I screwed with the lib yesterday by starting off our discussion about hobby lobby saying this:
“If only the Hobby Lobby issue was Hobby Lobby not wanting to pay for abortion drugs and still providing birth control pills as an alternative I could actually support their position”
I went on about this point being the best “Reaching across the isle compromise” and could barely hold it in while the idiot lib agreed with me saying that it would be a “Good Compromise” instead of supposedly denying access to all birth control.
Then I brought up the truth that the Hobby lobby case WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT not wanting to pay for abortion drugs and that they do provide birth control pills in their insurance policy.
Lib didn’t know what to say after they realized they agreed with Hobby Lobby....
If Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to pay foe abortions why must individuals have to pay for them if they don’t need nor want them? I know the muhammadians have been exempted from the get go.
Will they listen?
Being in the same boat, I don’t see why you’d think it strange. Logic is logic vs. 1st Amendment.
I still find it hard to see how we can, since ~1913, have re-instituted slavery (IE: one working for the benefit of another): income tax (EITC, probates, non-taxpayers), and, in this instance, 3rd parties (employers) being on the hook for an employees health-care costs (benefits)....let alone all the other conflicting ‘laws’ vs. Amendments vs. 9th/10th (but that’s just the ‘wacky’ (L) in me I guess).
I’d still give me left n*t (figuratively) to hear some talking head, during an election cycle, ask the ‘guests’ ‘At what % of $$ confiscation do you consider it slavery’
Understand that the underlying and fundamental principle of so-called “liberalism” is anti-christianity.
So, they may say they’re for “religious freedom” (thus Clinton passing that act in 1993), but what they really mean by “religious freedom” is “anything but Christian”.