I called my local Hobby Lobby ....

[MarcATL]

Pretty good huh?



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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

True, they’re neither a healthcare provider nor a church.

What they are is an opponent of the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with ‘religious liberty.’

 

[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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

True, they’re neither a healthcare provider nor a church.

What they are is an opponent of the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with ‘religious liberty.’

I am neither myself, does that mean I have no rights?

 

[emilynghiem]

True, they’re neither a healthcare provider nor a church.

What they are is an opponent of the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with ‘religious liberty.’

RE: religious liberty/free choice (and health care provisions vs insurance)

Hmmmm
and similar things could be said of the ACA mandates and supporters:
* insurance companies are NOT "health care providers"
yet that is what citizens are required to pay -- not for health care but INSURANCE companies
* and backing the bill was clearly POLITICAL
(and incidentally has nothing to do with "FREE CHOICE"
which shows the Democrat support is purely political strategy)

 

[emilynghiem]

True, they’re neither a healthcare provider nor a church.

What they are is an opponent of the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with ‘religious liberty.’

I am neither myself, does that mean I have no rights?

A. Yes, individuals such as the owners of Hobby Lobby
do not need to be a church to defend inalienable rights to free exercise of
religion without government regulations and fines against them.

In fact, having registered as a corporation seems to be used against them.
The real issue that is being diverted is the individual liberties affected by the mandates.

B. CClaytonJones

1. I take issue with your assumption that the very ROOT of this dispute is
"not about religious liberty." That is what is driving all these lawsuits.
People are against the govt mandates regulating and penalizing free choice of paying for health care,
and every one of these lawsuits is an attempt to expose the contradictions using "written laws."
The SPIRIT of the laws is being violated, but Courts require written laws and precedence,
so that is why these cases are argued in these forms.

Just because people's Constitutional principles are BOTH religiously held
as a political belief or political religion AND they are ALSO politically represented
by party, does not discount their VALIDITY as beliefs on BOTH points.

Yes, they are religious and yes they are political. it is BOTH, not "either/or"

2. What matters is if people's beliefs are CONSISTENT

a. the arguments against the imposition of mandates that require access to drugs
the company owners do not believe in ARE consistent with constitutional
arguments on religious freedom from government regulations penalizing them
for noncompliance.

b. now look at the Democrats "prochoice" beliefs.

NOBODY has been able to justify how these ACA mandates, regulations
and penalties are "prochoice"

The Democrats have equal right to their political beliefs,
but cannot impose them on others. If Democrats believe in prochoice for abortion
but then turn around and impose mandates that penalize "free choice" of paying
for health care directly (instead of buying insurance as the only exemption)

This is NOT consistent with "equal religious liberty and protection of the laws"
and NOT consistent with their own prochoice principles. They are imposing
a contradictory political agenda that even violates their own principles!

NOTE: the pro-religious liberty are NOT BANNING the employees right and freedom to purchase the drugs they want independently without going through the company

the "prochoice" Democrats ARE BANNING any other choice of paying for health care
EXCEPT buying insurance or paying a fine to government.

The pro-liberty are NOT asking the employees to "pay fines" but respect their freedom
to pay for the drugs themselves. That is CONSISTENT with wanting freedom to pay for our own health care ourselves.

So the proliberty advocates ARE CONSISTENT in recognizing and asking for equal freedom and separate choices.
This IS CONSISTENT with equal religious freedom and equal protection of the laws for separate beliefs.

the "prochoice" Democrats push government mandates that restrict and fine other choices.
this is NOT consistent with "equal religious freedom and protection"
but it is exempting some people whose beliefs are represented,
while PENALIZING others for their beliefs in free choice that are excluded!

CCjones: even if a total HYPOCRITE stands up and makes this argument,
the logic stands on its own. it DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE MESSENGER.

The prochoice political position is contradictory to the Constitution AND TO ITSELF.

You can argue all you want to, over who has standing or not, and can even win that way.

But the argument still exposes the mandates as wrong, even if our legal system fails to establish that.

Nobody has been able to resolve this conflict of "prochoice" advocates penalizing the "free choice of how to pay for health care" directly without regulations by govt requiring us to buy private insurance or be fined. That contradicts the "prochoice" principle itself.

If this argument cannot be won in court, neither was slavery abolished by going through court, which was also enforced by the letter of the law, where people were not considered equal or valid in society.

Much like you do not consider the religious beliefs and liberty of others to be valid or equal.
If you ever wanted to understand how people could justify slavery by invalidating the humanity of African Americans, it is the same mechanism that allows you to dismiss the defense of equal religious liberty as "invalid."

Remember this mindset the next time you ask "how could people do that to someone else."
This is how it happens. Whatever you are thinking now, where you don't consider the views or beliefs of others to "count as equal to your own."

 

[emilynghiem]

I asked my prochoice friends
how is ACA prochoice if it penalizes free choice of health care?

I got no answer. Nobody has even bothered to try to explain this.
Because they can't.

I asked
how can you support ACA that forces people to pay insurance companies
if you want Singlepayer without any middleman

I got a bunch of excuses.

"this is just the first version, and it needs to be reformed"
"this is the best they could do to get anything passed at all"

Now I'm just asking
to separate health care policies by parties,
so they don't have to answer to anyone but their own members
who already share the same beliefs and don't need to justify it.

If they can't even explain how this works,
why not keep it to yourselves until you work it out.

Let the political religions fund their own policies and programs.
Just like any other church!

We wouldn't let church denominations impose "what they believe as the right way" on the rest of nation.

Why do we let political parties impose their political beliefs or religions
by majority rule, and force ALL taxpayers to pay tithes to fund their programs?
Even if we disagree religiously!

Really?

Pretty good huh?



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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Of course I'm going to pay close attention to what the Party that Booed God three times at their convention has to say about religion"

 

[Lovebears65]

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.

 

[Mustang]

Pretty good huh?



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

Tell them that you and your girlfriend of six months have just moved in together and ask them if they could recommend some things to decorate your new home. Assuming they have any particular suggestions, then ask them if the company would have any moral problem with (and hence any policy against) taking the money of an admitted fornicator.

 

[Howey]

Pretty good huh?



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

hah!

You rawk

 

[kghighroller]

Pretty good huh?



P.S. - The "I" isn't me.[/quote]

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.

 

[Katzndogz]

Call your local mosque and ask if they will BUY you a ham sandwich.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I'm not a preacher so I don't have that confidentiality, But I still have the Freedom of Religion.

 

[chikenwing]

True, they’re neither a healthcare provider nor a church.

What they are is an opponent of the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with ‘religious liberty.’

So you have sat down with the Family and they told you this??

Why do people like yourself hate people of faith so much,why is that?

 

[SuMar]

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...

 

[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)

 

[Two Thumbs]

they would have responded;

Oh dear, did you hurt yourself at work?

yes/no

Ok, we can help, just give us your name and we will let your sup know you won't be in today.

err, uhm, I don't work for you.

oh, well, here's directions to a nearby clinic

 

[Two Thumbs]

True, they’re neither a healthcare provider nor a church.

What they are is an opponent of the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with ‘religious liberty.’

why do you support government tyranny?

 

[emilynghiem]

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)

My guess: when the bully is representing something you believe in?

Apparently, respect for "religious freedom"
only applies if you AGREE with that person's beliefs.

If you disagree, then it "doesn't count" as protected by Constitutional law.
In this case, your "religious belief" ISN'T EVEN REAL, so of course it is not protected by law.

It is not a matter of whether you intend harm or abuse by your "religion"
but whether people AGREE with it or not, if they are going to defend your beliefs equally as their own.
(Many conservatives make this same mistake with Muslims, but most of them correct themselves
when confronted with Constitutional arguments; unlike Democrats and liberals who don't have the same respect.)

Very self-serviing, and contradictory with Constitutional principles and the concept of "equality" of persons and respect for diverse beliefs,
but obviously very effective as a political tactic. As is bullying and tyrannical abuse of force.

We are in no position to criticize Russia if we do the same things to our own citizens!
Discount their rights and consent, just because we disagree and overruling them is politically convenient to our own interests!