Contraception is a perversion, in the original and genuine meaning of the word: a twisting of a thing away from its original form and purpose.
So couples that use the rhythm method are perverted? Because that method is a means of contraception.
Condoms are also used to stop the spread of disease and are not limited only to contraception. A male with a vasectomy or a woman unable to conceive may still opt that condoms be used to minimize risk of an STD. You may consider such people to be perverted but such people are not barred to buy contraceptive and safe sex products in stores. Stores do not police the sexual morality of persons buying contraceptive or safe sex products.
Why is Hobby Lobby fighting on the basis of First Amendment considerations? Before Obamacare, companies could just say no, contraceptives and safe sex products are in the category of personal lifestyle choices and personal responsibility but now that Obama’s minions have forced this on everyone, Hobby Lobby can’t just say ‘no’; they need to say ‘encroachment on free exercise of religion’. But the point is that Obamacare and its HHS mandate are not ***necessarily*** an attack on religious beliefs, because most Americans, religious or not, believe in personal responsibility.
HHS requires Hobby Lobby to provide contraceptive products to its employees and Hobby Lobby refuses but this refusal does not prevent these employees from accessing such products in stores. Prior to the HHS mandate there was never any distinct group suing stores for denial of contraceptive or safe sex products or suing companies similarly.
Those who use contraception are not a group that can plead discrimination and force court rulings based on discriminating behavior. The Hobby Lobby case is not about discrimination, it is about the encroachment of a federal government insurance mandate. Whereas, homosexuals are suing cake shops over state level discrimination.
Wedding services are much more intimate and unique to the wedding particulars. Wedding service providers create as art the wedding cakes, floral arrangements, church and reception decorating, wedding cards and many of not most of wedding service providers are adherents to biblical teaching.
Refusing to make a wedding cake to a same-sex couple is barring professional cake making wedding services to same-sex couples by those that are obedient to their faith and by those whose moral codes are otherwise repulsed by the notion of same-sex marriage. Such refusals are a social expression of how society views homosexuality. It has nothing to do with HHS mandated insurance coverage.
The issue of coverage for contraception is diffuse whereas the issue of homosexual perversion is narrowly focused. Contraception is about insurance coverage for lifestyle choices and practices. It is no different than dental coverage and most employers do not offer or offer very little coverage on dental because the vast number of dental health conditions are caused by poor individual practices. Such coverage conditions fall under personal responsibility. These personal responsibility issues do not attack the Church. Whereas, homosexual perversion does attack the Church through the courts.
Denial of contraception coverage affects all people of both genders, of all adult ages, of any ethnicity, of any sexual orientation and so on; this denial does not discriminate. However, refusing wedding cakes is focused on one group and one group only; homosexuals. (It’s conceivable that Satan worshipers could be denied wedding services, but there is no history of the courts being used to coerce wedding service providers to provide services to Satan).
There is only one group of sexual perverts that uses the courts to force its will on wedding cake makers, wedding florists, B&B honeymoon suites, etc. This group would be homosexuals.