Liberal Forum

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

ACA made birth control mandatory with no co-pay on any health insurance policy sold after August 2012........

Google it like the rest of us do or not. Your choice. Not a huge block of my argument here, to be honest. 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...

Show me a capitalist country cannon. There hasn't been one since Jackson was president....

Thank you for supporting my point, golfboy. I wouldn't have expected it from you. 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...

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 no...

Yet Hobby Lobby challenged it on a religious objection to covering abortifacients, despite the fact that they were not yet under any coverage obligation at all. From my perspective, if they were going to object to an aspect of it that had not yet been implemented, why couldn't they have objected to...

Then why wasn't THAT issue brought before the Supreme Court? This was a decision ruled on for its 1st amendment merits, not on the merits of commerce. If you don't understand the difference, just say so....

Can't be challenged until it's been implemented.....you can't take a perceived future violation of your rights to the supreme court....

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?...