biodork

The leftover half of my elk burger with grain mustard cheese from last night's dinner. Even better without the twist-tie that somehow found itself onto the bun.

Oban is the bf's favorite. I've grown to like it, too, but most times if I'm drinking scotch it's a Speyside. The Glenrothes 1998 is nice.

Seems like it'd be up our alley. I've found a couple scotches I like (Macallan, Monkey Shoulder), but far more bourbon.

Good luck weave! I'll be on Seneca in Watkins / Burdett tomorrow through Friday. Can't wait. That's awesome -- best luck in your new endeavers, d4rk! :clapping:

Anyone tried this? (Looking mostly at you, weave.) http://liquor.com/articles/auchentoshan-american-oak/

lol true. But, I would argue that's the price you have to pay as a business owner, once you reach a certain size and/or level of success -- you can't possibly expect (or even know) that all your employees share your values once your company is large enough. You have to accept that and find other ways to further the causes you believe in (donations to charitable organizations, etc).

What he said.

I get your point, but at the end of the day if your employees share your values (and presumably they would in a smaller company that has specific offerings, as you described), they would likely elect to utilize services from healthcare companies that fit your shared values, even if the others are an option through your insurance.

Much as I dislike how this would cause problems in areas with limited choices, I don't have a problem with a religious entity being exempt from certain parts of the ACA. There's a big difference (for me) between an organization founded and run solely for religious purposes, such as Catholic Health or the Christian Publications Bookstore in my area, vs. a large corporation that suddenly "found" religion because of its owners.

I'm not sure I'd agree that they want to comply, but I understand your point.

Exactly! To me, it's irrelevant whether the objection is sincere or not, and I think people overlook that just because this particular objection is one with which a number of people agree. The issue is that Hobby Lobby is not a Christian corporation; they are a corporation that happens to be owned by Christians. Their personal religious beliefs should have no place in their business dealings.

Congrats on the upcoming milestone, Swamp! That's amazing. While the fact that this kid's family could find themselves in this situation in a country as wealthy as ours is deplorable, his perserverance in spite of it is awesome: http://diply.com/trendyjoe/he-graduated-top-his-class-what-nobody/41954

Based on your description of them, I'd say it's awesome that they won't be there to ruin her homecoming. ;)

That's great news, weave -- enjoy your afternoon with them!

Fair enough. And as I said upthread (probably on the previous page by now), my issue with the Hobby Lobby ruling has more to do with the door that has been opened to future challenges. Still curious to hear how Neo (or anyone else) would feel about the other two scenarios I posted.

GCoE's post below is the point I haven't made well: I realize this may just come down to the "life begins at conception" idea for you, but for my part it's insane to equate prevention of implantation (something that happens on its own quite frequently, as GCoE pointed out) via emergency contraceptive with aborting a fetus that has been growing for some number of weeks. I sympathize with your own fertility issues, and I understand that it must seem like a cruel joke that others are trying to prevent that which you would gladly welcome. But to paint all who use EC or (heaven forbid) make the difficult decsion to have an abortion as incompetent, loose women who knew what they were getting into but can't be bothered is far too broad a brush and a gross oversimplification of what are varied reasons people find themselves in that situation. The poster formerly known as Crosschecking would do the same because he and his wife were unable to conceive, and while I also sympathized with their situation, much of what he had to say on this topic was downright offensive. One of my best friends had an early term abortion many years ago (before we'd even met, so I don't know all the details), and she still wonders on occasion how that child might have turned out. She also does not regret her decision, because she was not ready or able to raise a child at that time in her life. Anyhow, again we will need to agree to disagree because neither of our views on this subject are likely to change. But I do appreciate that it's stayed civil discussing what is a very heated topic. Edit: should have waited a bit longer before that last part...

You're the one who knows odds, but I wouldn't call 20-1 a "good chance". There's no sense discussing this particular topic with you, because your mind is so firmly resolved that nothing anyone can say will change it.

This is pretty awesome. Sadly, I would not fit into this suit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/10-year-old-star-wars-girls-bullied_n_5513190.html

Two scenarios for you, and I'm honestly interested to hear how you would feel about either one: 1) The NY ruling went the other way, and found religious belief was a legitimate reason to exempt a child from school immunization requirements. The owner of company X has an autistic son, and sincerely believes vaccination contributed to this. He is also a man of faith, and decides that his company health plan will no longer cover vaccines due to his beliefs. 2) The owner of company Y converts to Scientology. While the Church does not prohibit medical intervention for physical illness, psychiatric disorders are considered to be a spiritual issue and should be treated as such. Due to this sincerely held religious belief, the owner decides his company health plan will not include coverage for psychotherapy, antidepressants, and other drugs for the purpose of treating mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

I'm disappointed that it opens the door to any and all religious objections, sincere or not. And you're correct about that determination being a tricky and potentially subjective issue. (I believe there was a recent ruling in NY about a mom who'd attempted to use "religious beliefs" as a reason for exempting her child from vaccination, and she lost that argument.) The owners of a business are free to practice and believe whatever they chose, but those personal beliefs should be kept completely separate from their work enterprise. I feel more strongly about this for a larger corporation than a small mom and pop setup, but I'm not sure how best that distinction could be made from a legal standpoint. There are plenty of people around whose sincerely held religious beliefs would have them denying services to gays and lesbians, and what about other religions, as MattPie pointed out? People don't see it as a big deal because Christianity is the major religion in this country, but what if the owners held other, less familiar beliefs and wanted to use those as grounds for non-compliance? It's a very slippery slope.

All contraceptives have some small rate of failure (condoms can break, other medications can interfere with the pill, etc), which is no reflection on the IQ of the users. And honestly, my issue with the SC ruling has more to do with the fact that it opens the door to other religious objections, valid or not.

Although from this it sounds as though when an IUD is used as emergency contraception it *might* prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, so perhaps your characterization of their decision process was correct? From this website: http://www.babycenter.com/0_intrauterine-device-iud_3564.bc

I won't claim to be an expert or to know everything about these things, but in general it seems as though some prevent implantation whereas others (like IUDs) prevent fertilization from happening in the first place.

The first bolded section certainly isn't limited to just men (there are plenty of women out there who are physically unable to have children and share your predicament), and yes, it's unfortunate that health insurance generally doesn't offer much to help people in that situation. (And you should be upset with your insurance provider for that.) That doesn't change the fact that it's not a bad idea to help people who are unwilling or currently unable to care for children to avoid having them in the first place. As to the second bolded section: I won't argue with you and I can't make you read anything you don't want to, but if you spent a fraction as much time researching contraceptives as you have on Marfan's, Cody Hodgson's dad, the HITS Foundation, Pegula and co., etc. etc. you would understand that you are relying on incomplete and/or incorrect information.

As others have already pointed out, the contraceptives in question are NOT abortifacients: http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-craziest-thing-about-hobby-lobby-20140630-column.html