Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
Hobby Lobby does cover contraception. And tubal ligation. There is no hypocrisy at all regarding vasectomies. Anyone who imagines "odious hypocrisy" where there is none, or who lies about it to fool others who are too ill-informed to make their own opinions is certainly worthy of being called out.

No one said common birth control is an abortifacient, and now I am forced to believe you aren't even reading the plain English in front of you. I really think you need to actually do some research instead of going to partisan political sites and gobbling up propaganda then repeating it in forums interested in intelligent discussions. Your blurb above has literally nothing to do with Hobby Lobby case. Nothing.

Oh look! A vapid retort that does not in any way address any argument. Just a bunch of empty words and a few impotent insults at the end. Do you know how ignorant and senseless you just made yourself sound?

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about as this response obviously fails two separate ways.

I already addressed why vasectomies and Viagra are not in any way, shape or form abortifacients. So fail #1 for you.

And of course, I already addressed why demanding that someone subsidize your bedroom activities precludes you from accusing them of entering your bedroom uninvited. So fail #2 for you.

You are right about the Constitution not giving people the right to force their beliefs on others, unfortunately for you, there is no instance of that occurring here. Not in the least. The Constitution established a protection for religion from government interference. That is what we are talking about here, a relationship between the government and the people (the Green family), the employees are entirely irrelevant to the Constitutional/RFRA argument here.

As much as this might surprise you, I am an atheist, though not a cartoonish militant one like many others. I was not raised in a religious household and have been to a church maybe four times in my life (when staying with friend as a child, couple of weddings and a baptism). But unlike you and a depressing percentage of others, I am able to view logical and legal arguments/issues on their merits, without willingly ignoring facts, laws or realities that are inconvenient to my desired outcome. And this case is as obvious as it gets, as long as one uses the law, the RFRA, and not their own personal desires, to decide the case.

Again, you are acting as if the judges were just sitting there and deciding the case based on their desires of the end results, instead of judging the case using facts, logic and the relevant laws of the land (RFRA). I realize that disgraceful leftist justices are prone to do exactly that, but expecting all the justices to be disgraceful is your problem, not the problem of the justices you are complaining about.

No one was imposed on at all, except Hobby Lobby being imposed on by the government (until the court overturned the illegal imposition). You do not have a "right" to have a third party give you something. And the government is not unlimited in its ability to demand a citizen pay for (or do) something.

Read the last paragraph as many times as necessary to absorb what it says.

Nope, the morons are still the ones that swallow arguments claiming that undoing a mandate first enforced in 2012 suddenly makes us go back not to 2011, but 50 years further. But considering your obvious confusion about this case, from soup to nuts, I am not surprised in the least that you arrived at the wrong conclusion here as well.

And a whole lot of nothing to finish off the flailing.

No inconsistent logic (except coming from you), no slippery slop concerning the RFRA (or no slipperier than any other decision that requires strict scrutiny), and yep War On Women is an absurd meme meant to influence dimbulbs (note: I am not saying that the meme is not effective, as the country has plenty of dimbulbs) .