I called my local Hobby Lobby ....

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Somebody gets it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Somebody gets it.

But its neither you nor Darkwind.

 

[emilynghiem]

So?

What part of this poster is not true?

QW can't handle it.

Anyone?

QW was saying neither statement diminishes
religious freedom of individuals.

I agree that the business owners still have religious freedom,
and just because they operate as a corporation doesn't mean we
shouldn't respect the wishes of the people running it.

That is just common courtesy.
Can't believe this legislation was passed in the first place,
without first agreeing on a Constitutional amendment to expand and interpret
govt this way, much less make a federal case over it.

The whole thing violates the religious beliefs of people
with Constitutional principles of limited govt and maximum
authority reserved to the States and to the people.

I think what this tells me is we need a Constitutional convention and agreement
among parties what constitutes a political religion, and how to respect and handle
differences.

We don't need to waste $24 billion shutting down govt for failing to resolve party differences, where people beliefs WILL NOT CHANGE and govt has no right to make laws favoring one set of beliefs over another!

I am shocked and disturbed to see that Constitutional beliefs are not even recognized as valid, but I understand that is why this conflict exists. Neither do some prolife advocates believe "any choices are lost" by banning abortion because that is like making murder a choice, and they don't see it either!

We need to get this straight, have an agreement, how to manage these conflicts
because people's views are NOT going to change, so these conflicts CANNOT be made to "go away" by continuing to push federal laws one way or another.

This is only making the conflict worse by ignoring it and pretending no beliefs are violated.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Somebody gets it.

But its neither you nor Darkwind.

Nor do you or CCJones get that these are
valid religious beliefs and liberties
being overrun by federal mandates in violation of Constitutional equal protections.

At least Synthaholic asked for a better explanation of how liberties were lost.

If I fail to work this out in my attempt with Synth,
Luddly I will try again to post a thread to you and CCJones
trying to sort out where we are missing each other's political positions and beliefs.

To me, even if I disagree with yours,
I should treat include and DEFEND your beliefs equally as mine or anyone else's
in order to be respectful of Constitutional standards I want govt to follow.

So if you want Singlepayer or a central national system to govern health care
under rules and regs YOU want, I want YOU to have that.

Just NOT at the expense of other people who want another set of choices outside govt.

So I am seeking the best way where EVERYONE can get the system they want
without conflict or imposition with any other system other people set up to use.

Isn't that more Constitutionally inclusive and fair?
To respect all beliefs and let everyone set up and exercise what THEY believe in equally?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Somebody gets it.

But its neither you nor Darkwind.

Far better than you do.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

The owners have rights you fucking moron.

god damn you 'people' are dumb

why do you support government tyranny?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Pretty good huh?



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

Why do you support government tyranny?
[MENTION=39530]AceRothstein[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION] (Yesterday), [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=43400]OnePercenter[/MENTION] (Yesterday), [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=31101]theliq[/MENTION] (Yesterday)

wow, not one had the courage to answer.

pardon me if I don't bother to quell my surprise.

 

[MarcATL]

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!

To be honest, I'm still not getting your argument. Not that I haven't tried to understand it either.

It seems to me that there are those that are just fundamentally opposed to the government being involved in any aspect of health care insurance.

And to me, that is radical.

 

[MarcATL]

Somebody gets it.

But its neither you nor Darkwind.

Nor do you or CCJones get that these are
valid religious beliefs and liberties
being overrun by federal mandates in violation of Constitutional equal protections.

At least Synthaholic asked for a better explanation of how liberties were lost.

If I fail to work this out in my attempt with Synth,
Luddly I will try again to post a thread to you and CCJones
trying to sort out where we are missing each other's political positions and beliefs.

To me, even if I disagree with yours,
I should treat include and DEFEND your beliefs equally as mine or anyone else's
in order to be respectful of Constitutional standards I want govt to follow.

So if you want Singlepayer or a central national system to govern health care
under rules and regs YOU want, I want YOU to have that.

Just NOT at the expense of other people who want another set of choices outside govt.

So I am seeking the best way where EVERYONE can get the system they want
without conflict or imposition with any other system other people set up to use.

Isn't that more Constitutionally inclusive and fair?
To respect all beliefs and let everyone set up and exercise what THEY believe in equally?

The reason why your position isn't resonating is because it's like arguing for a different set of civil liberties for those who don't agree with the current set.

That would allow those who believe that blacks are nothing but a bunch of N-words, get to operate their business by discriminating against them, and things of that nature.

We are living in a society, that means that the society will do things that you personally, even a group of you do not agree, believe in, or or like. That's just part of the contract we all sign by choosing to be a member of society.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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!

To be honest, I'm still not getting your argument. Not that I haven't tried to understand it either.

It seems to me that there are those that are just fundamentally opposed to the government being involved in any aspect of health care insurance.

And to me, that is radical.

It’s certainly unwarranted and ridiculous.

 

[blackhawk]

I don't recall Hobby Lobby ever claiming to be either one. What they are is business owned by people with strong religious beliefs which they have never denied.

 

[Avatar4321]

Pretty good huh?



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

You do realize you don't have to be a Church to exercise religious liberty, right?

Or do you think that you only have the freedom to express your religion if it's as part of a Church?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Pretty good huh?



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

Why do you support government tyranny?
[MENTION=39530]AceRothstein[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION] (Yesterday), [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=43400]OnePercenter[/MENTION] (Yesterday), [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=31101]theliq[/MENTION] (Yesterday)

wow, not one had the courage to answer.

pardon me if I don't bother to quell my surprise.

[MENTION=39530]AceRothstein[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION] (Yesterday), [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=43400]OnePercenter[/MENTION] (Yesterday), [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] (Today), [MENTION=31101]theliq[/MENTION] (Yesterday)

maybe tomorrow

 

[Barb]

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.

Sometimes pictures help

this is Ben and Jerry

Ben is a person.
Jerry is also a person.

This is Ben And Jerry's.

Ben And Jerry's is not a person.

Class dismissed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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!

To be honest, I'm still not getting your argument. Not that I haven't tried to understand it either.

It seems to me that there are those that are just fundamentally opposed to the government being involved in any aspect of health care insurance.

And to me, that is radical.

It seems to me that you have your head up Chris Mathews ass, which explains why all you here is lies about the positions of other people. The issue that you started this thread over has zip to do with the government being involved in health insurance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But its neither you nor Darkwind.

Nor do you or CCJones get that these are
valid religious beliefs and liberties
being overrun by federal mandates in violation of Constitutional equal protections.

At least Synthaholic asked for a better explanation of how liberties were lost.

If I fail to work this out in my attempt with Synth,
Luddly I will try again to post a thread to you and CCJones
trying to sort out where we are missing each other's political positions and beliefs.

To me, even if I disagree with yours,
I should treat include and DEFEND your beliefs equally as mine or anyone else's
in order to be respectful of Constitutional standards I want govt to follow.

So if you want Singlepayer or a central national system to govern health care
under rules and regs YOU want, I want YOU to have that.

Just NOT at the expense of other people who want another set of choices outside govt.

So I am seeking the best way where EVERYONE can get the system they want
without conflict or imposition with any other system other people set up to use.

Isn't that more Constitutionally inclusive and fair?
To respect all beliefs and let everyone set up and exercise what THEY believe in equally?

The reason why your position isn't resonating is because it's like arguing for a different set of civil liberties for those who don't agree with the current set.

That would allow those who believe that blacks are nothing but a bunch of N-words, get to operate their business by discriminating against them, and things of that nature.

We are living in a society, that means that the society will do things that you personally, even a group of you do not agree, believe in, or or like. That's just part of the contract we all sign by choosing to be a member of society.

I have known hundreds of black people in my life, and not one of them had any desire to give their money to someone that hates them, even if the government forces those people to take it. Is that because I have hung out with all the dumb blacks in the world, or is it because you are the dumb black?

As for society, it is free to do whatever the fuck it wants, as long as it leaves me the fuck alone. The second It tries to make me comply with its values it will find itself attempting the fucking impossible. That is because, despite your toal misunderstanding of how the world works, no one has the right to force me to do anything just because they like it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pretty good huh?



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

You do realize you don't have to be a Church to exercise religious liberty, right?

Or do you think that you only have the freedom to express your religion if it's as part of a Church?

He actually believes that he is an intelligent and well informed poster because he doesn't have to figure out where the other people are coming from, you can't really expect him to understand what you are saying.

 

[SuMar]

I usually shop at Michael's or Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft because both of those shops are closer to my home, I think, though, I will be taking all my business to Hobby Lobby.

 

[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.

Sometimes pictures help

this is Ben and Jerry

Ben is a person.
Jerry is also a person.

This is Ben And Jerry's.

Ben And Jerry's is not a person.

Class dismissed.

That is a great example of why you are wrong. Ben and Jerry's regularly practices the religious beliefs of the company founders. The reason that you don't notice is that their religious beliefs coincide with your personal bigotry.

Ben & Jerry?s co-founder explains how to do well by doing good | Food | Jewish Journal

Values | Ben & Jerry's

 

[Barb]

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.

Sometimes pictures help

this is Ben and Jerry

Ben is a person.
Jerry is also a person.

This is Ben And Jerry's.

Ben And Jerry's is not a person.

Class dismissed.

That is a great example of why you are wrong. Ben and Jerry's regularly practices the religious beliefs of the company founders. The reason that you don't notice is that their religious beliefs coincide with your personal bigotry.

Ben & Jerry?s co-founder explains how to do well by doing good | Food | Jewish Journal

Values | Ben & Jerry's

I was hoping some idiot would go there, so glad it was you.

The company certainly does support social benefits that I agree with, through public disclosure on their website Values | Ben & Jerry's ; how they do business How We Do Business | Ben & Jerry's ; organizations their foundations support Ben & Jerry's Foundation | Support grassroots activism and community organizing for social justice ; what political issues they link their customers to Get The Dough Out Of Politics! | Ben & Jerry's ; and sometimes even in the name of a new ice cream flavor Fossil Fuel | Ben & Jerry's

They do ALL this without imposing ridiculous and contrived restrictions on their employees reproductive health - something that was never a separately billed part of ANY insurance plan.


See the difference?
Of course you don't.