Liberal Forum

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 4:38 pm » wrote: 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.

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 for making my point.

As mandatory employer coverage was not at issue, she had no basis for dissent or support and voiced none in her opinion

I was referring to when that first came before the court.

It's the first time in US history that Americans must buy a product or service by force of federal law under penalty of fine or imprisonment.

That's a stunning expansion of federal power.