=detbuch;1037743
And that is the real question here. That is why Jim keeps bringing up the Constitution rather than personal opinion of right and wrong. The problem began here, not with HL owners desire to refuse the providing of certain insurance, but with the government mandating that they must.
If we grant the Federal Government the power to mandate that we buy a particular product or be penalized if we don't, then we give it the precedent to do so with any product. If we do so, we give the government absolute power over our lives. That is, ultimately, what the passage of the ACA, and resistance to it, is about.[/QUOTE]
seems to be the preferred mode of argument "personal opinion" for the likely more educated and holders of superior judgment crowd..."it would appear based on what I've read(at Mother Jones)" are paramount... Constitutional questions completely ignored...
this was great...
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Just my opinion but scott is off base.
The views seem to be " practice your religion, but dont put your values on someone else. Don't discriminate someone else, etc.
The law is the law.
If an employee at AC Moore or Michaels crafts is being provided birth control, hobby lobby employees should as well.
Seems pretty simple ? No?[QUOTE
simple...no...maybe..which law? (the one which Obama seems to change continually as he sees fit in true "law is the law" fashion) can we substitute "birth control" with other things and have the simple "law is the law" still apply ?? if we included(mandated) and/or AC Moore and Michaels offered more mandated drugs and surgeries and treatments that Hobby Lobby could then be forced to provide because the "law is the law" we might actually be able to make "these people", the Hobby Lobby employees and their offspring more acceptable to Piscator through the miracles of modern medicine....geez...no wonder healthcare is so expensive....simple...no??? probably "off base"...I know....
