22 Jul 2014 5:22 pm
Thank you for supporting my point, golfboy. I wouldn't have expected it from you.golfboy » 22 Jul 2014 5:00 pm » wrote: 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?
Of course, they wouldn't have needed to "step outside of the case" if the case had been presented in opposition to mandatory employer coverage instead of corporate religious rights.
Do you support mandatory employer coverage? It would appear you do, as you seem to be in disagreement with all my posts against it.