Liberal Forum

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:35 pm » wrote: Google it like the rest of us do or not. Your choice. Not a huge block of my argument here, to be honest.

You made the claim. I'm not surprised that you refuse to support it though.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:35 pm » wrote: So if you believe they didn't base their case on religious grounds, what is your opinion of why they objected to it?

They DID base it on religious grounds but they did NOT argue 1st Amendment infringement. As I already explained, and linked for proof, they based their argument on the 1993 Democrat Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:35 pm » wrote: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?

It had been implemented. Had it not, they would not have had standing to sue.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:35 pm » wrote:Are you having difficulty answering my question without twisting yourself in knots, goof?

Of course not. I'm having too much fun kicking your *** and correcting your blatant misstatements.