Jul 032014

A friend objected to my characterization of the Hobby Lobby decision as a ruling designed to placate those employers who object to the notion of sex for pleasure. He (because of course it was a “he”) maintained that the Court had preserved the rights of employers to exercise their religion as they saw fit. But other conservatives seem more than happy to confirm my assertion that they really don’t like the idea of women having sex for reasons other than procreation.

Here’s Rush Limbaugh’s thoughts on the matter:

Pregnancy is something that you have to do to cause. … Yet we treat it as a great imposition that women need to be protected from. It’s a sickness, it’s a disease, it’s whatever, and there’s gotta be a pill for it. Yet they wouldn’t have the problem if they didn’t do a certain thing. It’s that simple.

And Erick Erickson’s:

My religion trumps your “right” to employer subsidized consequence free sex.

And Sean Hannity’s:

I was in the drugstore the other day, and guess what? There’s a whole section of birth control. Go buy it! You can get a condom in a New York bar for free. As a matter of fact, you can take a handful.

Hobby Lobby is a terrible decision that legitimizes gender discrimination in the workplace out of a misplaced desire to protect every manisfestation of religious freedom, no matter the consequences. It is rooted in notions of sexuality and religiosity that will soon only exist in the exurbs and retirement homes. But until then, misogyny has a friend in the Supreme Court.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



%d bloggers like this: