Supreme Court hearing Hobby Lobby v Obamacare

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Because they are forcing their values on their employees and are in turn removing the choices that they can make. simple.

If you asked me to give you $15,000 dollars and I refused to do so, would I be "forcing" my values on you and removing choices you can make?

Are the employees of HL so totally dependent on the company that it determines the values they live by and the choices they make?

If the government "forces" LH to give you something and it refuses to do so, what value has LH "forced" on you and what choices has LH removed from you?

Does LH have any say in the matter? Or is it only about what the employees want or what the government wants?

Should LH even exist as a private entity, or should it merely be a government mandated service to employees and customers?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Does LH have any say in the matter? Or is it only about what the employees want or what the government wants?

Should LH even exist as a private entity, or should it merely be a government mandated service to employees and customers?

remarkable how this "forcing values" on others is such a one way street with some

“Everything not forbidden is compulsory,” or will be soon enough under our “liberal” regime.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/374115/print

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

remarkable how this "forcing values" on others is such a one way street with some

“Everything not forbidden is compulsory,” or will be soon enough under our “liberal” regime.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/374115/print

Yes, another beautifully written article. As well as pointing out the Orwellian transformation, it calls to mind how over time, as was pointed out in an older post, we have had an attitude adjustment which reverses what our grandparents understood, that the government was our servant, and we the masters. It used to be understood that what was forbidden was government intrusion beyond what the sovereign People consented to. What was compulsory was the government's duty to act only within the limitations the People granted to it. Now, we have been conditioned to automatically assume what is forbidden is not applied to government action, but is restriction government imposes on us. And what is compulsory now is not what the government is limited to do, but what We The People are required by government to do. As you have often said, it's upside down. The author traces the path to reversal eloquently in a logical way. The Article is another well-crafted, rational, creative, open minded piece that "conservatives" are not reputed, by some here, to be capable of. It, seems, as Jim in CT likes to say, irrefutable. So will probably elicit the "crickets" Nebe thought would be the response to his screechy "liberal" hit piece article.