Your response:4.) But free or covered BC (or plastic surgery) is not a right and lack of free BC is not a violation of another's rights..
So, if you aren't stating that an employer not providing coverage for birth control due to the religion of the employer is a violation, then you obviously have problems communicating your thoughts. Because I see no other way to take what you said.4.) never maid the claim it was but changing coverage based on personal religion is subjecting me to YOUR RELIGIONS and ignoring my own which is a violation, BAM you nailed it
and you did it again. There is no infringement on the liberty of the employee by the employer not providing coverage for unnecessary medical treatments to the employee. The employer can choose any reason - including the reason that has existed for ever, religion. There has been no such judicial challenge to this decision not to offer a specific coverage and none of the judges of the challenges to the current BC mandate have put forth this opinion. If I am wrong, please find the actual decisions - I have already read a couple - and find it for me. You should have zero problem quoting directly from the decision if what you say is true. I'll wait.2.) Because of the use of their religion which is a complete failure in this regard. Thier religion isnt violated and they can not use it to infringe on liberties of others
No, the answer is not "no". Providing something to someone with the knowledge that they will use that something to kill someone is abetting. It is not only a crime, but it would also be a sin against God. Examples: Someone purchasing a prostitute for another individual is just as guilty of sin as the individual that makes use of the prostitute. An employer purchasing something for an employee when that something will be used to kill the unborn will also be guilty of sin. I find it baffling that you don't understand this.3.) so the answer is no because there isnt any its a failed straw man by HL
It's only a dodge in your mind. So I'll repeat: It makes zero difference. HL is paying and contracting. They can choose any reason - including religion - to not want to cover a certain non-necessary medical treatment. Choosing a religious reason is not an infringement and, while someone can sue for anything, they have no chance of winning."if employers at hobby lobby get to choose whats in the employees COVERAGE, what will that be based on?"
simple tell me why HL will be choosing not to cover BC, what is HLs reason?
tell me their exact reason they are using?