I called my local Hobby Lobby ....

[Luddly Neddite]

Pretty good huh?



P.S. - The "I" isn't me.

Are you sure it isn't you? After all, you are known for making dumb statements that have no basis in reality.

EXACTLY what part of that is not true?

EXACTLY.

 

[Howey]

Okay you wingnut tards, here's the situation:

The Constitution guarantees individual religious rights and liberties.

A business does not have the right to infringe upon those liberties.



Hope I didn't type that too fast for you oligarch-supporting sheep.

You always make an issue easy for them to understand, Grandma.

Unfortunately they're so stupid even that doesn't work.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Emily, your freedom ends where it infringes upon mine.

That's the crux of the matter.

That goes for individuals, businesses and the government itself.

Think about that for a moment.

That's really it - in a nutshell.

That's the bottom line to any issue.

 

[Defiant1]

I guess when Hobby Lobby cancels all their employees insurance, everyone will be happy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay you wingnut tards, here's the situation:

The Constitution guarantees individual religious rights and liberties.

A business does not have the right to infringe upon those liberties.



Hope I didn't type that too fast for you oligarch-supporting sheep.

There are so many things wrong here I do not even know where to begin.

The Constitution does not apply to individuals and businesses, it applies to the government. It is intended to prevent the government from inferring with rights and liberties, even those of businesses.

Did I type that too fast for your small brain?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Pretty good huh?



P.S. - The "I" isn't me.

They still have religious freedom in the United States. They are a privately owned company so separation of church and state does not apply. It is in their RIGHT to deny stuff that they don't believe in. The employees also have a right not to work there. IF they don't like their benefits get a job that provides birth control.[/QUOTE]



I agree with this. I don't understand why other people don't understand this argument. Seems simple to me.[/QUOTE]

Its wrong because the SCOTUS is in it now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Emily, your freedom ends where it infringes upon mine.

That's the crux of the matter.

That goes for individuals, businesses and the government itself.

Think about that for a moment.

Does that mean you cannot force me to pay for things I don't need? Or does it really mean that you want take away my freedom by pretending that me not paying for abortion denies you birth control?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Pretty good huh?



P.S. - The "I" isn't me.

Are you sure it isn't you? After all, you are known for making dumb statements that have no basis in reality.

EXACTLY what part of that is not true?

EXACTLY.

So?

What part of this poster is not true?

QW can't handle it.

Anyone?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay you wingnut tards, here's the situation:

The Constitution guarantees individual religious rights and liberties.

A business does not have the right to infringe upon those liberties.



Hope I didn't type that too fast for you oligarch-supporting sheep.

Correct.

The provisions of the ACA in question in no way interfere with the religious liberties of the owners of Hobby Lobby – where none are personally compelled to do anything they perceive to be contrary to their faith.

Funny how everyone involved in the case, including the Solicitor General, disagrees with you. In fact, he specifically argued that they could avoid the conflict simply by dropping health care coverage for their employees and tossing them on the mercies of the exchanges.

But, please, don't let the fact that you are 100% wrong change your opinion.

Paying for employees’ health insurance premiums is a form of compensation, like a wage or salary, where employers are not at liberty to dictate to employees what they may or may not do with their compensation.

You keep blathering this like it means something.

The primary focus and effect of the ACA is to ensure working Americans have access to affordable healthcare, having nothing to do with seeking to disadvantage religious expression (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)). The provisions of the ACA are consequently Constitutional, do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and are lawful as they comport with the ‘compelling governmental interest’ provision of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

They do? How can you possibly say that when the 1oth Circuit specifically ruled that it doesn't? Did you forget that the reason that the case made the Supreme Court is that the government lost? Or did you just hope that no one would know that?

Given these facts of law, therefore, it is both reasonable and appropriate to come to the correct conclusion that opposition to these provisions of the ACA are solely partisan, having nothing to do with the merits of the provisions or facts of law, and everything to do with the current occupant of the White House.

Since the "facts" you presented were exactly the opposite of why the case is in the Supreme Court, it must be entirely reasonable to come to the conclusion that you are wrong.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Emily, your freedom ends where it infringes upon mine.

That's the crux of the matter.

That goes for individuals, businesses and the government itself.

Think about that for a moment.

Does that mean you cannot force me to pay for things I don't need? Or does it really mean that you want take away my freedom by pretending that me not paying for abortion denies you birth control?

No. There's no way you or HL can pretend this is about abortion. If you support HL, you support abortion. Just as they do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pretty good huh?



P.S. - The "I" isn't me.

Are you sure it isn't you? After all, you are known for making dumb statements that have no basis in reality.

EXACTLY what part of that is not true?

EXACTLY.

I did not say part of it is untrue, I said the entire thing has no basis in reality. In other words, somebody made the whole thing up. No one actually says "We are not a health care provider," when an idiot calls up and asks about getting surgery.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

HL and some rw's want it both ways -

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you sure it isn't you? After all, you are known for making dumb statements that have no basis in reality.

EXACTLY what part of that is not true?

EXACTLY.

So?

What part of this poster is not true?

QW can't handle it.

Anyone?

I did handle it.

 

[bodecea]

Pretty good huh?



P.S. - The "I" isn't me.

They still have religious freedom in the United States. They are a privately owned company so separation of church and state does not apply. It is in their RIGHT to deny stuff that they don't believe in. The employees also have a right not to work there. IF they don't like their benefits get a job that provides birth control.

Oh....? Open up that can of worms, why don't you?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Are you sure it isn't you? After all, you are known for making dumb statements that have no basis in reality.

EXACTLY what part of that is not true?

EXACTLY.

I did not say part of it is untrue, I said the entire thing has no basis in reality. In other words, somebody made the whole thing up. No one actually says "We are not a health care provider," when an idiot calls up and asks about getting surgery.

They are not a health care provider nor a church but as I already posted, they want it both ways. They want the benefits of being one thing AND the benefits of being the other.

Which is it?

Since they support abortion, this is not and never has been about religion or abortion.

 

[Darkwind]

Pretty good huh?



P.S. - The "I" isn't me.

Hobby Lobby's response should have been: Go open up your own hobby shop and run it the way you very well please...

A little hint for you.

Hobby Lobby said none of this. This is a fictitious conversation made up by the OP in order to appear clever.

 

[Dot Com]

why do people like them have to run for-profit businesses if they're sooo christian If they operated non-profits they could deny all the HC they wanted, no prob.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Pretty good huh?



P.S. - The "I" isn't me.

They still have religious freedom in the United States. They are a privately owned company so separation of church and state does not apply. It is in their RIGHT to deny stuff that they don't believe in. The employees also have a right not to work there. IF they don't like their benefits get a job that provides birth control.

Oh....? Open up that can of worms, why don't you?

I don't believe in my taxes supporting a welfare rancher sucking on the public teat but according to some rw's, I don't have that right. I don't believe I should have to wonder if there are any gun nutters in the restaurant itching to be Mighty Mouse heroes but according to some rw's, I don't have the right to know that. I believe no child should go to bed hungry, that parents should be force to pay to raid their kids, that all Americans have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to marry whom they love but -

Well, you get the idea.

 

[emilynghiem]

I AGREE with you on this!!

That imposition is what I am trying to avoid.

Emily, your freedom ends where it infringes upon mine.

That's the crux of the matter.

That goes for individuals, businesses and the government itself.

Think about that for a moment.

Yes, but I don't see where people understand that the ACA mandates
are infringing on people's liberties who believe in free market choices
for paying for their own health care and for helping others, just without
govt imposing regulations and fines they don't agree with.

Do you see how this is violating people's consent UNNECESSARILY?

There is nothing wrong with using other means of paying for health care,

Yet the ACA compels buying insurance as the "only way" to avoid a penalty.

I can't understand why people can't separate their beliefs and systems on this,
but insist on imposing "their way" against the will, consent and beliefs of others.

To me, that is clearly UNCONSITUTIONALLY.

it is somehow justifying bypassing certain freedoms or protections
"based on belief that the end goal is greater" though not all people share this belief.

Marc this is like deciding that Christianity is better for people,
and justifiable to impose by federal law as required for all people to register
through a Christian church in order to manage everyone's welfare more effectively.

Whether or not "the majority believes it would do more good than harm"
it is NOT the place of federal govt to impose such a mandate and fine
people who don't buy into THAT system "as the only way."

This is an extreme analogy, but do you get my point?

Thanks, Marc

I believe in decisions by consent,
so that is why I respect people's political views as their right to follow and defend
EVEN if I disagree. I believe any policies should be made by consent, so nobody's
rights are violated but all conflicts are resolved to prevent from imposing unnecessarily.

if people like you agree to majority rule, that's fine.
So again I respect your consent in this, and include it as one of the choices.

where people do NOT agree to majority rule,
such as imposing Muslim or Christian bias in policy by majority rule,
or imposing Singlepayer or Free Market by marjority rule,
that is where I would ASK to separate by group so everyone gets their way separately.

this cannot be imposed, but has to be by free choice and agreement to separate.
That is why I am ASKING people to respect "constitutional equal protections"
of people's political beliefs equally as religious beliefs.

so we fulfill the principles in our laws of equal justice and protection
without discrimination by creed. thank you!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

EXACTLY what part of that is not true?

EXACTLY.

I did not say part of it is untrue, I said the entire thing has no basis in reality. In other words, somebody made the whole thing up. No one actually says "We are not a health care provider," when an idiot calls up and asks about getting surgery.

They are not a health care provider nor a church but as I already posted, they want it both ways. They want the benefits of being one thing AND the benefits of being the other.

Which is it?

Since they support abortion, this is not and never has been about religion or abortion.

It is not based on reality

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?