22 Jul 2014 5:35 pm
Google it like the rest of us do or not. Your choice. Not a huge block of my argument here, to be honest.golfboy » 22 Jul 2014 5:13 pm » wrote: 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 nothing?
So if you believe they didn't base their case on religious grounds, what is your opinion of why they objected to it?
Yes, Hobby Lobby was under obligation to do so
Obligated to do so, why? If it had not been implemented yet, what prevented them from disputing the entire premise, rather than just an aspect of it?
Are you having difficulty answering my question without twisting yourself in knots, goof?
