Hobby Lobby sues government over healthcare mandate | Reuters
Any other question j-mac stupid or otherwise?
No, see the fact is that you implied that it was a right, it was shown to you more than 3 separate times. The flaw here in logic is in your own false analogy. You set up something covered under the Civil rights Act, in the equal treatment of individuals in this country. Using the ACA to bully companies into providing a product, in this case insurance is bad enough, but then telling them that they must include within that coverage something that clearly is not a financial hardship to obtain separate of insurance coverage, IMHO, to poke a stick in the side of people of faith in this country is pure inflammatory. And it is as big a game as you saying that you didn't say something you clearly in black and white did....Ah well....I am not naive enough to believe that this conversation would be an honest one. I mean if you think about it, it can't be, because if it was, the conclusion about what our government is doing right now would be repugnant.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
They are not pushing a religious issue, the government is. Prior to the government getting involved Hobby Lobby and its employees were quite happy.The great thing is the religious right will never take over this country! That is a fact. I see Hobby Lobby pushing a religous issue when they have no right to.
Hobby Lobby is not forcing their beliefs on anyone. Where is their freedom of religion?However, just like Westboro Baptist they can petition to become a religious organization and then they can make their case if it is granted. Plus they will be tax exempt as well. However, this country was founded on freedom of religion. No employer can force that belief on any employee period.
This is an interesting case.
As usual, covering the controversy in religion is likely to yield an insignificant judgment by the SCOTUS.
But if we can strip religious allusions from the matter, we're left with what the matter simply boils down to: the owners are objecting to being in any way an accomplice to kiling living prenatal humans.
The owners are basically saying that if they are forced to provide coverage that includes the morning-after pill, a pill that kills newly conceived living humans, they will then be an accomplice to abortion on demand (abortion by chemical process), abortion on demand which, by accurate appeal to term, includes unjustified homicide.
It may be against the religion of the owners to commit, in any associated way, unjustified homicide.
This case will also test how far our SCOTUS judges have come in dealing with harsh realities associated with abortion, such as the bigotry of ageism (http://www.debatepolitics.com/aborti...post1060675136 (The "Pro-Choice" Bigotry of Ageism)).
But if the tack from either side is to emphasize religion, that either the owners are forcing their religion on others or that the owners are having their religious rights infringed, the SCOTUS will then avoid the heart of the matter: that abortion kills living humans.
It will be interesting to see which presentations the legal counsels and jurists make.
When the election is over and we open our eyes, it will sadly be too late to wonder what the hell just happened.
Not these companies!
List of Obamacare Exempt Companies