It's also a really terrible way to run your business, but I guess some people are ok with running their business into the ground over something like this.

Xasten is choosing to err on the side of corporate rights rather than individual freedom which is simply wrong. It's just disheartening to hear from somebody these forums regard as an enlightened intellectual.

So the Supreme court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and against the establishment clauses in the first amendment. This is literally the worst legal precedent set since the likes of "separate but equal" and "don't ask don't tell".

I hope people who supported this ridiculousness end up needing a blood transfusion and work for Jehovah's witnesses, or need mental care and work for a scientologist, or want vaccinations for their kids only to find out they work for Christian Scientists, etc, etc.

You know what? Fuck it! Let's just skip the middle man and stop paying women altogether, the Bible/Qu'ran, etc. have women in a lower tier than slaves after all...

It generally is a bad way to run your business. I hired a lesbian a few months ago, and I'll be giving her a raise soon. She's done quite well. Firing her for that reason would be absolutely medieval on my part, and completely unfair to her.

It's not about firing teh gays. It's about a freedom of association. There is no such thing as a law that only restricts the bad guys. Every restriction will also impact those who perhaps have legitimate reasons for their actions. Should a marriage counseling center be forced to retain an employee who is great at his job but is secretly cheating on his spouse? Should a church be forced to retain a pastor who has privately disavowed his religion to the deacons, but can still give fantastic sermons? Should male oriented strip clubs be forced to retain a female stripper who as begun a FtM transition? Yes, there is good intent behind laws that protect people from unfair discrimination, but there are also consequence that exist with the implementation of those laws. Could I live with a law protecting gays from unfair termination? Yes. In fact, I do. I live in Houston.

However, the question is what is the best policy? I believe that the best policy is one that most preserves the freedom of association even if it means some people get to be troglodytes. The first line of defense for people should be society and culture. Tolerance of homosexuals is a cultural battle that they are clearly winning. Laws should be brought to the table as a last resort.

Lots of hate speech in this post.

Did you read the majority opinion? The decision was made only for specific birth control medications/devices that "terminate the embryo". They wrote that the ruling will not affect any other items such as blood transfusions.

This is what happens when you make something that used to be a perk of working at certain establishments and make it a requirement everywhere.

Hobby Lobby will still get my business, or rather my wife will because I don't need anything from there...this is my Hobby.

I want to reiterate something.

Because someone's going to take what I've said and run with it, I don't hate gays, and firing them just because you don't like them is absolutely wrong morally and ethically. I cannot say this strongly enough. Yes, my faith (and by extension me) disapproves of unrepentant homosexual activity, but they are still people too and just as deserving of respect and a fair chance as every other human being alive.

My stance is not about gays specifically. It's about a broader policy. When you are forcing people to act, it is good policy to use the "least restrictive means possible" to solve a problem that cannot be solved any other way. The Supreme Court uses this test constantly, and it was a part of the Hobby Lobby ruling. It is wrong to fire people on Christmas Eve simply because the timing brings you devious pleasure, yet we allow it to happen. There are all sorts of behaviors that are despicable yet legal.

If gays were so strongly persecuted that they were having difficulty finding employment as a group, then yes, such legislation would probably be necessary! However, right now this is not the case. What you then have is a solution looking for a problem. It is good policy to solve real problems that cannot be solved through alternate means.

Facts are not hate speech.
Read up on it, that's not the law, that's how hobby lobby is going to take advantage of it. The actual Law gives no such specifics.

Also worth noting, hobby lobby is still in full support of covering Viagra via insurance.