Denying it to the employees wouldn’t have reduced the premiums anyways. Don’t forget that employees contribute to their insurance too and are being denied access to a certain part of the plan.

        Health insurance from an employer is just part of the overall compensation package of a job so saying that it can’t go towards contraception is really no different than the employer saying the employee can’t use money from their paycheck to buy the same thing.

        The Hobby Lobby decision could also lead to things like businesses owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses denying blood transfusions.

        People have religious beliefs. Corporations do not. When a business becomes incorporated it creates a separation between the business and the owner. It protects the owners from having their personal assets taken in cases of bankruptcy(among other things). If an owner of a corporation is allowed to inflict their religious beliefs on the business then they are bypassing the separation and as far as I am concerned they should lose all protections of being incorporated.

      • Whether or not we are talking about literal abortions is irrelevant, because the specific contraceptives they contested violated the owner’s religious beliefs for the same reasons as abortions. This is also why only specific contraceptives were challenged, not all of them as you are portraying. But that’s also something you would have to read the case files to know… or branch out from liberal websites.

        The employee paying into a plan does not change that the employer is paying into it. Nor does the fact that it is provided as part of workers’ compensation. Let’s pretend I am Muslim, and own a company you work for. I choose to provide you pizza as part of my worker’s compensation package. You decide you like pepperoni, but I don’t want to pay for it because pork violates my religion.

        You paying part of the cost does not change that I am the one buying the pizza; nor does it mean that you are not allowed to eat pepperoni, and it certainly doesn’t mean that you have to be a vegetarian. It means that I won’t pay for it. Now replace “pizza” with “health insurance”, “pepperoni” with “abortifacients”, and “meat” with “contraceptives”.

        Now, had you actually read the Hobby Lobby case files (I find myself saying this a lot in this conversation–you should take the hint), you would know that the whole blood transfusion thing was already addressed in the decision.

        The court decision was based on four basic questions. 1: What it’s the intent of the regulation? 2: Is there a sincere religious objection? 3: Does the regulation impose a substantial burden on the employer’s religious beliefs? 4: Is there a way to accomplish the intent of the law while imposing a lesser burden?

        These questions are not arbitrary (read the case files) and are based in federal law (remember bringing that up?). The court decided that there were options that provided access to abortifacients without requiring the employer to pay for it. The courts specifically mentioned having the government pay for it, or extending the provisions for religious NON-profits to religious FOR-profits: insurance company eats the cost but has to provide the care. If those scary Jehovah’s Witnesses suddenly decide to change their minds and stop providing blood transfusions, or Scientologists stop providing access to antidepressants, and cite Hobby Lobby, then the same decisions would apply.

        Can you cite a law to support that private corporations cannot be run with religious practices? If not, why are you the authority on whether or not people are allowed to run their corporations on their own religious beliefs? If we were talking about Microsoft, I would agree with you. But Hobby Lobby isn’t publicly traded. They have no stocks, and are actually owned by one guy. Why should he have to choose between benefiting from corporation laws and practicing his religion?

        To be honest, it sounds like you are just intolerant of people’s religions. It seems like you are forming opinions about the case without reading the case, making up how you think the law and constitution SHOULD work, then passing off those opinions as facts.

      • What has me scratching my head is why you seem more concerned with forcing some guy to violate his religion than making sure his employees have access to health care.

      • Guest

        Go find me the sentence in the Constitution that supports that position. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.

      • Since a day has passed, I’ll give you a hint. It isn’t in there… because the Constitution is about limiting government, not private businesses.

      • Cemetery Girl

        I think we are barking up the same tree but I came across poorly (sorry, my brain is fried and I’m using discussion as a distraction/stress relief.) I don’t believe that religious rights were violated in either instance but religious rights are the excuse being used to infringe on others.

      • Yes, this woman is absolutely trying to use religion to infringe on the rights of the company; and I can nearly guarantee that she’ll lose this suit.

      • jimv1983

        Hobby Lobby is a CORPORATION. The religious beliefs of the owner shouldn’t have anything to do with what medical care the employees have access to. The insurance company provides the policy (which includes contraception as a basic service under the ACA at no additional cost and no savings for refusing it) and the employet and employee BOTH pay into that. In the case of Hobby Lobby the employer stepped in and said the employee can’t have access to basic service included in the policy because the person that owns the company doesn’t agree with it. It’s none of the employers business.

      • Either the employer pays into it, or it’s none of their business. You can’t have it both ways. I stand by my statement.

    • jimv1983

      So you support corporations pushing their religious beliefs on their employees.

      • They are employees, not slaves. If they don’t like the company, then look for a new job.

  • Justaguy

    I’m Amish, and I’m suing for people not letting me work as an electrical engineer because, due to my religious values, I refuse to work on things that are electrical.

    • William Fite

      Go for it and see how it works out for you.

      • chrisgogh

        Justaguy’s comment was clearly sarcastic, but yours doesn’t seem to be.

  • giankeys luvs shemale porn

    im not very smart; so allow me an attempt at this:
    — she is NOT being hired because she ( for WHATEVER reason ) cannot do any/all of the JOB DESCRIPTION. ( EXAMPLE,,,,,,,,,,a short order cook applies for a position to flip eggs and he doesn’t flip eggs<<<>>> does he get hired?)
    its not a commission job which pays U for what U accomplish ( 1099?) its a weekly pay employment JOB which pays a person to do what they are hired to do.
    >>>>> how did I do in court?

  • JC

    For one, the HL ruling said that the religion of the company trumps that of the employee, so in this case, she should be required to follow the “religious beliefs” of the employer.

    For two, if this goes through, the conservative counter-argument that those who want birth-control should just go buy it falls apart, because apparently then you could be denied it based on religion anyway.

    • You should go read the Hobby Lobby ruling, because that’s actually not what it said at all. :-

  • she’s going to an interview for a job essentially saying “I won’t do the job to how you want it done, Please hire me” And she gets incredulous when she’s not hired. Some audacity.

  • SawIt

    The Founding Father’s are rolling over in their Graves right now. The Whole Point of our religious Freedom in this country was to Prevent others from forcing their Religious views on HUMAN Citizens. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court and people like this are taking a dump all over Our Constitutional Rights as Americans. And some people are Supporting this! It’s going to be funny as hell when a Muslim Corporation pulls this crap on Christian employees by making them follow Sharia or wear a burqa on and off the job because they have the right under this ruling to force their religious views on employees. In fact, I’m hoping for it and can’t wait to see it happen. You will be brought down by your stupidity

  • Jim Bean

    These floodgates were opened when the Left endeavored to tell employers they had to buy a product for their employees – which the supreme court ruled unconstitutional long before the Hobby Lobby case. Its just another Left wing misadventure brought about by their inability to extrapolate. Now we’re deep into the ‘why its someone else’s fault’ phase.

    • Cemetery Girl

      Most people have to pay at least part of the premium for the health insurance offered by their employer. On top of that the employee pays co-pays and percentages of the cost of care and treatments. This isn’t a case of female (and likely female family members of employees) going to the employer with a hand held out saying “gimme some birth control!” This is a company putting limitations on benefits they offer to employees because of their views. Benefits are offered as an additional compensation for employee labor. It isn’t a gift or a bonus, but a compensation. The employer is not specifically buying anything. If you hold the view that the portion of premiums paid by employers is specifically buying the birth control for those that wish to have it then you should be alarmed that the portion of the premiums they pay goes into the insurance coffers to be distributed for health costs of all insurance members (not just that of the specific employer) and could still be used to pay for the birth control of employees of companies that do allow it. It isn’t like the insurance company had HL funds set off in its own room to only be used to HL employees. It does boil down to an employer dictating what an employee can do.

      • Jim Bean

        Employers have always had the right to not provide insurance at all. Or the right to provide health insurance but not dental coverage. Or health and dental but not vision. This is just another case of the Left manufacturing victims where none existed before and trying to make someone else pay restitution. Requiring employers to cover abortions is the end game and all the theater has no one fooled. (I’m not at all opposed to abortion, btw, but I respect the liberties of those who are.)

      • Cemetery Girl

        Of course an employer has the right to not offer health insurance or decide not to offer vision or dental or prescription coverage (as in all prescriptions, not just the ones they pick and choose.) This allows for a company to select what treatments are available to employees (essentially, because some forms of birth control can be extremely expensive if not covered by insurance.) The ruling does not specify abortion. It doesn’t really limit the treatments that a company can refuse. Based on some religious views birth control (particularly hormone based birth control that causes effects which make it unlikely for a fertilized egg to be able to implant) are considered no different than abortion. I am by no means of the stance that people should be forced to use treatments that they find objectable, but their beliefs shouldn’t infringe on others.

      • “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.” — SCOTUS Ruling

        The ruling most certainly does limit the treatments a company can refuse. It very narrowly prevents privately-owned corporations from being forced to provide contraceptives which violate the religious convictions of the owner(s). Trying to force a reversal is, quite literally, trying to force people to choose between being financially successful or financing what they genuinely believe to be indistinguishable from homicide.

        I understand that you do not like the gap in coverage. I’m just curious why the solution absolutely MUST be “we need to force people to violate their religion, because that’s not my religion” as opposed to “the government should subsidize the cost I would incur from this ruling.”

      • Cemetery Girl

        But there are people that believe that many forms of birth control are wrong based on their personal religious beliefs. The fact that some forms of birth control can be used to treat medical problems can be ignored because of another person’s personal beliefs is wrong. No, I do not like that an employer can have a moral objection to birth control, pick and choose what is acceptable to them, and that can effect the females that use their insurance. I was on birth control pills for years, not to prevent pregnancy but to treat a medical condition (it was that or hysterectomy, which I did eventually have), but there people that believe that the pills are morally wrong because they can impede the implantation of a fertilized egg. And let me tell you, the price of those pills can add up! Using birth control to help treat medical conditions isn’t a rare thing either. Personal religious beliefs should not trump the medical health and well being of another. If the government were to subsidize the cost, so woman could still get proper reproductive treatments, I wouldn’t oppose it, but we both know that wouldn’t fly either. It would be people having a fit that (how exactly was it put…) “the government paying sluts to have sex”.

      • I’m sure they would; but luckily we are a Republic. I think that the ACA was handled incredibly clumsily from start to finish, and (being in the military) the prospect of allowing the Government to run *everyone’s* healthcare is genuinely frightening to me, because my experience has generally been that the government is astonishingly bad at doing most things (because it’s terribly difficult to fire people who are terrible at their jobs).

        However, I would be surprised if these medications were denied based on their chemical makeup, rather than the intent for which they were prescribed. If the justification for not funding the drug is that it is used to prevent or abort a pregnancy, then it stands to reason that any time the drug is used for an unrelated purpose, it would not qualify as offensive to the beliefs. I’d be interested in hearing HL’s response to the question, “would you be willing to pay for [X] if it were being used to treat [Y]?”

      • Cemetery Girl

        I think you have more faith in the healthcare system than I. You have to jump through enough hoops already to get insurance to cover a certain mediacation when they feel there is a cheaper alternative. (Yes, ran into that with them only wanting to cover one type of pill because a pill to prevent pregnancy is all the same to them except for price, and then the back and forth of that option won’t serve the purpose of the one that had been prescribed.) I’m afraid if an employer specifies to an insurance company that they refuse to cover certain prescriptions then the insurance company will adhere to that. It saves them having to pay out for the prescription and it can be justified that policies through that employer are not to cover those prescriptions. If an employer follows a religious view that objects to all contraception (like the Quiver Full movement) it would probably be even more difficult. You will eventually reach a point where women will have medical conditions requiring these treatments and you will have those that believe that is just a cover to get the contraception they want, and the legal groundwork has been laid in favor of employers

      • What you’re describing seems to be a problem with the insurance company, more than a problem with the employer. I would advise against insuring through the government, though, because I can tell you that the military has a HUGE hard-on for off-brand medicine, as well.

  • Bob

    “Now Hellwege is suing the clinic, claiming she’s being discriminated against based on her religious views.”

    This is an anti-discrimination lawsuit, not religious freedom. It has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

    Moreover, the controlling statute is not the RFRA (used in Hobby Lobby, and requires the government to seek the least restrictive means of burdening ones religious beliefs), but Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of religion.)

  • Marc Zwick

    I am a conservative and agree that the employer should be allowed to to refuse to higher someone who refuses to perform the job. However, this has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby. It is actually the exact opposite of Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby is not in the business of providing birth control to its employees. I don’t think anyone would argue with that. Hobby Lobby also is, and has always been willing to provide birth control to its employee, as it has always offered to pay for the 16 of the 20 types of birth control that prevent contraception. It only refused to pay for the 4 post-contraception, or abortofacient, methods. To the best of my knowledge, it never said that its’ employees cannot get an abortion, only that it won’t pay for an employee to get one. The entire Hobby Lobby issue is an issue of who should pay for an abortion, not whether or not a woman is entitled to one.

    If someone is charged with a crime, he has a constitutional right to an attorney. Does that mean that he has a constitutional right to have his employer provide a plan that would for an attorney for him? I doubt anyone would say yes. In such a case, the government pays for his attorney. The same should apply to paying for birth control. A woman has a right to get birth control, but it is not her employer’s responsibility to pay for it. If anyone is going to pay for it besides her, it should be the government.

    • chrisgogh

      The contraceptives Hobby Lobby refuses to cover all prevent fertilization. They are NOT abortifacients, even if you go by Hobby Lobby’s definition of the beginning of life. Plan B and Ella are commonly known as morning-after pills. They delay ovulation to keep the egg from meeting up with the sperm, and women generally use those if they’re raped or a condom breaks. The other two they don’t cover are both IUDs, which make it difficult for sperm to reach the egg. Many women use IUDs because hormonal contraception makes them sick.

      They are called “contraception” because they prevent conception. The SCOTUS ruling was based on religious belief, not medical science.

      • Marc Zwick

        I agree that the SCOTUS ruling was based on religious belief, in that Hobby Lobby’s religious belief allowed it to not pay for someone else’s contraception. The case is not about whether a woman is allowed to use contraception; the case is about who will pay for it. The case does not limit, in any way, the ability of a woman to obtain birth control, so long as she pays for it, or finds finds someone else willing to pay for it. Just because the woman has a right to use contraception does not mean that she has the right to make her pay for it. I have a constitutional right to free speech. Does that mean that my employer must let me post my political views on its website? Under your reasoning for why Hobby Lobby should pay for an employee’s contraception, my employer should be forced to allow me post my political views on its website, even if they disagree with me, as otherwise, they would be denying me my constitutional rights.

        Get it straight, Hobby Lobby is not about whether a woman has the right to use contraceptives; it is about who should pay for it.

      • chrisgogh

        I’ve read that Hobby Lobby pays their employees well. Heck, they can afford to, since they make so much money off the blood, sweat, and tears of the Chinese, where the abortion rate is one of the highest in the world, but I digress. What about all those companies that only pay their employees $7.25/hour?

        Most places I know of that only pay their employees minimum wage, also expect their employees to pay quite a bit every week for their own insurance, which can be a real hardship for those employees. How are they supposed to pay for a $500-$1000 IUD out of their own pocket, in addition to their insurance premiums and regular living expenses? For the portion that’s paid by the employer, that’s part of the employee’s compensation for the work they do.

        Why should it be ok for insurance to cover a pill that can contribute to making babies (Viagra), but deny coverage for medication and medical devices that prevent conception, which would, in turn, lower the need for abortion?

        Anyone who truly believes that life begins at conception, and is against abortion on the grounds that it terminates a life, should be all in favor of not only making all contraceptives as available as possible, but also educating the masses about these contraceptives.

        Hobby Lobby’s owners supposedly object to certain contraceptives on religious grounds, while not objecting to other contraceptives. If that were really true, they would educate themselves on how these contraceptives actually work, realize they’re not abortifacients, cover them in their insurance, and even provide information about them. After all, it’s supposedly religiously motivated, right? But the fact that they don’t educate themselves (or maybe they do know the truth, but claim to believe otherwise), in addition to the fact that they buy a lot of products from China with their high abortion rate and dangerous working conditions, in addition to the fact that they invest in companies that make these same medicines and devices for which they deny coverage, all leads me to believe that their objection is based on greed, not on religion.

      • Marc Zwick

        First, remember that freedom of religion is in the Bill of Rights. For you to say that person’s religious beliefs should not matter is to say that you don’t believe that the Bill of Rights is valid and that there are no constitutional rights. If that is so, then how can you argue that someone has a right to contraceptives? Religion is specified as a right, Contraceptives have only been inferred.

        Second, you argued that IUDs are expensive and people making minimum wage cannot afford the, but what does that have to do with making an employer pay for it? Most medical plans have deductibles. Should employees be forced to provide plans with no deductibles because some employees can’t afford to pay the deductible? Simply because something is expensive doesn’t mean that the employer should have to pay for it.

        Third, in arguing that IUDs are expensive, you are admitting that the issue is about who bears the responsibility to pay for the contraceptive and not about a constitutional right to use contraceptives. This goes back to the question I raised in my first posting about requiring an employer to provide for an attorney for an employee who is charged with a crime. A criminal defense attorney can be very expensive, and will easily cost more than an IUD. As the right to an attorney is a constitutional right, do you believe that every employer should pay for a criminal defense attorney (whether by prepaid legal plan or not) for its employees? Based on your argument, an employer should have to pay for every employee to avail him/herself of any constitutional right, because by not paying, the employer is “denying” the employee of a constitutional right. I’d like to hear your answer to this.

        Finally, if the government wants poorer people to have contraceptives, the government can simply pay for it. Of course, the government will have to find a way to pay for it, but that is a separate issue. By requiring employers to pay for contraceptives, the government is just passing the buck to make someone else foot the bill. This was part of the court’s reasoning. Under the RFPA (passed under Clinton with a majority of Democrats voting for it), a law may not be passed infringing on people’s religious beliefs if there are less stringent methods that can accomplish the same goal with infringing on the religious beliefs. If Obamacare had said that the government would pay for the contraceptives, there wouldn’t have been a Hobby Lobby case.

        I hope you also noticed that the penalty for providing insurance but not all 20 contraceptives is something like $47,000 per year per employee. The penalty for not providing any insurance is $3,000 per year per employee. Since you seem to have we followed the case closely, I assume you do realize that if Hobby Lobby had lost, it was going to just cancel all insurance. There is something inherently wrong with a law that punishes someone more for complying with 99% of a law than with not complying with the law at all. that is just one of the many problems with Obamacare. If they really wanted to provide insurance for everyone, they would have required a bare bones policy instead of something with all the bells and whistles. If you are going to require everyone to buy a car, you don’t mandate a Rolls Royce with all of the options. Maybe that is why Sen Max Baucus, who wrote most of the bill, called it a train wreck.

      • chrisgogh

        1) Corporations are not people. The SCOTUS ruling allows corporations to infringe upon their employees’ freedom of religion.

        2) The employer doesn’t pay for it. Insurance does. Why should insurance have to pay for Viagra? Does Viagra help with medical issues in the same way that hormonal birth control can? See endometriosis for one example of how birth control can treat a medical condition that isn’t related to contraception.

        3) Again, insurance pays for it, which is what employers and employees pay them for.

        4) Where do you think the government gets the money to help poor people? Taxes, which you and I pay, which big corporations dodge by outsourcing jobs and keeping their money in offshore bank accounts.

        That $47,000 per employee figure is incorrect. See the flowchart on obamacarefacts(dot)com/obamacare-employer-mandate.php

      • Marc Zwick

        1) Corporations are people, depending on when it suits the government. In the Internal Revenue Code, the definition of “person” usually, if not always, includes corporations as people. The SCOTUS ruling does not allow a corporation to infringe on an employee’s freedom of religion. The SCOTUS ruling in Hobby Lobby only applies to small corporations, such as family owned businesses. It does not apply to large publicly held companies. If I chose to incorporate my business and am the sole owner, does that mean that I must give up my constitutional rights because now I am a corporation? The only question is how much a corporation must accommodate an employee’s freedom of religion. For example, a religious Jew who does not work on Saturday cannot apply for a job at a weekend-only flea market and expect to get Saturdays off due his religious beliefs. Similar to the ADA, the employer must make reasonable accommodations, not any accommodations.

        2) I take it you have never purchased insurance in your life. The more the insurance covers, the higher the price for the policy, the more the employer pays for the insurance policy. Therefore, by covering additional items, whether they are contraceptives or doctor visits, the higher the premium. That is the reason why different insurance plans have different premiums. Additionally, whether Viagra is covered or not has nothing to do with whether contraceptives should be covered. It is simply a red herring argument. I could argue in a similar manner that since partial-birth abortions are not covered, contraceptives should not be covered.. Just because one item is covered does ot mean that a different item should be covered.

        3) again, the employer pays the premium, so what is covered by the policy is the employer’s business.

        4) The businesses would not be “dodging” income taxes if the system was not set up in the way it is. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the modernized world. yes, we are number 1. We are also one of only about 2 countries that tax corporate income earned in foreign countries. The income gets taxed when it is brought back in to the US. That is why US corporations have over $2,000,000,000,000 (yes that’s trillion) in foreign earnings overseas. The corporations have already paid taxes in the countries where the money was earned, but at lower rates, since everybody has a lower rate. To bring this money back would cost the corporations about 700 Billion dollars in federal taxes, plus whatever state taxes are due. The corporations can either invest 2 billion dollars overseas or about 1.2 billion in the US. That would require the company to make a 67% profit here just to equal breaking even overseas. If you had a millions dollars in a Swiss bank account and could keep all of it as long as you left it there or could transfer it to a US bank and be left with $650,000, would you transfer the money? I don’t know any sane person that would. The money would only be transferred if you needed it here and it was worth paying the penalty. While I agree that some would go to shareholders as dividends, if the 2 trillion was brought back to the US, it would lead to massive corporate expansion, which would result in many more jobs in the US. Every economist has agreed with this. The Republicans wanted to drastically reduce the tax for an amnesty period, as it would spur the economy. The Democrats said no because it would mean that the corporations wouldn’t pay “their fair share”. Try explaining to all of the unemployed that the Democrats stopped what would probably have been one of the biggest creators of jobs this country has ever seen. And don’t forget, the corporations would have paid taxes on anything the corporations made on those investments, since the income would have been earned here. Think of all of the tax revenue that was lost. Our corporate tax structure is the reason corporations are looking to relocate overseas, as Walgreen’s is doing and Pfizer attempted.

        Finally, I agree that $47,000 is the wrong figure for failure to provide all contraceptives under Obamacare. I said it was “something like” $47,000. The exact number is $36,500 ($36,600 in a leap year) as the penalty for non-conforming plans is $100 per day per employee. The chart you referenced is the penalty for an employer not providing any insurance, which is $2,000 to $3,000 per employer per year. If you’re going to cite something, you should read it and understand it first. Therefore, you proved my point that Obamacare punishes an employer more for providing a plan that complies 99% with Obamacare than providing nothing.

        You still have not address my question of whether an employer should provide legal defense to an employee that is charged with a crime. I’m waiting for your answer.

      • Since I know a lot of people are going to TL;DR this, I wanted to hop in and say that these were very well articulated and argued points.

      • Marc Zwick

        Pardon my ignorance, but what does TL;DR mean?

      • Shadow8088

        Too long; didn’t read

      • “Too Long; Didn’t Read”.

      • chrisgogh

        Today was a busy day for me. I’ll try to respond tomorrow.

      • jimv1983

        One of the things the ACA did was establish bare minimum requirements such as prevention and check ups. Those are included in the base cost. Contraception is one of those things. So Hobby Lobby isn’t really paying anything extra for its employees to get contraception. In fact Hobby Lobby is now getting less for its money. This is about Hobby Lobby wanting to push its religious views on its employees.

      • jimv1983

        They do require a bare bones policy. That policy covers prevention which includes birth control. The base policy is the same cost with our without contraception.

        To use your car analogy it would be like getting the base model of a Honda Civic and wanting to remove the backseat even though you are still paying the same price.

        One of the great things about the ACA is the better bare minimum. Before the ACA the minimum was basically useless and covered nothing. That is why they were called junk policies.

      • jimv1983

        As someone who understands that life begins at conception (it’s not a belief it’s science) and abortion does terminate a life I fully agree with your statement on supporting contraception and contraception education. I not only support it I encourage it.

      • chrisgogh

        Bacteria is life, too. A fertilized egg may be life, but it is no more a person than a maggot is a fly, or a chicken egg is a chicken. An embryo is incapable of feeling pain or fear, just as an unfertilized egg or sperm is incapable of feeling pain or fear. An embryo is a potential person, just as a sperm and egg have the potential of creating a person.

        Also, 50-80% of fertilized eggs fail to implant, and this “life” is naturally flushed out of the body with the next period.

        I used to struggle with the morality of abortion. When I believed in the possibility of a soul, this was something I considered. Once I stopped believing in the possibility of a soul, my next concern was whether the embryo could feel pain or has self-awareness. Since science has determined that they can not and do not, I see no other reason to be concerned about a potential human unless the person carrying it decides to carry it to term. If it will be carried to term, then I think the future mother should try to live healthy and get the best prenatal care she can, and if she can’t afford it, she should be able to get assistance with that.

        I am pro-quality of life, not just pro-existence. I think it would be kinder to a potential human to terminate the pregnancy, than to have a child born into poverty and/or abuse.

        I’m glad you agree about contraception and contraception education. As you know, it would lower the abortion rate, and condoms can reduce the occurrence of STIs. This is something that every pro-lifer should support, but unfortunately, many do not. Sadly, there are a lot of people out there who believe that providing reproductive education will make it look like they’re condoning sex before marriage, and that “teaching” abstinence-only will keep them chaste. They don’t seem to care nor realize that contraception can also help married couples wait until they’re financially stable, so they can go on to provide better lives for their future children. You seem pretty logical, Jim, but sadly, many people are not.

      • jimv1983

        Yes bacteria is alive but it isn’t human. I’m talking about HUMAN life.

        To say an embryo is a potential human life shows a lack of scientific understanding. Being HUMAN has nothing to do with how developed that life is or if it can feel pain or not. Being human is a matter of genetics. An egg and sperm on their own are not a human life because all the genetic material has not combined to form a full human genome.

        As far as abortion being ok because the life does not feel pain so what? There are lots of ways that you can kill someone without them feeling any pain. Poison, shooting someone in the head when they are sleeping, etc. Are you saying those things are OK because those people don’t feel pain?

        If being self aware or not is part of the equation to you then do you support killing babies? You might not be aware of this but a new born isn’t self aware and doesn’t become self aware for a few years after birth. When it comes to actually being self-aware a new born has more in common with a fetus than it does with an adult.

        I totally agree with your last paragraph. Although I do think that abstinence should be PART of sexual education.

        The sex before marriage and soul concerns don’t mean anything to be either. Those are religious concerns which mean nothing to me.

      • chrisgogh

        And embryos aren’t human yet. What is your point?

        No, to say that an embryo is a potential life DOESN’T show a lack of scientific understanding because this is what the ACTUAL science states. Where are you getting your information?

        To say that there are ways to kill a person without them feeling pain is a non-sequitur. PEOPLE are self-aware. Fetuses are not.

        I agree that abstinence should be a PART of sexual education, while teaching every aspect of reproductive education at the same time. There is nothing wrong with encouraging abstinence, as long as it isn’t the only thing that’s “taught”. And I put that word in quotes, because abstinence-only “education” isn’t teaching anything useful.

        I still don’t understand why an atheist (which I am, btw) would have a problem with terminating something that amounts to nothing more than a pre-human version of a larva.

      • jimv1983

        Embryos are absolutely human. The world “human” is a reference to the SPECIES. Human = homo sapien. Either a living being IS human or it is not. There is no YET.

        Saying that it is a “potential” life implies that it isn’t actually alive which just isn’t true. The things that are happening between conception and birth are characteristics of LIFE. If a fertilized egg wasn’t alive it would never reach any other stages of human development.

        “PEOPLE are self-aware.”

        By that logic children up to about the age of 3 aren’t people.

        Once again, it IS HUMAN. As an atheist I (we?) realize that this is the only life we have. Denying and innocent HUMAN life the same rights as we have is just wrong.

      • jimv1983

        Accept than under the ACA contraception is covered under general prevention care. It doesn’t make coverage more expensive. So Hobby Lobby is still paying the same amount but it isn’t allowing its employees to use those services.

    • amy

      Higher and hire are too separate words. but of course like most bible thumpers you flunked out of preschool and are too stupid to know that.

  • William Fite

    Let her sue and use her money, she will lose. She has every right to sue and take her chances in court. The Hobby Lobby case has nothing to do with this case.

  • Turm

    Not that I agree with her, but the birth control pill is not a form of medical treatment necessarily. I’m pro life but I do support birth control and think some need it more than others…………….

    • Cemetery Girl

      Actually birth control pills can be a medical treatment. I was on them for many years until I had my hysterectomy. I didn’t want to be on them (I have a tendency towards migraines on them), but it was needed because of my medical condition. I had andymosis (endometrial lining growing into tissue of the uterus) and I needed to be on birth control to limit the thickening of my lining (so I’d have less pain and bleeding.) Birth control can be used in the same way for endometriosis and fibriods. By the time I eventually had my hysterectomy my uterus was roughly 3x the size it should have been and when I would have my period I had to take prescription pain killers so I could function through the pain. I had been able to put off having the hysterectomy for nearly a decade because of birth control. (Being a major surgery with a recovery period of a couple of months where you are seriously limited in what you can do, timing can be tricky!)

  • Travis

    This article is as ridiculous as Ms. Hellwege’s law suit. In this country we have open access to the courts. That is a good thing, but it means any fool can file a law suit for any foolish thing they want. Filling a suit is not the same thing as prevailing in that suit.

  • Stephen Barlow

    Is there a “nutter’s” anonymous to 12 step these creatures?

    I mean the 5 on the BIG Bench!

  • cookiemonstra

    My religion tells me that I should only do relaxing, fun things at work, that I shouldn’t take orders from anyone but God, and that coming in for regular “shifts” is not allowed, because that would be taking away from my “God Time.” These are my strongly held beliefs! I’m suing all those loser companies who refused to hire me so far! Work’s for jerks! I’m gonna be a BILLIONAIRE!

  • Ankynan

    And the great thing about this case, if she should win, is that, as a tax preparer, and as a faithful follower, I can refuse to list clients’ legitimate donations to right-wing ideological organizations, because **I do sincerely believe** that they violate Jesus’s teachings, even if the IRS says the organization qualifies for exemption under its statutes. Ooh, shoe on other foot?

  • jt

    The Hobby Lobby decision isn’t the problem. The problem is that some people seem to think that their perspectives should be forced on others.

    • chrisgogh

      They are both problems. The Hobby Lobby decision makes it easier for people to force their religion on to others.

  • unherd

    Those patients who want birth control have options to choose other physicians. Geesh. The drama in this nation is endless. The physician can choose to work elsewhere too. Maybe we should change the name of the nation to the United States of Litigation and Drama.

    • kathimc63

      And this clinic has the option of not hiring her if she would not do what is in the job description. It would be like a Vegan going to a steak house for a chef’s position, but saying “I won’t cook steaks!” It’s not like she was fired for her religious beliefs, it was that she wasn’t hired in the first place! Okay, let’s try it this way. You are the manager of a company that does tech support. You have two applicants. They are both qualified, but one has a few more certifications than the other. Who are you going to hire? The one more qualified. So here you have two NP/midwives. Both with the same education and qualifications, but one says they will not prescribe birth control, and the other will. You are going to hire the one who is going to do more on the job than the other one. Sorry, free market. You have the right to apply, you do not have the right to be hired. If you did, there would be MILLIONS of lawsuits from people who weren’t hired for any reason.

  • disqus_O3ZWscG3qP

    There is actually information all over the web where you can find extremist christians railing against Muslims wanting to exercise their freedom of religion in their jobs.

    The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

  • StopRefusingToGiveMeFreeStuff

    You have confused a war on *women* with not always getting what you want. And for free. And your choice of what you want. For free. I demand a buffet of BC from which I can make my choice! And it better be for free! Anything less is a WAR ON WOMEN!!!

    • jimv1983

      No one said anything about it being free. The employee pays for part of the premium and the rest is paid by the employer as part of the compensation of the employee WORKING for the employer.

  • Roy Jones

    She wasn’t denied the job because of her religion. She was denied the job because she said she couldn’t or wouldn’t perform all the required duties. If you tell the hiring manager you don’t intend to do the job, don’t expect to get the job.

  • Francine Anoia Price

    I support Darwin Awards for Bible thumpers.

  • Barbara DeMoss

    This woman is another nut case trying to get money because of the Hobby Lobby ruling. If the clinic’s policy is that she has to prescribe birth control, then she has to abide by that policy or refuse to work for them. If the job description requires the employee to prescribe birth control, then she should accept that or refuse employment with that clinic. It isn’t as though they hired her and then said, “Oh, by the way, you will have to prescribe birth control”. People like this woman give good Christians a bad name. Her religion does not trump the patient’s. New employees commonly have to sign policy and job description documents upon hiring in order to protect companies from this kind of frivolous law suits.

  • ZantheMan

    Dumb religious whore shouldn’t win this case. I’m a hairstylist, and if I was interviewed for a job and said I couldn’t blow dry hair because it’s against my religion I wouldn’t even hire me.

  • Joe

    I’m a nurse and I want a federal law that when someone gets four opinions from competent non-judgemental physicians then the patient can apply for the right-to-die with dignity. In my 20 years of being a nurse, I have seen so much needless suffering. Physicians who are heavily regulated that they can’t prescribe enough narcotics to keep a dying patient comfortable or worse a nurse who is afraid to give it if it is prescribed. If this law went into effect the religious bible thumpers would be screaming at the top of their lungs in protest.

  • Quinn Blue

    Just another idiot taking up news space and becoming “famous for being famous”!

  • CornellUG1993

    This case has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Hobby Lobby case, absolutely nothing at all. This is a Title VII case filed before Hobby Lobby was even decided, and the analysis the court will apply is completely unrelated to the analysis in Hobby Lobby. Shame on this blog for preying on emotions and misinforming the public.

  • rfj1

    It seems, to me, that this woman was, an “Appointee” by her religious Neanderthals to, “Infiltrate” this clinic and cry, “Foul” for not hiring her because she got tried of standing outside of them and just wanted to be closer to the , “Action”??
    Sometime,, you just can’t fix,,, “Stupid”??

  • It is obvious that she does not have a case. The inability of the applicant to perform the duties of the job disqualifies her – no matter what the reason. Any employer can disqualify and applicant if they don’t meet the requirements of the job. Since her warped prejudice is not a disability, reasonable accommodation does not apply. So there.

  • Equality Jones

    I’m vegetarian because of my deeply held religious beliefs and I’m applying for a job at McDonalds today. I’ll be sure to tell them that I will refuse to serve most of their menu due to my religious convictions regarding not harming or eating animals.(Exact same reasoning).

  • kristin

    It isn’t religious freedom, it’s religious ENTITLEMENT.

  • Vivian Kenudson

    If one doesn’t like the job requirements, don’t apply, YOU IDIOT!!!!

  • Anotherfamily

    Wow, really…I mean, there ARE clinics out there for the anti birth control movement….complete with “birthing farms” for those who want to embrace the “off the grid” lifestyle of health care for womens health…if that is what she believes, why doesn’t she go work in one of those? Oh, wait, I guess she wants the much higher pay and benefits that come with the other job….why would you even go into Nurse Midwifery if you believe that strongly against birth control?

  • Tara

    I can’t wait for a company owned by a Christian Science group to refuse to offer any medical insurance because they don’t believe in using doctors or medicine when ill. It will be glorious because those idiots who think birth control is evil but use healthcare will be confused and outraged. They still won’t get it, but seeing their indignation will salve my anger mightily.

  • Joe Kennady

    i’m a jehovas’s wtiness transplant surgeon and i can’t get a job!

  • 65snake

    Well, maybe if we get ENOUGH of this shite, that HL decision can be officially recognized for the drivel that it is, and reversed.

  • regressive white trash reli

    bottom line? religion is a historical waste of effort and lives—

  • Don

    Easy answer for this woman: go get a job @ Hobby Lobby, where you can work for those whose opinion you share. If you choose to work in health care your advice and info ought to be less judgmental.

  • WeNeedCommonSense

    Hope hellwege and her lawyer get hit with frivolous suite abuse. Charge her with wasting the time of the judge, court and the abuse of the taxpayers.

  • Ian Acosta

    What’s a hick like that working with people anyway?

  • Catherine Halsey

    Watch this, the conservative sites are going to blow up about how she’s being oppressed

  • Dawn Hilton Oliveira

    This won’t happen, it’s right-to-work state. Employers have the right here not the employees.

  • jimv1983

    If you can’t fulfill the requirements of the job you are not qualified for that job.

    It would be like a Muslim suing a pizza place that wouldn’t hire them because they couldn’t touch pork.

  • Interesting that you never see these same people refusing to serve people who are divorced or eat shellfish? Both of which are shunned by your funny book. You’re not moral, you’re hypocrites trying to to enforce your values on someone else. The latter commonly referred to as bigotry.

  • jenn

    What a moron to think she should get a job that she isn’t willing to do. If a vegan walked into McDonalds and said they refused to serve the products that had meat in them do you think they would get the job? Not so much, this woman is an idiot.

  • Zach Despain

    I’m going to start a Religion where God wills that we do no work, pay no taxes and get 350 a week from our employer. If they do not let us, we will sue. God is on our side ladies and gentlemen. Come to the House of Monetary Relaxation, God be with you.

  • guestwhat

    She is going to win. 🙁

  • RedRider67

    Put her on a one-way flight to Iran.

  • unsleep

    abrahamic sects = EGOISM

  • Morpheus X

    And yet, when the plaintiff is Muslim, Progressives seem to trip over each other rushing to justify any claim of “Islamophobia”.

    All you have to do is shout “bigot!” at a Progressive and they’ll back away from truth, science and reason as if they were dangerous snakes.

    We need more TRUE LIBERALS to stand up for Liberal principles.

  • Diana Hawkins

    It’s nonsensical. I guess that’s what we have to deal with now …these people are uneducated and it will continue to get worse