Liberal Forum

Yes, Hobby Lobby was under obligation to do so, and contrary to your claims, they did not base their objection on a 1st amendment argument. They successfully argued the 1993 Democrat RFRA law. BTW, I'm still waiting to hear who it was that called Ginsburg the "voice of reason". You still got no...

Yet Hobby Lobby challenged it on a religious objection to covering abortifacients, despite the fact that they were not yet under any coverage obligation at all. From my perspective, if they were going to object to an aspect of it that had not yet been implemented, why couldn't they have objected to...

Then why wasn't THAT issue brought before the Supreme Court? This was a decision ruled on for its 1st amendment merits, not on the merits of commerce. If you don't understand the difference, just say so....

Can't be challenged until it's been implemented.....you can't take a perceived future violation of your rights to the supreme court....

Why? That wasn't being challenged in the case the S.C. heard. You want them to step outside the case and rule on issues not being challenged now?...

Which is an obvious falsehood. No one was preventing women from buying birth control. No women's rights were being violated. The issue was over whether individuals running small corporations could be coerced into buying something for employees, that grossly violated their religious beliefs. Thanks...

So, as always, when you make a moronic claim like this, you can't back it up when challenged. If you had any pride, you'd slink away from here in shame....

Except that the issue over the constitutionaliity of mandatory employer coverage was never in contention during the Hobby Lobby ruling. Her dissenting opinion had to do with the religious rights of employers superseding the rights of women. As mandatory employer coverage was not at issue, she had no...

Except that Ginsberg supported mandatory employer coverage, so she's less thoughtful than you claim....

I would have approved of the Hobby Lobby decision if they'd taken the fight a step further by going for a ruling against mandatory employer coverage. I'm way ahead of you, child....