Boycotting a store at which you don’t shop makes about as much sense as complaining about a SCOTUS ruling that exists only in your imagination. Clearly, getting a verified Twitter account is way easier than getting a clue.
Backbench celebrities and pundits are crawling out of the woodwork to make what they must believe are very wise and witty statements about the Hobby Lobby ruling.
A lot of circumstances “shape” medical decisions, but the only coercion here was a government coercing Hobby Lobby. Nobody is coerced to work for them or for any other “closely held” company, and nobody has been forbidden from—heaven forbid—using their own money to pay for options not covered by their insurance.
Why is it “reasonable” to assume that employers are morally obligated to shop for personal services for their employees? “Reasonable” would be paying people for their work with money and letting them make their own decisions on how to spend it.
Derp. Maybe you didn’t notice but the case was about the government butting into religion, not the other way around.
Anyone know if Elayne is a drinker? Seriously.
Some people aren’t even pretending to understand what the case was about.
Person miseducated about the Hobby Lobby case condemns miseducation about birth control.
Name one religious precept imposed by Hobby Lobby. You can’t, Chucky.
Sorry, Cenk. You didn’t build that. People don’t lose their religious liberty just because they hire someone for a job.
Employer provided insurance is nothing but an unintended consequence of past progressive assclownery like wage and price controls. Remaining hidebound to it to the degree you start trampling religious freedom is not rational in the least. Rational insurance practice is the insurance customer finding their own insurance provider–as happens when someone insures their home, their car, their business, etc.
Deliver us from what liberals deem “rational.”