A Note of Humor; Libtard Reactions to the Hobby Lobby Decision

[JimBowie1958]

?Rational? leftists attacking strawmen with ?religious? fervor | Twitchy

Lol, the responses show no understanding of the case at all. It's like these retards think the SCOTUS just ruled you don't have to obey the law if you think it is against your religion, roflmao, and they don't get that this is a case of government intruding into religion.

 

[Katzndogz]

That's because the left, like the Taliban wants to eliminate Christianity. You can bet that if this was a muslim company, you wouldn't be hearing anything from them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And some more humor

?Fu*k you:? Left-wingers want to ?burn down? Hobby Lobby after SCOTUS win | Twitchy

Lena Dunham weighs in on SCOTUS? Hobby Lobby ruling | Twitchy

Planned Parenthood?s Cecile Richards fights Hobby Lobby decision with safe, legal stupidity | Twitchy

?Clueless or lying?: Sandra Fluke ?purposefully ignoring? fact in Hobby Lobby decision | Twitchy

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's because the left, like the Taliban wants to eliminate Christianity. You can bet that if this was a muslim company, you wouldn't be hearing anything from them.

Lol, no, it would have never made it to court, as this administration would have simply axed the Muslims, 'How do you want the law to read?'

 

[warf]

This SCOTUS ruling says that the boss's religion is superior to the employee's beliefs.

This is in line with the previous decision that said that the more money one has, the more speech he has.

This makes perfect sense in an Oligarchy, like our government has become.

 

[blastoff]

Actually for some of the lefty turd class it was a good decision. It allows folks like the Hildebeast and her ilk to make comments totally unrelated to the Court's actual ruling in order to continue to stoke the 'war on women' fires.

Such things are a distinct advantage to the lefty dirtbags because they know their low information hordes don't have the brains to know they're being lied to by those they so adore.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This SCOTUS ruling says that the boss's religion is superior to the employee's beliefs.

This is in line with the previous decision that said that the more money one has, the more speech he has.

This makes perfect sense in an Oligarchy, like our government has become.

No, doofuss, it says that the government cannot, via some regulatory addition to a duly passed law, force any9one to violate their own conscience by making them pay for something they regard as deeply immoral like killing an unborn child. Hobby Lobby refused to pay for only FOUR kinds of contraceptive services that are abortifacients and that means the drug killed a living baby, but we all know how much libtards enjoy killing little unborn babies, now don't we?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It just snow's the anti-Christian bias of liberals and the Dimocrat party.

This ruling was based on a '93 case here in Oregon, that reestablished the rights of Native Americans to use peyote in religious ceremonies. Then, they were all for it, but today when a Christian files the lawsuit seeking tge same rights, suddenly it's a horrible ruling.

 

[asterism]

This SCOTUS ruling says that the boss's religion is superior to the employee's beliefs.

Only as far as to what the employer is required to purchase with his own money. The employee is free to buy whatever she wants on her own.

This is in line with the previous decision that said that the more money one has, the more speech he has.

This makes perfect sense in an Oligarchy, like our government has become.

How much money does Sandra Fluke have compared to Rush Limbaugh?

 

[September]

I fail to see why I should be concerned about such matters.

 

[Sherry]

This SCOTUS ruling says that the boss's religion is superior to the employee's beliefs.

This is in line with the previous decision that said that the more money one has, the more speech he has.

This makes perfect sense in an Oligarchy, like our government has become.

No, doofuss, it says that the government cannot, via some regulatory addition to a duly passed law, force any9one to violate their own conscience by making them pay for something they regard as deeply immoral like killing an unborn child. Hobby Lobby refused to pay for only FOUR kinds of contraceptive services that are abortifacients and that means the drug killed a living baby, but we all know how much libtards enjoy killing little unborn babies, now don't we?

They're very transparent, and very desperate...they are very aware that women will continue to have access to contraception, but there is an election approaching. They will mock the far right gun advocates who want access to every type of weapon, including assault weapons, who still are able to own handguns and rifles. They see those people as hysterical when they claim that their 2nd amendment rights are being trampled upon. I see it as very similar analogies.

 

[Defer09]

If Hobby Lobby wants to make it impossible to find skilled employees, that is fine with me.

 

[warf]

This SCOTUS ruling says that the boss's religion is superior to the employee's beliefs.

This is in line with the previous decision that said that the more money one has, the more speech he has.

This makes perfect sense in an Oligarchy, like our government has become.

No, doofuss, it says that the government cannot, via some regulatory addition to a duly passed law, force any9one to violate their own conscience by making them pay for something they regard as deeply immoral like killing an unborn child. Hobby Lobby refused to pay for only FOUR kinds of contraceptive services that are abortifacients and that means the drug killed a living baby, but we all know how much libtards enjoy killing little unborn babies, now don't we?

No, you are wrong.

My religion says birth control is OK. If I worked at Hobby Lobby my religion wouldn't count. I'd be subject to the boss's religion.

Therefore the boss can trump my religious convections because the SCOTUS has, in effect, said that the bosses religion cancels out mine.

Isn't it kind of idiotic to say that birth control is the same as killing and unborn child? One of the ,now, prohibited birth control devices is the IUD.

This decision violates the first amendment.

 

[dilloduck]

This SCOTUS ruling says that the boss's religion is superior to the employee's beliefs.

This is in line with the previous decision that said that the more money one has, the more speech he has.

This makes perfect sense in an Oligarchy, like our government has become.

No, doofuss, it says that the government cannot, via some regulatory addition to a duly passed law, force any9one to violate their own conscience by making them pay for something they regard as deeply immoral like killing an unborn child. Hobby Lobby refused to pay for only FOUR kinds of contraceptive services that are abortifacients and that means the drug killed a living baby, but we all know how much libtards enjoy killing little unborn babies, now don't we?

No, you are wrong.

My religion says birth control is OK. If I worked at Hobby Lobby my religion wouldn't count. I'd be subject to the boss's religion.

Therefore the boss can trump my religious convections because the SCOTUS has, in effect, said that the bosses religion cancels out mine.

Isn't it kind of idiotic to say that birth control is the same as killing and unborn child? One of the ,now, prohibited birth control devices is the IUD.

This decision violates the first amendment.

Horse hockey. So if my religion says it's OK to wear anything that I want to to work I don't have to follow the company's dress code ? My religion is being discriminated against ? That's some mighty faulty logic you have there, pard.

 

[mamooth]

Our goal as liberals is to encourage conservatives like Jim to keep speaking their minds. The more people like Jim talk, the more votes the Democrats receive.

The best part of the plan is how we can openly tell conservatives what the trap is, and they'll still proudly walk into it, declaring that no dirty liberal can stop them from speaking their mind, by golly. Being that they live in a delusion bubble, they have no idea of how unpopular their attitudes are, or how unpopular this SC decision was.

 

[R.D.]

This SCOTUS ruling says that the boss's religion is superior to the employee's beliefs.

This is in line with the previous decision that said that the more money one has, the more speech he has.

This makes perfect sense in an Oligarchy, like our government has become.

No, doofuss, it says that the government cannot, via some regulatory addition to a duly passed law, force any9one to violate their own conscience by making them pay for something they regard as deeply immoral like killing an unborn child. Hobby Lobby refused to pay for only FOUR kinds of contraceptive services that are abortifacients and that means the drug killed a living baby, but we all know how much libtards enjoy killing little unborn babies, now don't we?

No, you are wrong.

My religion says birth control is OK. If I worked at Hobby Lobby my religion wouldn't count. I'd be subject to the boss's religion.

Therefore the boss can trump my religious convections because the SCOTUS has, in effect, said that the bosses religion cancels out mine.

Isn't it kind of idiotic to say that birth control is the same as killing and unborn child? One of the ,now, prohibited birth control devices is the IUD.

This decision violates the first amendment.

How does HLN stop anyone from purchasing BC, doofuss?

 

[warf]

No, doofuss, it says that the government cannot, via some regulatory addition to a duly passed law, force any9one to violate their own conscience by making them pay for something they regard as deeply immoral like killing an unborn child. Hobby Lobby refused to pay for only FOUR kinds of contraceptive services that are abortifacients and that means the drug killed a living baby, but we all know how much libtards enjoy killing little unborn babies, now don't we?

No, you are wrong.

My religion says birth control is OK. If I worked at Hobby Lobby my religion wouldn't count. I'd be subject to the boss's religion.

Therefore the boss can trump my religious convections because the SCOTUS has, in effect, said that the bosses religion cancels out mine.

Isn't it kind of idiotic to say that birth control is the same as killing and unborn child? One of the ,now, prohibited birth control devices is the IUD.

This decision violates the first amendment.

Horse hockey. So if my religion says it's OK to wear anything that I want to to work I don't have to follow the company's dress code ? My religion is being discriminated against ? That's some mighty faulty logic you have there, pard.

Wrong example.

In my state if your religion says you must cover your hair, you can do it even if it's against company policy. I don't know of a religion that sways you can wear anything you want.

My complaint is that if two women work, one at Hobby Lobby and the other at another craft store doing the same job, one gets all the benefits offered under the affordable care act and the other one doesn't. Just because of the religious convictions of the boss.

In this decision the Supreme Court says that worker rights don't exist.

I say that if your religion has such restrictions you should not hire anyone. Do the work yourself and cuddle with your God.

When you hire the public and invite the public into your establishment you are no longer private. You are now public and your religion counts for nothing.

 

[gallantwarrior]

No, you are wrong.

My religion says birth control is OK. If I worked at Hobby Lobby my religion wouldn't count. I'd be subject to the boss's religion.

Therefore the boss can trump my religious convections because the SCOTUS has, in effect, said that the bosses religion cancels out mine.

Isn't it kind of idiotic to say that birth control is the same as killing and unborn child? One of the ,now, prohibited birth control devices is the IUD.

This decision violates the first amendment.

Horse hockey. So if my religion says it's OK to wear anything that I want to to work I don't have to follow the company's dress code ? My religion is being discriminated against ? That's some mighty faulty logic you have there, pard.

Wrong example.

In my state if your religion says you must cover your hair, you can do it even if it's against company policy. I don't know of a religion that sways you can wear anything you want.

My complaint is that if two women work, one at Hobby Lobby and the other at another craft store doing the same job, one gets all the benefits offered under the affordable care act and the other one doesn't. Just because of the religious convictions of the boss.

In this decision the Supreme Court says that worker rights don't exist.

I say that if your religion has such restrictions you should not hire anyone. Do the work yourself and cuddle with your God.

When you hire the public and invite the public into your establishment you are no longer private. You are now public and your religion counts for nothing.

The decision denies no woman access to birth control. What it does is allow an employer the right to not violate their religious/moral values by providing some abortifacents commonly used as after-the-fact birth control. All women still have access to any type of bc offered, just some may require they find some other sap to pay for them.

 

[warf]

Wrong example.

In my state if your religion says you must cover your hair, you can do it even if it's against company policy. I don't know of a religion that sways you can wear anything you want.

My complaint is that if two women work, one at Hobby Lobby and the other at another craft store doing the same job, one gets all the benefits offered under the affordable care act and the other one doesn't. Just because of the religious convictions of the boss.

In this decision the Supreme Court says that worker rights don't exist.

I say that if your religion has such restrictions you should not hire anyone. Do the work yourself and cuddle with your God.

When you hire the public and invite the public into your establishment you are no longer private. You are now public and your religion counts for nothing.[/QUOTE]

The decision denies no woman access to birth control. What it does is allow an employer the right to not violate their religious/moral values by providing some abortifacents commonly used as after-the-fact birth control. All women still have access to any type of bc offered, just some may require they find some other sap to pay for them.[/QUOTE]

This decision says that a worker's religious beliefs take a back seat to the boss's. One more worker right bites the dust.

 

[daveman]

This SCOTUS ruling says that the boss's religion is superior to the employee's beliefs.

This is in line with the previous decision that said that the more money one has, the more speech he has.

This makes perfect sense in an Oligarchy, like our government has become.

So the employee's believe that she should have free abortifacients -- which is not to be found anywhere in the Constitution -- should trump the First Amendment, which IS in the Constitution?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this any thought. At all.