Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hobby Lobby ruling sets off nuclear reaction

Hobby Lobby ruling sets off nuclear reaction

There’s no reaction like a left-wing overreaction.

The vitriol from the political left didn’t take too long to manifest following the 5-4 Supreme Court decision this morning in the Hobby Lobby case.

Many eyes were on the reaction of Sandra Fluke — free contraception’s PR maven – following the SCOTUS ruling.

Fluke did not impress:

Not to be outdone was the always hyperbolic reaction of alleged comedian and Twitter provacateur John Fuglesang.

But it is really the feminist crazies who are most entertaining today. Lots of man-hating!

Looks like the War on Women will last longer than Hundred Years War at this point.

Moving to the “official reaction” round-up comes this from the Republican National Committee.

“This decision protects the religious freedom that is guaranteed to all Americans by the First Amendment, and we’re grateful the Court ruled on the side of liberty. The central issue of this case was whether the federal government can coerce Americans to violate their deeply held religious beliefs, and thankfully the Court has upheld the proper limits on the government’s power.

“The fact that Americans had to bring this case in the first place reveals once again just how intrusive ObamaCare is. It’s a misguided one-size-fits-all policy that not only failed to fix our healthcare system but has trampled on our Constitutional rights. Americans deserve a healthcare system that allows them to make the right choices for themselves, gives them more freedom, and comes nowhere close to encroaching on our First Amendment rights.”

And the counter-point from the DNC’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“I am disappointed and deeply concerned by the Supreme Court’s decision today in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans have gained access to preventive services without out-of-pocket costs, including birth control. However, this decision takes money out of the pockets of women and their families and allows for-profit employers to deny access to certain health care benefits based on their personal beliefs. Nearly sixty percent of women who use birth control do so for more than just family planning.

“It is no surprise that Republicans have sided against women on this issue as they have consistently opposed a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions. Republicans have also blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would bring us closer to the promise of equal pay for women. In the wake of this dangerous precedent set by the Supreme Court, Democrats in Congress will continue to fight on the issues of importance to women and their families.”

Finally, never count out Harry Reid on a day like today.

However, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — a potential 2016 GOP contender — had quite the zinger for The White House.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

BannedbytheGuardian | June 30, 2014 at 5:07 pm

Health insurance with pharma freebies is crazy .& unsustainable .

    you are correct. It is not sustainable. In Australia we pay what I consider to be a very high co-pay… but if I was a pensioner or a healthcare card holder I would pay no more than about $7 per prescription. My costs are very high at present. Yet I have no income and still I am paying for welfare recipients.

      platypus in reply to Aussie. | July 1, 2014 at 1:07 am

      Plus, you have no private firearms any more. Lets hope your conservative government doesn’t stop at reversing greenhouse gas tyranny.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | July 3, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    ONLY on the Wacky Left are abortion-inducing “morning after” drugs known as birth control.

    I think that if you NEED that form of birth control, then you didn’t use any of the 95% of the FREE or low-cost birth control drugs that were NOT affected by by SCOTUS ruling.

    Which leads one to believe that if a woman is so stupid as to not avail herself of the FREE, or nearly free options, so she doesn’t have to use the four which SCOTUS says her employer doesn’t have to fund, then she’s too irresponsible and stupid to either have sex or… hold down a job.

    Only. On. The. Left. Where public policy debates are now limited to invective, derision, and hyperbole of 140 characters, or less!

MouseTheLuckyDog | June 30, 2014 at 5:20 pm

Hey babes chill out. You can go find work at plenty of other places… Oh wait you guys voted Obama in as president. Nevermind.

Contraception is not a health care issue, unless you believe that pregnancy is a disease or “burden”. Fortunately, as with other communicable diseases, including AIDS, the transmission of the antigen (i.e. sperm) is dependent on personal behavior. In order to mitigate the threat of pregnancy, it is necessary to reduce the behavior which causes it.

Oh, and human life does evolve from conception to natural or premeditated (e.g. abortion) death. That should be self-evident. The story of a stork’s delivery is not only a myth, it is facially a fraud which has been perpetrated on children and “adults” alike.

    DINORightMarie in reply to n.n. | June 30, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    Pregnancy is indeed a health care issue, in that pregnant women need to an ob/gyn regularly for prenatal care, as well as measuring the health of the mother while she is pregnant (monitoring blood pressure, blood sugar, weight gain, etc.).

    That said, abortion is a CHOICE, and one that has deep religiously-held beliefs that it is murder of a baby. Therefore, if a person (including a corporation, as Justice Alito notes) determines that she would like to end her pregnancy by using an abortofacient, then she should pay for it herself – and her employer should NOT BE FORCED TO PAY if they hold that it is wrong because of deeply-held religious beliefs.

    Abortion is the end of a baby’s life. No one should be forced to pay for that – and that we the people are being forced to pay for this horrible mass murder because of ObamaCare………unconscionable!

    Chip. Chip. Chip. Hopefully in 2016, Lord willing, we will have a Conservative POTUS who will call for the FULL REPEAL of ObamaCare – and lay down a plan/request for legislation to ensure no one is denied needed care due to exorbitant cost/lack of funds/being of the the poorest and most destitute who need financial help. Then get the government OUT OF HEALTH CARE!

      Pregnancy is a health care issue. Contraception is not. The pleasure of the woman and man are not society’s concern. The life and welfare of the new life is. In order to prevent mass exploitation, it is necessary to reconcile the interests of the direct actors: mother, father, and child; other people in society; and the general welfare. There should be no incentive to corruption.

      Abortion is premeditated murder. As with other commissions of murder, the only legal and moral defense is a claim of self-defense; but, even then, the developing human life is wholly innocent, which creates an awkward situation to grant equal protection. While this conflict is logically and morally settled to favor the mother, the child should receive equal care up to the extent that it does not harm the mother, or that she chooses to relinquish her right to self-preservation.

      That said, I favor universal health care; but, I do not favor ignoring the underlying circumstances which ensure that it remains unaffordable and unavailable. The problem rests with the government, first, private providers, second, and the people themselves. I do not favor coercing people to act immorally, which can be narrowly defined as preserving individual dignity, intrinsic value, and human fitness.

      J. Locke in reply to DINORightMarie. | July 1, 2014 at 9:28 am

      Close, but not quite. Pregnancy is a healthcare cost issue, more than anything else. But if the administration and lawmakers thought that lowering health care costs required contraception rather than paying for unwanted pregnancies, the law should have included language that the federal government would provide it “free”. Politically, I don’t think that would have made it, so they chose a way to shift the cost.

      Really, I think the whole contraceptive mandate was a childish attempt to stick a finger in the eye of people that “progressives” like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama see as their ideological enemies

Are liberals too stupid to buy trojans at the drugstore unless their insurance pays for it?

    Phillep Harding in reply to Marco100. | June 30, 2014 at 9:47 pm

    There is a cultural issue there as well. Some ethnic groups interpret masculinity by how many women the men get pregnant, but don’t give a rip if the woman gets an abortion.

RandomOpinion | June 30, 2014 at 5:43 pm

More proof that most people don’t actually read anything. They just listen to certain talking points. The Court’s Opinion was very very narrow.

I wonder how many of those who are expressing outrage actually took the time to read the opinion. Obviously Congresswoman Schultz didn’t take the time.

Liberals are stupid. The ACA doesn’t trump the RFRA.

my reply to Reid

https://twitter.com/conserv_voice/status/483678157921202177

says the person that decided how every american should get healthcare.

    Radegunda in reply to dmacleo. | June 30, 2014 at 11:08 pm

    The Dems’ hypocrisy re: “the right to make your own health-care choices” is stunning — except that Dem hypocrisy is so familiar already.

What’s singularly important in all of this is that Hobby Lobby wants to keep its hands off of women’s bodies. By not wanting any part of this mandate HL is letting women make their own choices. And still the left complains.

    Observer in reply to pfg. | June 30, 2014 at 6:32 pm

    Yes, if these prog women didn’t want their bosses involved in their health care decisions, then they shouldn’t have supported Obamacare, which requires their bosses to become involved by forcing the bosses to pay for employees’ health insurance — with government-mandated coverages.

    If we had de-coupled health insurance from employment (by amending the tax code), and allowed people to purchase whatever health insurance fit their needs — instead of trying to have government ram a one-size-fits-none policy down everyone’s throat — then we wouldn’t need to have the SCOTUS deciding which coverages bosses have to pay for, and which ones they don’t.

blacksburger | June 30, 2014 at 5:46 pm

AIUI, the court ruled that Hobby Lobby did not have to pay for birth control methods which prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. These are, in fact, abortifacients. Hobby Lobby is quite willing to pay for birth control methods which prevent conception.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to blacksburger. | June 30, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    I think this is the case with The Little Sisters of The Poor.

    Even Sonia saw that the. Hospice Industry would collapse without religious. ordes / outfits being trueto their calling .After all, they can’t be both murdering new life asthey seek to manage life’s exit.

nordic_prince | June 30, 2014 at 5:47 pm

Typical leftist:

Health care is not my boss’s business, except when I want to pick his pocket to pay for something that he objects to, in which case it is his business to shut up and pay. Because otherwise FASCIST – or something.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to nordic_prince. | June 30, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    “Health care is not my boss’s business”

    My answer to that canard is this.

    If you think your health care is not your boss’ business, that’s OK. He/she’s not getting involved. But when you engage in a practice the boss finds objectionable, he has every right in the world to say “I’m not paying – that’s your problem!”

    And if you don’t ever want a boss to say that to you, then WHY DON’T YOU JUST BUILD YOUR OWN BUSINESS?

    BrokeGopher in reply to nordic_prince. | July 1, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    To the Left: It wasn’t your boss’ business until you passed Obamacare and made it his business. Live with it.

Over the counter contraception cost less than the iphones and monthly plan the Lefties pay to tweet their reaction.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to Aucturian. | June 30, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    Not only that, but if the contraceptive prescribed by your physician might cause a problem in your wallet, you can find if there is a way to save money on it through a manufacturer’s discount (things like that are available), or you can ask if there is a cheaper prescription of a different brand, or a generic brand.

    Just recently, I had to go to an ENT specialist. She gave me a sample of a nasal spray she had prescribed for me. She even told me to show the sample’s box to the pharmacist to get a discount on that. The next day, the pharmacist called me and told me that prescription wasn’t approved by my insurance, and were talking to my specialist to find another one for me. She then prescribed two nasal sprays, generic, $10 each per month. I started using them: my allergy problems are gone. Win-win.

    Heck – my iPhone bill is still more expensive than my nasal sprays!

      nomadic100 in reply to theduchessofkitty. | June 30, 2014 at 9:11 pm

      Well, now that you mention it, my cell phone is essential to my being able to access health care, so the costs of my cell phone plan should be my employer’s responsibility.

Midwest Rhino | June 30, 2014 at 6:34 pm

yeah, Sharia law that murders a mother (after 100 lashes) for being a Christian, because her father was Muslim …

Is the same as a Christian company not supplying an abortion pill to its employees. (which Sandy Fluke equates/conflates with those pills being completely unavailable in the free marketplace)

Because religious freedom to Sandy, means being able to control other people’s actions, forcing them to obey Sandy government above their God given rights.

War on Christianity … and War on Freedom. Those are the real wars. But poor Sandy Fluke just can’t get enough of telling her employers what they must provide for her via mandates of her beloved fascist state.

It’s important not to let the other side frame the question. The issue here was coercion. Can the government coerce its citizens (directly or through the companies they own) to violate their religious beliefs? Sad and shocking that only 5 Justices said ‘no.’

    theduchessofkitty in reply to Same Same. | June 30, 2014 at 6:56 pm

    “Sad and shocking that only 5 Justices said ‘no.’”

    Kagan, Ginsberg and Sotomayor should know better.

    (You might think in terms of Kagan and Ginsberg. But I’m more focused on Sotomayor here. She, as I do, should know quite well what happen when the Pill was tested in Puerto Rico during the 1950s, before it was approved by the government. Testing on women there was long. Side effects were awful. My mother told me the horrible side effects her friends and acquaintances had from all that, and she still begs me to this day not to take any contraceptives. I know things have improved since then, but caution is still needed. My mother’s generation was used as lab rats – that has not been forgotten there.)

    Before the Supreme Judge, they will have a lot of explaining to do.

      Radegunda in reply to theduchessofkitty. | June 30, 2014 at 11:13 pm

      Birth-control pills have also been named as a “risk factor” for breast cancer. Abortion probably is too, and the reason is easy to explain.

    Sanddog in reply to Same Same. | June 30, 2014 at 9:12 pm

    Progressives believe coercion is necessary to correct “wrong beliefs”. They’re far more interested in brute force than in winning “hearts and minds”.

    SCOTUS and POTUS need to be reminded of one thing.

    The Constitution from which they derive their power is ultimately Preambled by We The People.

    The SCOTUS isn’t the final Law of the Land should their ruling that violate the Constitution. The ultimate power of checks and balance still resides with the People.

Sandra Fluke @SandraFluke
Follow
Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control. #HobbyLobby #NotMyBossBusiness

–Is she supposed to be a lawyer? A lawyer who does not know the difference between contraception and abortifacient drugs, which is the pivotal issue in the case?

Perhaps she can go to work for an insurance company, wiring press releases on the cases they lose. She has the right attributes.

Dozens of news report called both of today’s decisions “landmark” decisions. Really? They both seem like narrowly-drawn confirmations of what already existed. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe I’m missing something.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to billdyszel. | June 30, 2014 at 10:38 pm

    Someone should write a song and produce a video about the Hobby Lobby decision. Hint. Hint.

      LukeHandCool in reply to William A. Jacobson. | July 1, 2014 at 1:27 am

      And call it,

      “I Want My Free Birth Control and I Want it NOW!!!”

      By Veruca Salt of Charlie and the Chocolate and Free Birth Control Factory with accompanied by Billy Dyszel and his Orchestra.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to William A. Jacobson. | July 1, 2014 at 10:15 am

      I still smile when I recall all the glitzy music video style commercials for the new generation of birth control pills that were followed within a year or two by low production value ads from less than reputable law firms. “If you took Yaz, Yasmin, Ocella or related products you may be entitled …..”

      Oral contraceptives are not without considerable long term health risks, which the left conveniently overlooks because this isn’t really about women’s health but rather the unraveling of the traditional social order.

      Hobby Lobby
      TTTO: Wooly Bully
      by: ‘Bama the Scam-a and the Zeroes

      Uno, dos,
      one, two, tres, quatro.

      Barry thanked Harry
      For the health care law
      But SCOTUS spanked Barry
      And it left him raw
      Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby
      Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby

And now I’m hearing about Hobby a Lobby is invested in these companies that make the abortifacients. Anyone know the story behind that?

All I know us that I’m tired of hearing about the “war on women.” I, for one, am armed and dangerous and I’m not worried!

    platypus in reply to JoAnne. | July 1, 2014 at 1:22 am

    If you think there’s any credibility to that, you should go straight to the source and ask. That would be the public relations division of Hobby Lobby Inc.

A_Nonny_Mouse | June 30, 2014 at 11:50 pm

Do these people not understand the purpose of insurance in the first place?

IT’S SUPPOSED TO COVER *UNEXPECTED* COSTS/ LOSSES.

I know that health insurance companies, eager to expand their business, have been pushing coverage for more and more “preventative care” items, but, still . . .

The common wisdom from when I was a pup was: if a person is mature enough to =ahem= engage in activities that might result in pregnancy, that person should darn well BE mature enough to plan ahead.

Remember when the Liberals and feminists insisted that “government should keep its laws off my body”?

So, OK ===> Ladies, your body is yours. Feel free to take care of it. Or not. You get to make your OWN choices in this world (and the consequences of those choices belong to you as well). This is called “adulthood”. Grow up.

    Right on ! Well said !

    and folks. Let’s not forget the vietnam war protests and the cries of “Baby killer !” directed at our returning soldiers. I’m thinking that the exact same signs and shouts should be directed right back at em, since they ARE literally baby killers.

“A woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions”

How does refusing to subsidize a woman’s health care decisions give you a say in her health care decisions?

The only reason there was a Hobby Lobby case is because the government presumes to dictate to private businesses that they must offer health care and of what kind. Hobby Lobby did not go far enough – if it weren’t for government intrusion into the business sector, this issue would never have arisen. Anyone who believes that government should be mandating birth control coverage has first to establish an argument to demonstrate that government had any constitutional authority to mandate any health care at all.

    platypus in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 1, 2014 at 1:20 am

    Well, apparently the fed govt does have that authority as long as there is some financial charge in the law that the Supremes can call a tax.

    Which of course means that the fed govt can do anything it wants to the people. It just has to fix a cost to individuals and it’s all good.

      Milhouse in reply to platypus. | July 1, 2014 at 2:20 pm

      Um, no. The government doesn’t have the authority to mandate that individuals do anything. Not even “as long as there is some financial charge in the law”. You are grossly misrepresenting the Supreme Court’s decision.

      Employers is a different matter; they are by definition engaging in commerce, so the government can regulate it and require them to do so in a particular manner. Nobody disputed that.

      Milhouse in reply to platypus. | July 1, 2014 at 2:25 pm

      Just in case anyone didn’t understand my previous comment: The supreme court did not rule that Congress has the authority to require people to buy health insurance. On the contrary, it ruled that Congress may not do so, and that it didn’t. The ACA does not require anyone to buy health insurance; the plaintiffs were mistaken in believing that it did. That’s the basis on which the ACA was upheld.

LukeHandCool | July 1, 2014 at 1:24 am

“I Want My Free Birth Control and I Want it NOW !!!”

—Veruca Salt, of Charlie and the Chocolate and Free Birth Control Factory fame.

LukeHandCool | July 1, 2014 at 3:16 am

I’d never heard of the TV show “The Goldbergs” before tonight.

But then suddenly I had the Goldbergs, both real and their TV actors coming after me about my tweets about Hobby Lobby.

Sorry, Goldbergs. Luke’s a nice guy. But he’s got a little honey badger in him.

Don’t know how these twitter threads work. Some of my best shots are not in the thread. But, I won.

LukeHandCool vs. The Goldbergs :

https://twitter.com/TheRealEricaG/status/483857265502339072

    LukeHandCool in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 1, 2014 at 4:03 am

    What losers! They went and deleted the whole second half of the tweets. Yeah, lose on points, lose on comedy, lose on wit … and just cram it down the memory hole.

    What losers. These people are comedians/entertainers and they’re so insecure they have to delete their tweets so nobody can ever see I got the best of them? Losers.

    Throwing F-bombs at me left and right … just setting themselves up for a few jujitsu moves.

    I do have a screen grab in MS Word, though. Don’t think you can post that on twitter can you?

    I had a feeling they’d delete everything. Got a screen grab you losers!

Same Same: Can the government coerce its citizens (directly or through the companies they own) to violate their religious beliefs?

Of course it can, otherwise no law could stand, and “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind—ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races.”

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 1, 2014 at 9:50 am

    One of the stupider things you’ve ever written.

    But there you go…

      Ragspierre: One of the stupider things you’ve ever written.

      It’s Antonin Scalia’s written opinion in Employment Division v. Smith (1990).

        Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 1, 2014 at 1:45 pm

        Which, naturally, you introduced completely out of context, because you are a lying POS.

        The RFRA…voted for almost unanimously by the Senate…was the Congressional effort to set out a standard that met with the Scalia holding.

        It was that that Baracula was rolling over, and which the Court upheld.

        Liar.

          Ragspierre: Which, naturally, you introduced completely out of context

          It’s a direct response to Same Same’s comment about whether government can coerce someone against their religious beliefs, which is exactly the point Scalia was addressing.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2014 at 2:06 pm

          Without ALSO noting the current governing LAW.

          You could have cited Dred Scot without noting all the subsequent jurisprudence.

          As I say. “Lying POS.”

          Ragspierre: Without ALSO noting the current governing LAW.

          Current law, including the recent decision, is based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires that laws not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion UNLESS there is a compelling government interest, and it is the least intrusive way to further that interest.

          So, in answer to Same Same’s question, the government can “coerce its citizens (directly or through the companies they own) to violate their religious beliefs”. Otherwise, as Scalia pointed out, it would lead to legal anarchy.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2014 at 2:24 pm

          “…based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires that laws not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion UNLESS there is a compelling government interest, and it is the least intrusive way to further that interest.”

          So, as I noted, WITHOUT referring to the current law, you lied.

          Some more. Again. And are now just doubling down.

          Ragspierre: WITHOUT referring to the current law …

          Scalia’s point still stands. The government has the power under the constitution to “coerce its citizens (directly or through the companies they own) to violate their religious beliefs”. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn’t change this. Otherwise, as Scalia pointed out, it would lead to legal anarchy.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2014 at 2:34 pm

          The government has the power under the constitution to “coerce its citizens (directly or through the companies they own) to violate their religious beliefs”.

          Actually, that, too, is a lie.

          You just kan’t hep it, kan you…??? Scalia made no such stupid blanket statement.

          Did he, liar?

          Ragspierre: Scalia made no such stupid blanket statement.

          See Employment Division v. Smith. Scalia agued that by allowing a religious exemption, each conscience would be a law unto itself, and “any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy”.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2014 at 5:25 pm

          Well, you ARE an obdurate liar.

          Which is no virtue.

          “It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]…to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended….To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is ‘compelling’ – permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’ contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.’ To adopt a true ‘compelling interest’ requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.”

          It was not, “We can make Jews eat pork, or Mormons drink rot gut”. It was, we can pass laws of general application that MAY be incidentally problematic for religions WITHOUT offending the First Amendment.

          Which, as you and I know was modified by the RFRA, which imposed a “strict scutiny” standard on First Amendment analysis in this arena.

          Liar.

          Ragspierre (quoting): “It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]…to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended

          That’s right, which means sometimes people are sometimes coerced by government against their religious beliefs. For instance, if someone believes his religion doesn’t allow him to obey traffic lights, he can nonetheless be penalized for failing to do so.

          Ragspierre: ““We can make Jews eat pork, or Mormons drink rot gut”.

          Nor did we say so. However, if it is an “incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended”.

          Ragspierre: Which, as you and I know was modified by the RFRA, which imposed a “strict scutiny” standard on First Amendment analysis in this arena.

          Which still allows for laws that result in coercion against religious belief as long as there is a a compelling government interest, and it is the least intrusive way to further that interest.

          In any case, being statute, it can be changed by statute. Statute doesn’t define the government’s power in this regard.

Lady Penguin | July 1, 2014 at 6:35 am

Libs, just can’t stand to have freedom. Really, that’s what this is about. Choice? Yes. You can choose to work for Hobby Lobby or not, isn’t that what’s great about America?

If the illiberal liberals really cared about women then they would stop the mutilation and destruction of women (mother and child) via their religiously held platform of abortion.

And, a woman’s right to birth control and to say “No” has always existed in the U.S.

    Radegunda in reply to jennifer a johnson. | July 1, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    They would also stop giving a pass to Islamic abuse of women on the grounds that it’s their culture and who are we to judge them and Muslims are always victims anyway.

I find it really sad that Feminism has been reduced to who pays for your contraceptives

    What is your objection to the argument. If someone has a religious objection to serving blacks, for instance, should they be able to refuse to do so?

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 2, 2014 at 11:03 am

      Why do you pose your question in such a stupid improbable.

      Why not use the totally plausible, “If a Muslim wants to decline to do business with a Jew or Christian, could or should the law require them to?”

        Ragspierre: Why do you pose your question in such a stupid improbable.

        In fact, the U.S. has had people who used religion to justify segregation.

        If someone has a religious objection to serving Jews, for instance, should they be able to refuse to do so?

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 2, 2014 at 11:32 am

          Take my proposition as I posed it.

          Or don’t, you lying POS.

          Ragspierre: If a Muslim wants to decline to do business with a Jew or Christian, could or should the law require them to?

          No, they should not be required to discriminate in public accommodations.

          Ragspierre: Take my proposition as I posed it.

          In other words, you can’t answer either question.

          If someone has a religious objection to serving blacks, for instance, should they be able to refuse to do so?

          If someone has a religious objection to serving Jews, for instance, should they be able to refuse to do so?

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 2, 2014 at 11:45 am

          “No, they should not be required to discriminate in public accommodations.”

          You are such a liar. You can’t deal with anything without twisting it.

          But, really… Thanks for helping with the demonstration.

          I find you boring, and I’ve punked you enough.

          Ragspierre: You can’t deal with anything without twisting it.

          You insisted we answer your question as posed. You asked whether the law should require discrimination. We said no.

          Notably, you didn’t answer the questions we posed.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 2, 2014 at 11:58 am

          You either cannot read or cannot answer anything honestly.

          Heh…!!!

          Here’s your question:

          Ragspierre: If a Muslim wants to decline to do business with a Jew or Christian, could or should the law require them to?

          Should the law require them to decline to do business with a Jew or Christian? We answer no. We would also answer no if the Muslim doesn’t want to decline to do business with a Jew or Christian.

          Now, let’s modify it a bit:

          Ragspierre: If a Muslim wants to decline to do business with a Jew or Christian, could or should the law require them to {do business with the Jew or Christian}?

          The answer then is yes. The law should prohibit discrimination of religion, race, or ethnicity, in public accommodations. If it’s not a public accommodation, then no.

      randian in reply to Zachriel. | July 2, 2014 at 4:37 pm

      Yes. In fact, it doesn’t matter why they don’t want to serve somebody. Government should not be in the business of forced association.

        randian: In fact, it doesn’t matter why they don’t want to serve somebody. Government should not be in the business of forced association.

        Didn’t think it was that hard a question. Thanks.
        http://www.glynn.k12.ga.us/BHS/academics/junior/hunt/chloem10116/whites-only.gif

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 2, 2014 at 6:21 pm

          Actually, liar, the point is so well-taken that the courts had to wire around the idea of “forced association”.

          As you should know.

          The rationale adopted was that anyone operating a business in “interstate commerce” came under a special class of law as a “public accommodation”. This both made some horse sense (as a foreign traveler from another state could literally starve to death without finding accommodation or die of exposure) and some legal sense under the “Commerce Clause”.

          The rationalization used by the courts of the time was that such businesses “volunteered” for their special status by going into their operation in the first place.

          Now, that is really hard to square with baking a wedding cake or photographing a “gay wedding”.

          Innit?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend