To his list

He probably doesn't believe is sex outside of marriage. Perfect plan.

Another arbitrary penalty for single people?

If he wants to claim that his Religion is so strong that he wants exceptions, he should have to demonstrate the depth of his Religious commitment. He can't pick and choose.

Sex outside marriage is a SIN.

Viagra allows a man who can't get an erection to get one, so he can have sex.

By providing Viagra coverage to unmarried men, he's violating his religion by helping them have sex outside marriage.

If he's ok with sex for unmarried men, then his Religious convictions are not as strong as he claims, and they should be dismissed as a rationale for him to be exempt from any element of the law.

Pretty simple.

it must be Gawd's will and Viagra, et al, won't be covered either. Until that's in there, I don't think any of these objections should see the light of day.

If the Bible talked about men becoming impotent in old age, and how important that is, I'd be right there with you.

But I'm not aware of any part of the old or new testament that goes there.

Unmarried people not having sex is in there.

Treating this in a very legalistic manner helps make the point. if your religion commands you to act in a certain way in one case, it commands you to act a certain way in all cases.

Either that, or your religious beliefs are not as binding as you claim, and so they are irrelevant when placed against US law.

treatments ... if his Religion really commands his obedience on such issues.

Unless they can prove it came from their spouse.

I'm a big girl now, I don't need my access to birth control inextricably linked to the whims a used car dealership, of all things.

You gotta hit him between the eyes.

Leave him out of my health care. I'm taking his side because the sooner he's not a party to my birth control the sooner I have the freedom to obtain my own birth control.

Why do we need to hit him between the eyes? To prove what point? That we can order him around? That we can run roughshod over other people's lives?

The reason to hit him between the eyes is because he is taking proactive steps to prevent birth control access to others.

If he was sitting around spouting his opinions and beliefs, but not trying to impose them on others, fine, leave him alone.

But when he takes action, as he is doing here, you don't ignore him. And you certainly do not "take his side".

He is claiming that his life is driven by his Religious beliefs. I'm calling bullshit.

He is going to go to court and take action, and apparently, the way you plan to protect your rights is to take his side? Makes no sense.

HORSECRAP. This was never an issue before.

How did "I" get a court to give him an injunction. Its been done. it happened long before I said one word.

He's doing that, and the court is letting him. Yet you blame me? Are you insane?

As for leaving you out of my tantrums ... umm ... you responded to ME with what has become, an actual, rather fantastical, tantrum.

I mean as far as tantrums go, your is impressive ... in it you actually think you can declare what I think and even what, and who, I care about.

I'm guessing you think there are no women in my life, or maybe that I don't care about my wife or my daughters because as you claim "I'm throwing them under" the imaginary bus you created.

You've become quite delusional.

Before the BC mandate there were no employer based challenges to access to BC. Suddenly, there is a mandate. Some employers balk; this is nothing new because conscience exceptions are a part of established law.

Now there is a phony complaint is they want to deny all access to all BC -- which is untrue because this wasn't an issue before the mandate. You support the continued linking of BC access to an employer even though there is now an conscience injunction that has a reasonable chance to survive USSC scrutiny even if it does the very thing you claim you don't want to see happen.

Despite the protestations about the women in your life you seem more possessed by your antipathy to those who do not meet your approval than any practical boon to these women. All you want is to give someone a legal punch in the nose to force them to conform.

I defy you to explain why my employer should ever be linked with my access to birth control.

In the world of reality, many employers provide health care as part of their "total compensation" for employees. That world existed long before the mandate. Long before I "supported" it as you claim.

I don't have to "support it" to recognize the REALITY of it.

The RW nuts jobs don't actually care about the mandate. They'd be freaking out REGARDLESS.

You seem to want some magic event to occur in which the entire system transforms into something else. Its not going to happen over night.

Lastly, fighting this idiot in court is necessary because its actually happening. You can't pretend otherwise.

Welcome to reality.

Oh, and punching this idiot is not the only thing I would recomend, its just one thing I'd advocate for ... not sure why you think that's "the only thing" ... through out this tantrum, you seem to be very quick to make false assumptions and then extend them to rather ridiculous conclusions.

That's the mechanism by which we were handed this ridiculous state of affairs. HHS made up a rule. What HHS giveth, HHS can taketh away. For that matter entire sections of the law are being put in abeyance. What's to stop the next GOPer president from doing the exact same thing?

Oh, and all laws, by their very nature, include an element of force ... or ... are all laws now immoral in your world?

I've even described your metaphor as a legal punch in a previous post.

And yes, all law is force. That doesn't make me against laws, it makes me against things that should not be a matter of force, such as you and other people attempting to impose your private morality on the public. Okay, so he's a Christian and he's a jerk. You aren't much better because you want to impose laws on him that violate his faith and the faith of others. Both of you should be sent to your rooms without dessert until you can learn to stop meddling with other people's lives.

I did not propose a law against him, you seem confused on that point.

There is a law regarding health insurance, and individuals, and businesses can follow that law and provide / purchase insurance the complies, or pay a tax.

I suggested that his faith be questioned to determine if his claim of holding such strong religious beliefs that he had no alternative but to deny his employees access to BC can be accepted on its face.

If he does not truly follow the beliefs he claims to hold (which can be tested using the example I provided) then his current legal claim can and should be dismissed out of hand.

I do expect you to get insurance, or pay the tax, because I don't want the folks in the ambulance or at the hospital to "stop meddling in your life" when they bring you in and you don't have coverage.

usually you know when you're walking into a church. If a corporation is a church, then it should be clear to customers, especially women, so they can make purchasing decisions accordingly. They should also close on Sunday, like Hobby Lobby, don't you think?

that dealer is closed on Sunday as is most of its competitors

Do mostly men buy those?

Randy Reed has already publicized himself.

Does he charge interest on his car loans? Is he open on the Sabbath? Is his suit made of mixed materials? Does he keep kosher? Does he pray as he is admonished to in Matthew?

I think challenging the strength of their Religious conviction is a useful argument.

You can't pick and choose ... either your Religion COMMANDS you to comply, or not.

Other biblical teachings on the worth of women are horrid and evil and used by sub humanoid types to legitimize all types of evil behavior.

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

and my personal favorite outrage example

"11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

Obamacare is inadequate, and I really only support it because I am hoping it will be a stepping stone to single payer.

The more people get away from employer provided health insurance, the closer we will be to a single payer, national health insurance system. It seems as though right wing nuts are trying to push us in this direction in their attempts to avoid providing full health insurance coverage for their employees, so let it snowball into a sane, all encompassing system for all.

Where, specifically, does the Bible say that in literal language? No metaphors, no inferences, no hints or nudge-nudge, wink-wink passages.

Especially, where does Jesus say that....and Paul's letters don't count, because...well, because he ain't Jesus.

Inquiring minds want to know.