How Hobby Lobby Undermines All Americans' Freedoms (They're flipping their lids)

Lincoln Mitchell blog ^ | July 6, 2014 | Lincoln Mitchell

[scrabblehack]

The left wants “zero tolerance” for sexual harassment too.
If the boss is sleeping around with the hired help, the other employees have a claim for damages. (I attended a training class some years ago where the trainer made this very point.)

[sten]

not paying for something is RADICALLY different from denying it

if you want to kill your kids, you have the ability in the US.

just stop expecting someone else to pay for it

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!

[twyn1]

The left wants “zero tolerance” for sexual harassment too.

Unless, of course, the boss happens to be the fabulous Bill Clinton, eh? *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*?

[mountn man]

We can email this genius here: lincoln@lincolnmitchell.com - and tell him how brilliant he is.

Or you can go to the blog site and publicly humiliate him in the comments section.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”The Hobby Lobby ruling may at first seem like a victory for the minority of Americans who think that both abortion and contraception should be illegal, and for those who believe that the US should operate more as a theocracy than a country where state and church are separate. However, the ruling not only is terrible news for women seeking a guarantee of good healthcare through their employer, but also for anybody who believes in personal freedom. “

Pretty entertaining, but the libs on MSNBC are really talking this way.

You would think that Hobby Lobby had a rule that employees cannot use BC at all, from the words the libs use.

[IronJack]

Contraception is not health care.

Abortion is not health care.

[Shadowstrike]

This decision raises the question of whether the Supreme Court will next rule that employers can tell workers how to spend the money they earn at their jobs.

They already ruled on that, it's called the IRS, AND Obamacare

[Captainpaintball]

Wouldn't it be safe to say:

From 1787-2009: If you did NOT want to provide abortifacients in your health care plan, you did not have to.

Then in 2009, 0-care stuck its nose into private affairs and then, for the FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY, the government could FORCE employers and hospitals to do things that went against their religion.

Am I correct, Or am I missing something?

[The_Reader_David]

As one of the writers at NRO noted, the notion that not providing a subsidy for the purchase of a product is equivalent to banning the product is one of the more curious tenets of contemporary liberalism.

[terycarl]

they denied the women nothing.....is is readily available....they just don’t want to pay for drugs to kill children.

[informavoracious]

Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is not health care.

ABORTION IS NOT HEALTH CARE.

[Steve_Seattle]

"This whole idea that government or corporations have to pay for every product or service under the sun is insane."

It is utterly insane, yet it is the firm belief of most of the "knowledge class," including most major news outlets. My local newspaper compared the ownership of Hobby Lobby to the Taliban. And this is considered "mainstream" opinion.

[Steve_Seattle]

"From 1787-2009: If you did NOT want to provide abortifacients in your health care plan, you did not have to."

You did not have to provide ANY health care, which is why it was called a "benefit" when it was offered.

[jsanders2001]

HL, let the babies shriek themselves to death. That’s how you handle babies and spoiled brats and that’s exactly what they are. You poll the shriekers and I bet you find many of them have never worked a day in their life or have been out of work for over a year or more...

[Steve_Seattle]

"The Hobby Lobby ruling may at first seem like a victory for the minority of Americans who think that both abortion and contraception should be illegal, and for those who believe that the US should operate more as a theocracy than a country where state and church are separate."

Various observations:

1. Some people oppose abortion but not birth control.

2. Some people support both legal abortion and birth control, but do not want to be required to pay for others' access to them.

3. Some people support legal abortion and birth control, but believe that whether they (or other specific services) should be included in a private health care plan is none of the federal government's business.

4. Opposing abortion is not tantamount to supporting a "theocracy." There are some atheists and agnostics who oppose some or all abortions.

5. The freedom of an individual or business not to pay for something it morally opposes is not equivalent to theocracy.

6. Allowing freedom of conscience in matters of life ethics or sexual ethics is actually the opposite of a theocracy, in which only one view is allowed and in which adherence to a specific religion is mandated..

[MarkL]

You know, since I have the right to "freedom of the press," does my employer have to provide me with a computer, and free Internet service?

Mark

[Nifster]

It would be funny but with the Dictator inChief using his pen it will probably happen before Hilary ever wins a nomination.

[Nifster]

Precisely

[Nifster]

And the Dictator on Chief continues to commit treason and congress does nothing