Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby: Christian company makes video explaining what’s at stake

While waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its challenge of the government contraceptives mandate, the family behind the Hobby Lobby Stores has made a video to explain its position.

Forty-four years after family patriarch David Green started the company by selling picture frames made in his garage, Hobby Lobby now employees more than 22,000 workers in 500 stores in 41 states, according to the video.

The company was built on biblical principles and Christian family values, Hobby Lobby employee Mandi Broadfoot says in the video. When the Health and Human Services Department mandated that employee health plans include coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, the Greens felt compelled to defend their religious liberties.

In a statement on HobbyLobbyCase.com, David Green said:

My family and I are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide our case. This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only:  the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.

The Greens have agreed to provide 16 of the 20 Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives required under the  mandate and “do so at no additional cost to employees under their self-insured health plan,” according to the website.

The Supreme Court announced it will hear oral arguments in the case at 10 a.m. on March 25, to “address the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of individuals to operate a family business without violating their faith,” according to The Becket Fund.

Watch the video here:

H/T: Young Conservatives

‘Best Super Bowl ad of all time’ celebrates 30-year anniversary

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek has been a political consultant handling public affairs, political campaigns and PAC management for nearly 20 years.
From Around The Web
About Cheryl Carpenter Klimek

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek has been a political consultant handling public affairs, political campaigns and PAC management for nearly 20 years.

  • Hargraves Ian

    iF THEY WERE A MUSLIM OWNED COMPANY EVERY DISPENSATION WOULD BE GIVEN TO THEM, OBAMA AND SEBELIOUS ARE PICKING ON CHRISTIANS, NEXT THEY WILL BE FORCING CHICK-FILET TO OPEN ON SUNDAYS SO MUSLIMS CAN FILL THEIR UGLY FACES OR MAKE PRIVATE BAKERIES TO MAKE WEDDING CAKES FOR FAGGOTS!

    • Scott McCay

      Well said.

      • Ronald Roth

        LOL ^^^ Morons. Really? Do you really believe what you are saying? If you do, put a bullet in your head and let the intelligent people chat.

        • AmyB123

          Really? Can you even imagine a law requiring muslim business to provide pork to their employees? Then why is it acceptable to require a christian business provide abortion inducing drugs? Exact same concept. While the above may not have been tactful, the point is the government should not be mandating who a business is required to serve or what benefits (yes, they are benefits NOT entitlements) a business provides its employees. If you want birth control and/or abortion inducing drugs you probably shouldn’t be applying to christian based companies for employment.

          • Default Ideology

            Your argument is a non-inquisitor. You’re not helping the debate. If “pork” was considered medication as part of a health care plan, then the law would require Muslim business owners to accept the mandate. The Government mandates all sorts of things on businesses, it’s just the way it is. If Hobby Lobby openly discriminated against gays or women, elderly, or atheists, with regard to hiring practices, then they would be in hot water, as that type of discrimination is illegal. Is that not a “government mandate?” “Christian Based Companies,” probably should get out of business if they don’t like the law. Hobby Lobby is challenging the law, since it is their right to do so. SCOTUS will iron it out. Then we all will follow the law, whatever it may be..

          • James Graham

            Don’t know what a “non-inquisitor” is, but if you meant “non sequitur” I would disagree. The point is to show the hypocrisy toward forcing “laws” on those with whom they disagree, either ideologically or politically (or both). The “argument” is a _hypothetical_, … you know, that big fancy word that the lapdog media enjoyed using so many years ago because it made them look…. um ….. super-duper-smartified and that they knew what they were talking about.

            And this is one of the times when hypotheticals are legitimately used.
            AmyB’s argument is quite legitimate.

            BTW: your statement that “…SCOTUS will iron it out. Then we all will follow the law, whatever it may be..” IS a “non-sequitur. It’s a deliberately loaded statement. Keywords showing that it’s loaded: “we all will” and “whatever”.

            If you don’t like AmyB’s use of “pork” as a hypothetical, I’m certain that a better analogy can be made by using something other than “port”. The point is the same, regardless.

          • Default Ideology

            Yes, my mistake on “non-inquisitor” I’m just not paying attention… I still say that the argument isn’t valid since “pork” is not within the scope of health care. The point is not the same. We just disagree on that. Yes, Hobby Lobby should get out of business if they have to follow a law that they fundamentally disagree with. There are literally thousands of laws that non-religious businesses have to follow. Muslim owned companies (non-religious) can not legally discriminate against woman for example. If the health care law stands, Hobby Lobby WILL have to make a decision regarding if they want to stay in business. My guess is that they will stay in business, since i’m sure money is more important to them than their religious beliefs. And yes, SCOTUS has the final say in regards to the law.

          • James Graham

            Default Ideology: “And yes, SCOTUS has the final say in regards to the law.”

            Um, I beg to differ. If SCOTUS truly has the “final say”, then SCOTUS cannot be subject to the Constitution. But it was and is intended to be under the same Constitutional limitations and separation of powers as all other branches. If SCOTUS is the final say, then SCOTUS is above the law…ie it sets itself to be above the law (the Constitution). Nice tautology….but it’s not true. The Constitution has the final say.

          • freedomringsforall

            LMAO
            not at you but Default Ideology.
            maybe you should have just said
            yes I can see you aren’t paying attention.
            Gotta love the handle too:]
            Default Ideology
            wow
            ya think he kinda opens himself up with that one
            gotta be a bunch jokes there

          • Default Ideology

            James, you can beg to differ all you want. That’s fine. In a strange way SCOTUS is “above the law” as they are the ones that make interpretations and clarifications of the constitution as well as numerous other laws. I remember somewhere in my history education, there were some founding fathers that didn’t like SCOTUS for this very reason.

          • AmyB123

            Abortion is not a health mandate. It is a choice. No one is saying they wish to withhold medication that is mandatory. Perhaps a different analogy would suit your purposes better. In NYS it is not allowable to wear a baseball cap when having your drivers license photo taken. Should Muslim women be required to remove their burkas? I mean it is the law right? The answer is no. They make an exception due to religious beliefs. Exactly as an exception should be made for christian based companies when it comes to abortion pills. You can’t have it both ways. Either everyone follows every law or religious exceptions are good for all faiths, not just a select few.

          • rhonan

            They are not being told to provide abortions. They are being told to provide birth control. They are making a claim that certain forms of birth control,by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus, are no different than an abortion. What is worse, they are refusing to cover these drugs even when the reason they are being prescribed is not for contraception.

          • AmyB123

            Maybe you should listen to the video. I did. They are not objecting to offering preventative birth control. They are objecting to providing the morning after pill. That pill prevents an already fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Catholics believe life begins at conception – the fertilized egg.

          • Pamela K. Cahoon Laub

            They do pay for birth control, just not abortion inducing pills.

          • Default Ideology

            Health care is not the same as fashion, or garments worn by religious people. I disagree with the term “abortion pill.” Call it what you like but we disagree on terminology. An “abortion” a slang word that describes a medical procedure.

          • AmyB123

            Then 20,000 jobs will hang in the balance. What about the order of nuns? Should they too be required to provide the morning after pill to their employees? That pill is designed to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Separating a fetus from the uterus is an abortion. You can call a pig’s ear silk if you want to but it’s still a pig’s ear.

          • Default Ideology

            If Hobby Lobby closes their doors then they are closing their doors on 20,000+ people that need a job. They are doing it because of a religious reason. That decision will be theirs to make if they so choose. The law doesn’t force Hobby Lobby to actually provide this “abortion” pill. Its part of a provision of health care that the employee has an option to use. That use of that pill would be between that employee and their god. Hobby Lobby should stay out of their employees religious convictions. In a way, if Hobby Lobby wins, Hobby Lobby will be forcing their religious views potentially on non-religious employees. Or maybe employees that are the same religion but view the matter differently than Hobby Lobby. So… I suppose that you think that Hobby Lobby can impose their religious convictions on all of their female employees? This is one of the points that SCOTUS will have to decide.

          • AmyB123

            I believe as the owner of a business I have the right to choose what benefits I will provide to my employees. I believe if it conflicts with my religious beliefs the government should not attempt to force me to do so. Individuals are not required or forced to work for Hobby Lobby – if you don’t like what they offer, don’t apply there. No one is forcing people to request work there. Just as no one should force an employer to disregard their beliefs. And in case this escaped notice, this law does not represent the desire of a majority of this nation. It was forced upon us without a single conservative vote and is being altered daily via executive privilege in a manner that can only be described as an abuse of power.

          • Default Ideology

            AmyB, first, thank you for an intelligent conversation on this matter. Please let me offer you this scenario (Thought Experiment). Jehovah’s Witnesses sincerely oppose blood transfusions. It is a core tenant of their religious belief system. Scientifically, and practically, blood transfusions save countless lives every day. Yet Jehovah’s Witnesses (Religious People) state this goes against gods law. What if a big grocery chain were owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they opposed the provision in any health care law that covers blood transfusions. They aren’t saying their employees can’t have blood transfusions, they are just saying they don’t want to be part of an insurance system where they (Jehovah’s Witnesses) are contributing to blood transfusions. Are you saying they should have a right to refuse that coverage to their employees? Blood transfusions are extremely expensive. Should we be allowing this denial of insurance coverage in the name of religion? By the way, Jehovah’s Witness business owners actually have to provide insurance that covers blood transfusions. Are you saying that this mandate is overboard?

            There are may millions of people that disagree with Hobby Lobby, I would estimate at least half the country, but I have nothing to substantiate that. This issue is going before SCOTUS as it should. I believe in Hobby Lobby’s right to contest the law. But once SCOTUS makes a decision, that’s it.

            People all over this board are saying that the executive branch is illegally modifying the law. Yet no one has showed where it is illegal. People say it’s illegal, it’s not. Provisional changes happen all the time, even when a republican is president. Its just the way it is. You can call it an abuse of power, but both sides do it. It’s not illegal.

          • AmyB123

            Thank you for the compliment. However, I doubt you will agree with my opinion. We live in a free society. As the owner of a business, I am free to offer my employee what I choose to as a benefit. As an employee, I am free to choose where I will apply to work. With that being said, should a person who is a Jehovah’s witness own a company, he should be able to adhere to his religious beliefs while offering BENEFITS to employees. I wrote benefits in all caps purposefully. Because what is getting lost here is the fact that health insurance is a BENEFIT provided to an employee. Not a RIGHT.

            Those who disagree with Hobby Lobby have just as much right to their opinion as the owners have to theirs. They do not; however, have the right to force the owners of Hobby Lobby to back down and comply with their opinion.

            I am a corporate legal assistant and have read this law. And yes, handing out exemptions is directly contradictory to provisions in this law. I do not have the time to go back and cite the exact chapter, but it is there. And ANY decision to do with funding this law must pass through the House of Representatives on the basic tenant of the separation of powers (purse strings) so use of Executive Privilege in that instance flies in the face of the very checks and balances our Constitution provides.

            You may say half of the nation approves of this mess, but that is in and of itself a concession that half of this nation abhors it. What makes your half more important? Particularly when in reality it is probably the half that abhors it that will wind up paying for it.

          • Default Ideology

            Amy, if we agreed wouldn’t that be boring?

            I don’t have to agree with you to have a decent conversation. There’s a chance I may learn something.

            With regards to the executive exemptions, the republicans of the House, should jump all over that with legal court action if it really is illegal. Because if they don’t, then something fishy is going on with them too. That’s all I can really say about that.

            With regards to AHCA, SCOTUS already decided that the health care act is constitutional. It’s the law. I know you emphasized on the word “benefit.” But we don’t live in that world any more. Health care coverage isn’t really optional (without penalties). The AHCA law is here, so, in theory you can stop calling it a benefit. It’s a law just like the minimum wage. Employees have a right to a minimum wage AND health care.

            With regard to JWs. You side stepped my question. What I am curious about is if YOU think that JWs should be able to restrict the payment of blood transfusion through the insurance provision for all of their employees? In other words do you think JW’s need to abide by their religion outweigh the employees potential need for a life saving procedure. This is a simple yes or no answer.

            No one’s half is more important. When two groups disagree, sometimes SCOTUS steps in. Neither side may like their decision.

            With regards to who will “wind up paying for it?” We all pay for it. Unless you are saying that independents (like myself) and all democrats don’t pay taxes. Which if you are, that seems quite strange to me.

          • AmyB123

            Absolutely boring if everyone agreed ;)

            I don’t recall saying I believed any politician was trustworthy ;)

            More specifically, SCOTUS deemed this a constitutional as a tax. IMO that was a deflection of it’s many flaws. And let’s remember that SCOTUS is now a left leaning ship. And no, I do not have to stop calling it a benefit – it still is. There is no requirement to provide health care to employees. There is only a requirement that all individuals have health care or be penalized. You will see a major shift to part-time employment. Businesses are dropping health insurance for employees like a hot potato.

            I don’t think I side stepped it at all. If JW’s want to abide by their religion I believe it is their absolute right. If I need blood transfusion I as an individual should be savvy enough not to apply for a job where the owners do not offer that benefit in their health care package. It’s a little thing called personal responsibility. Sorely lacking these days.

            You and I view SCOTUS differently. I do not see them as the impartial body they are supposed to be.

            Let’s be serious here. The middle class is going to take a major beating on this. The majority of the Dem base is the group that is going to score big on subsidies. Reality check, someone has to pay a lot more they ever did before to fund those subsidies and it won’t be the gimme some more government goodies crowd. It will be the double income two kids crew and to be frank, this administration has already bent the DITK crew over so far without so much as dinner and a drink this is going to create a whole new financial crisis.

          • Default Ideology

            Okay lets look at what we agree on:

            1. It would be boring if we agree
            2. There are politicians that are untrustworthy
            3 AHCA is a tax. (Anything the govt requires its citizens to pay is a tax no matte what they call it.)
            4. SCOTUS is “left” leaning. But to be clear, 5 were appointed by Republican Presidents, 4 were appointed by Democrats.
            5. SCOTUS isn’t impartial.
            6. The middle class is going to pay for this. Here is a little hint… THE MIDDLE CLASS ALWAYS PAYS FOR IT! It doesn’t matter who is in the President’s seat… :-)

            To get back on track. This is what I think. No one’s religion should superseded anyone else’s right under the law. AHCA is the law whether we like it or not. This law came into effect WHILE Hobby Lobby employed 20k people. Not BEFORE they employed them. I’ll bet there are numerous people that would like the coverage that the law mandates. Hobby Lobby disagrees, they are taking it to SCOTUS. SCOTUS will decide. How’s that?

          • AmyB123

            I am good on 1-6. :D

            AHCA mandates every individual be insured. It does not mandate employers to provide it. So even if SCOTUS does not exempt them from providing the day after pill, Hobby Lobby can simply move all of their employees to part-time or simply shut theirs doors. I still feel strongly that the government has no right to force a christian to go against their religion by providing what is considered an abortion pill and can provide numerous examples of how other religions receive exemptions to provisions that conflict with their views.

            I stand firm on if you don’t like what the employer offers find another employer.

          • Default Ideology

            Help me out on one point. You say that AHCA doesn’t “mandate” employers to provide health care coverage. I’m not clear on that. If an employer meets a particular threshold of employee ratio and full time status, is it not a “mandate” that their full time employees be covered? I say “mandate” otherwise they get fined or penalized if they don’t.

          • AmyB123

            But if an employer does not have X number of full time employees they are not required. It would be naive to believe that any company with the ability to manipulate those numbers of full time employees would take an enormous financial hit instead of simply cutting some hours.

            And when that happens the US economy is going to take a major hit and become something we no longer recognize. And for what? What has this actually accomplished? At the end of the day this is going to prove to be a dismal failure.

          • Default Ideology

            Okay, so under certain conditions, the law requires, (mandates) that an employer provide health care. That’s what I thought. BTW Walmart is already playing that game, and has been for years.

            I disagree on your analysis of the US economy.

            This is what I think the law will accomplish: Prior to AHCA, there were numerous people creating a burden on taxpayers. They choose not to get health insurance. I don’t have a problem with that, but if they break a leg, or need an emergency appendectomy, they shouldn’t be treated at the hospital. Right? How can these Americans exercise their freedom by choosing not to cover themselves, then expect the tax payer to pay their medical bills? Many of these Republican Americans are complaining about being forced to get insurance, yet they expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab when they need an operation. Sounds like they think they are entitled to something doesn’t it?

            Should we just let them die? The law prevents hospitals from doing that. So… Who ultimately ends up paying the bill? The taxpayer (read – middle class taxpayer). What about children of people that “choose” not to have health coverage? Who pays for their illness and injuries? The middle class tax payer. Or should we let children suffer and die because their parents exercised their freedom to choose not to get health coverage?

            I believe in personal responsibility. That means everyone needs to get health coverage regardless if its from their employer or out of their own pocket.. People need to stop mooching off the government. Democrats and Republicans alike.

          • AmyB123

            While you have every right to disagree with my assessment of the economy, the statistics back me up. Of jobs created, the majority are part time. Part time jobs do not support households. Businesses are not just going to absorb the costs of this mess – they will pass that down the chain, fewer jobs, part time jobs, raised prices for goods. So now you have a part time job and goods cost you more.

            You do realize that there exponentially more people who were insured and lost it than there are people who were uninsured and obtained it, right? You do also understand that the so called numbers of sign ups are artificially inflated with people who have not paid, right? You do realize that premiums and deductibles grow exponentially under this so called “Affordable” care act and actual coverage takes a beating, right? This is not health insurance. It is a thinly vieled tax to force the people who actually had health insurance to pay for the welfare class yet again. You don’t really believe this helps the elderly do you? Because as a caretaker to an aging parent I can dispel that myth for you. You don’t actually believe healthy young people are going to pay $800+ per month for a “health” plan that has a $6000 deductible do you?

            This new “law” the Democrats have shoved down our throats is a joke. If you try to do the right thing and get “coverage” you will still have to come out of pocket $10,000/yr plus before it covers anything. So at the end of the day the number of uninsured Americans is going to skyrocket.

            But hey, the Obamaphone crew will have a new toy to play with and will come out to the polls in droves to make sure the gifts keep on coming.

            Until they run out of other peoples money anyway.

          • Default Ideology

            Amy, you have made a lot of claims, with zero evidence. The claim of an exponentially more number of insured people that lost insurance than have signed up is completely baseless unless you site a credible source.

            I don’t know how well the AHCA will do, since I understand that too many freeloaders will think its better to not sign up, and force taxpayers like you and I, to pay for their medical bills. The money has to come from somewhere.

            I’m glad the freeloaders are now being forced to pay like I pay. I pay for health insurance, I pull my own weight, everyone else should too.

          • DianaG2

            ” . . . on the basic tenant . . .”

            Basic tenet, not basic tenant.

          • DianaG2

            I think you mean to say, “core tenet,” not “core tenant.”

          • Josef Roesler

            You seem to be of the mistaken belief that because something is a law, it is right. Osamacare is a fine example of your error in thinking.

            If the law is right, was does Osama make illegal changes to it almost on a daily basis?

          • Pamela K. Cahoon Laub

            People forget that prohibition was a law, too. It was overturned.

          • Default Ideology

            Right or wrong is irrelevant. I know it isn’t irrelevant to you, but that’s just the way it is. I don’t have a problem with the law. I think it’s just fine. But I’m not a religious guy. And just because religious people say the law is wrong, doesn’t mean the law is really wrong. This is a disagreement. This is why SCOTUS is now going to have final say. That’s just how this country works.

          • Josef Roesler

            Maybe when you get to high school, you can take a civics class and learn that the Constitution prevents the government from forcing people to do things against their religion. Maybe then you’ll understand how this is not just a disagreement, but a Constitutional violation.

          • Default Ideology

            Josef… please go sit at the kids table, the adults are having a conversation.

            Constitutional Law is taught in grade school. You must have forgot. Sebelius is saying that Hobby Lobby is violating the 14th amendment. That challenge will be reviewed by SCOTUS. The government forces all kinds of things on religion. Just try and sacrifice a goat in your front yard and see what happens. What, your religion says you should be able to do that?

          • Josef Roesler

            You find my comment immature, but you originally replied to me with “Josef… please go sit at the kids table, the adults are having a conversation.” and then you changed it to what’s showing now. Hypocrite.

            The difference in your example is that I can’t go killing goats in the name of religion, but what is relevant is that the government is prohibited by the Constitution from telling me I HAVE to do certain things against my religion, such as pay for the killing of babies. Telling me I can’t do something is nothing compared to telling me I HAVE to do something. Grow up.

            Maybe you need to go sit at the kid’s table.

          • Default Ideology

            I’m trying to have a decent conversation with you. Yes I originally posted that you should sit at the kids table. It was a response you your original jab. I realized it was wrong and I modified it. You can call me a hypocrite, however I did modify my comment for permanency. I apologize for my original words.

            I noticed you avoided my Jehovahs Witness comment: Do you believe they have the right to refuse blood transfusions to their employees? Isn’t refusing blood transfusion insurance coverage the same as killing babies, since, after all, some babies need blood transfusions? Please enlighten me. To Jehova’s Witnesses Blood Transfusions is a major religious element that is strongly prohibited. Do you think that Jehova’s Witnesses that own businesses (such as Hobby Lobby) to refuse insurance coverage for Blood Transfusions? Please answer that question.

            No one is saying Hobby Lobby has to “do something.” They just want one small provision taken out of the mandate. In other words, Hobby Lobby does not want to include insurance coverage for a particular pill that does not allow a fertilized egg to implant in a woman’s womb. They want to be able to refuse all of their employees the option to make that decision for themselves.

          • Josef Roesler

            “Do you think that Jehova’s Witnesses that own businesses (such as Hobby Lobby) to refuse insurance coverage for Blood Transfusions?” I didn’t see this last time.

            Sure, why shouldn’t that be their perogative? You are free to get your insurance anywhere you please. JW can go anywhere they want and buy a transfusion free policy. Health insurance has never been a requirement, it has always been a benefit.

            If Hobby Lobby wants one small provision taken out of the mandate, how can you say no one is saying Hobby Lobby has to “do something?” Obviously they’re being made to do something, otherwise they wouldn’t be wanting it removed.

            Let’s change goats to dogs. Since I have a religious belief that there should be no stray dogs roaming through my yard. Yet it is illegal for me to kill dogs (state law, not fed). So no, I do not believe the government has the right to tell me not to kill dogs. Some laws are just stupid. Like Osamacare. Not sure what you’re going to do with that answer. But your hatred of religion informs this whole discussion since you agree with the president that Christianity is wrong.

          • Default Ideology

            Health insurance is now a mandate. It is no longer just a “benefit.” We don’t live in that world anymore. With regard to JW’s. I would support throwing them in jail for refusing to provide life saving technology to any human being. As I have said before SCOTUS will iron this out. I have a feeling you won’t like the outcome. I could be wrong about that, so I suppose we will find out in months to come.

          • Josef Roesler

            Just because some dickhead socialist made it a mandate doesn’t make it right. It is nobody’s duty to provide you with life saving technology. That is YOUR responsibility. Why do you socialists thing the rest of the world owes you their support? Why don’t you try supporting yourself for once?

          • Default Ideology

            I’m surprised you are disagreeing with me. The problem is this. Hospitals are required by law to treat patients, especially in the Emergency Room. When people choose to not get health insurance, and they have a health problem, they go to the Emergency Room. Who pays the bills? You and I. I agree with the mandate. It’s about time people pull their own weight, get off their asses, pay for health insurance (Like me) and you (I suppose you have it otherwise you’re just a freeloader). No one owes me a thing. I’ve worked my entire life. I’m tired of paying for freeloaders. I’m tired of my tax dollars getting squandered on people who think it’s their right to not cover themselves and expect law abiding, tax paying citizens to pay their medical bills. Get insurance, because now it’s the law.

          • Josef Roesler

            Your argument is ridiculous. Who do you think is paying for the insurance? The same taxpayers who pay for the hospital bills. Nothing changed except MY insurance got fucked up and I’m STILL paying for deadbeats.

          • Default Ideology

            I’m not sure you and I are talking about the same thing. The AHCA mandates that individual citizens get health insurance if their employer doesn’t provide it. I’m not talking about welfare recipients. I’m talking about the average person who works in construction, lets say, they now have to get insurance. Sure, I don’t like lazy people that are on welfare, but there’s nothing I can do about it. The law also mandates certain employers, over a particular employee threshold, to cover their workers. I don’t know what your particular situation is with respect to insurance. If it’s fucked up that sucks. Not much more I can say about that. My healthcare coverage actually became cheaper for the first time this year. I’ve worked with the same employer for over 20 years. My point on the healthcare is this: People need to get health insurance, and stop expecting tax payers to pay for them when they get hurt. BTW… If you have a job, (sounds like you do) we (you and I) will always have to pay for deadbeats. That’s just the way it is. I hate it just like you.

          • Josef Roesler

            I never said anything about welfare. And we are talking about the same thing, but you don’t want to acknowledge the same people who weren’t paying their hospital bills before are now relying on the taxpayer to pay for their insurance.

            Nothing has changed except in the process, hundreds of thousands of Americans have had their insurance taken away and offered government controlled crap at 4X the price, not as an option, but as a law, under threat of penalty.

          • Default Ideology

            Please forgive me for saying this, but I really don’t think you have a clear understanding of the law. People (employed people) who previously choose not to get health care coverage, now have to get coverage. People such as construction workers, hairdressers, pastors etc. These people, some of which make quite a bit of money per year, now have to get coverage. If they don’t they get penalized. I know of a hairdresser who makes about 70k per year who chooses not to get coverage. When she had an emergency appendectomy, her hospital bill was 22k. She defaulted and the hospital had to eat the bill. They worked out a deal with her for 3k. The hospital then wrote off the remainder as a loss. This is the impact on the taxpayer. I don’t know about the 4x cost you present. Like I said before, My insurance became cheaper. So did all of my coworkers’ insurance. Only the people that are currently on welfare or don’t have the money do they get govt assistance. And to be clear, it doesn’t matter, the money has to come from somewhere, either from the taxpayer to the hospital or from the taxpayer to the coverage for the welfare recipients.

          • Josef Roesler

            I really have no ideas where you get the notion that I don’t understand the law. I understand that you keep repeating yourself. And you keep ignoring the fact that people who don’t want insurance are being threatened by the government. By the same government agency who harassed the very political group which was against this law you love. Isn’t that ironic?

            You don’t like a hospital being shorted and the taxpayer footing the bill because someone won’t pay, but you don’t have a problem with the same person not paying for the government insurance while the taxpayer foots the bill.

            It is not I who doesn’t understand. But that’s because I’m not a socialist and only a socialist could have such zeal for this anti-American atrocity.

          • freedomringsforall

            Amen
            see he doesn’t even get his own stupid circular argument.
            Or he does and he is trying to score a college debating score sheet or maybe he is a socialist/commie at heart and psychologically just needs to try to make you look wrong.
            LMAO

          • freedomringsforall

            Amen exactly

          • freedomringsforall

            Yeah his argument is circularly stupid and he doesn’t even get it does he.
            LMAO

          • freedomringsforall

            Isn’t he great at trying to make you look immature while all along being immature and making immature comments not just in style but in substance too.
            He really does not even have the least common sense in regards to the actual text of the constitution.
            It is all about It is the law and I agree with it so you must be an immature idiot if you disagree with him.
            All the while trying to distract you with an emotional personal attack side argument that he feels he can con you into to:”WIN” to take the focus off the fact that he has no real facts on his side.
            He is so driven by his side issues and Alinsky distraction techniques that he is calling me personal and stating that I was calling him names when I was just presenting hard cold facts and stating that he was sorrowfully uninformed that he does not know that there are tons of media reports about the democrats even demanding that Obama quit his imperial lawless conduct.
            He thinks he is some kind of great debater of something when most of us are really interested in the issues rather than some kind of college debating society scoring sheet.

          • freedomringsforall

            Then it gets changed on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
            If you don’t like that maybe someone can arrange a special law for you to sit in the back of the bus.
            Then I am sure that you will feel all things are right in the universe.

          • Default Ideology

            If SCOTUS says that specific provisions of the Health Care law do not apply to businesses like Hobby Lobby then so be it. I don’t have a problem with that. I would disagree with SCOTUS. But that’s it. “Feeling right” has nothing to do with this conversation.

          • freedomringsforall

            Oh but right and wrong most certainly do have to do with this conversation.
            Rosa Parks did not feel that it was right to have to sit in the back of the bus and eventually we all agreed that that was the right feeling and that because of those feelings brought on from bigotry we must adhere to the original tenants of the constitution and we affirmed those with new amendments.
            The entire basis of law has to do with agreed upon rights and wrongs so that as a society we can function together with hopefully the least offense and harm to each other.

          • Default Ideology

            Agreed, and there are people that don’t think a business should dictate what health care options will be available or not available. Hobby Lobby is not a church. It is a non-religious business that has religious business owners. And again, we agree, SCOTUS will look at the case and make a determination, the same way they looked at Civil Rights with respect to Jim Crow laws in the 60′s. I think it is “wrong” for Hobby Lobby to dictate what health care options will be provided to their employees under the current law. You and I are just disagreeing. SCOTUS will take care of that.

          • freedomringsforall

            If you would study the issue further whether it has to do with the nuns or Hobby lobby or all the other businesses then you would see that it is not about the businesses dictating to the employees. It is about the employees getting together and the businesses and the nun’s organization fighting on behalf of the employees or members against the government dictating to them and their employees or members that they have to do things that are absolutely repugnant to their beliefs because they have a bigger footprint that way.
            If the companies and the nun’s organization etc. do not get an exemption or do not provide then the individuals will face the same dilemma without the assistance of the larger footprint of the many companies and organizations to help fight for them.
            And again it is unconstitutional on both grounds of the right to freedom of religious practice, and being forced to purchase something by the federal government through extortion of a penalty that is called a tax so that we can lie to do it.
            And also it is unconstitutional because it was deemed a tax law but was initiated in the Senate, and because SCOTUS changed the law witch under the constitution they are not allowed to do, and because the administration has changed main tenants of the law and under the constitution they are not allowed to do that. The administration is only given the task of administering the standing law intact and if they can’t they are required to go back to the congress to amend or write new law so that they can administer it.
            The unconstitutionality of this “law” just goes on and on and on.
            It will be fought at least until the mandate is eliminated.
            It has to or we have lost much of the entire meaning of the constitution because of all the unconstitutional things that are in the law also.

          • Default Ideology

            Right… SCOTUS will decide the constitutionality of the law. If you are saying that SCOTUS can’t change a law, you are incorrect. They can. They can take a law and chop it up into pieces based on their interpretation of the constitution. That’s what they do. I’m not sure what’s so hard about this. You may not like what SCOTUS decides. You may jump up and down and yell, “Not fair, Not fair.” But in the end there is nothing freedomringsforall can do except rant to people like me. I strongly suspect that SCOTUS will side with Sebelius. I don’t know enough about the Nunn’s case to comment.

          • freedomringsforall

            You have no understanding of the constitution if you think that Scotus can constitutionally change a law written by the legislature.
            You would be laughed off the stage for that statement too.
            If you are insinuating that anyone can do a lawless act and get away with it if they have the power to.
            well that was not the discussion.
            I would certainly agree with that.
            I was talking about lawful actions of scotus according to the constitution.
            and lawful actions of Obama’s administration according to the constitution.
            If you want to be lawless well H a bunch of people can walk into dc and do all kinds of lawless acts too.
            scotus and Obama don’t have any special rights when it comes to lawlessness.
            You want to get lawless there are millions out here compared to few in dc.
            If I were Obama or scotus; I would think that critical thinking would tend to suggest; WOW, lets think about who wants to push the lawless envelope.

          • Default Ideology

            SCOTUS nor POTUS have done nothing illegal. Even if freedomringsforall thinks they did. I have never said that SCOTUS can “Constitutionally Change a Law.” What I said is they can chop (or strike) any law that they deem un-constitutional. That is what they do. You keep presenting straw man arguments against me. Yes, SCOTUS can modify a law enacted by legislature, by striking parts of it or all of it. That how the process works. Yes, they get that authority from the constitution in article 3 section 2.

          • freedomringsforall

            You are so sourfully uninformed it is pathetic.
            You obviously did not even read what I wrote because that response doesn’t have anything to do with anything I wrote about.
            You are just being silly now.
            I didn’t say anything about SCOTUS can’t making a decision of constitutional or un-Constitutional.
            Quit being silly, that IS EXACTLY MY POINT that that is what they are suppose to do and that is not changing a law silly.
            My point was them changing the law.
            They claimed the penalty is a tax that even Obama claimed was a penalty and the law was written to accommodate that that was a penalty.
            Obama’s people even argued before the court that it was a penalty before they argued it was a tax.
            The Supreme Court deemed it a tax and that is illegal under the constitution to do that.
            Under the Constitution what they should have done is exactly what you just now said and deemed the bill unconstitutional if they are saying it is a tax and then in writing an opinion, if they wanted to, signaled if the law were to be brought back before that with the mandatory penalty as a tax that then it might be constitutional.
            Then Obama and the democrats should have re-introduced a similar bill in the House where revenue bills are supposed to be introduced and passed it through from there.
            As it stands now it was introduced in the Senate so it can not under the constitution be a tax bill. That is unconstitutional.
            Also, Obama and the Obama administration have significantly changed it and told certain people they do not have to abide by the law. Those actions are absolutely unconstitutional.

          • Default Ideology

            And there it is… The name calling. Ad hominem attack is always a sign a person has no valid argument. Like I said before, just because “freedomringsforall” thinks it’s unconstitutional or illegal, doesn’t make it so. To that end, let the reader decide.

          • freedomringsforall

            Anyone reading here can see that I did not call you any names.

            I correctly, factually and accurately stated that:

            You are so sourfully uninformed it is pathetic.

            It has been all over the news that even the democrats in the senate and the house have called Obama on the carpet for acting as an imperial for his illegal changes to laws including pointing out specifically obamacare and have demanded that he stop and that he take corrective action.

            It has been all over the press that the democrats up for election are not showing up for events with Obama even when they are in their own states partly because of this.

            So, if your position is that Obama has not illegally changed any laws you are in a sour full and pathetically misinformed minority even with regard to the democrats.

            That is just a fact.

            That is not name-calling.

            You are only playing little childish games because you are totally wrong on the points of fact.

            Yes indeed let any who reads here see that I have presented the facts and I am correct by the text of the constitution and by all scholarly work ever written on the constitution that the constitution does not give us our rights.
            And that SCOTUS and Obama have illegally, by the constitution, altered laws.
            They have done it.
            It is all over the news and eventually it will be litigated and struck down by the courts or the legislature.
            The legislative branch is the only branch with the enumerated power of legislation and amending it.
            That is a fact.
            The facts will undoubtedly win out in the end.

            You are the name caller trying to play like the race bating trick.

            If you disagree with Obama and state the facts and prove his incompetence and have the audacity to say so you are racist.

            If you disagree with you and state the facts and prove your incompetence and have the audacity to say so you are name caller.

            Yes all that read here can see that I have presented the fact that the constitution does not give us our rights and that only the legislature have the enumerated power to legislate and amend legislation very well.

            Yes all that read here can see that you are trying to obfuscate the issue and bate me into an argument off topic in an attempt to “WIN” an off topic argument that you think you can win.

            Perfect Alinyski tactic of the progressives.

            Too bad you are not going to get away with it here.

            Yes all that read here can see that you are wrong.
            Just because you are sour fully uninformed and think that Obama and SCOTUS have the right to alter legislation does not mean it is right because there is a little thing called the constitution that does enumerate that power to the legislature.

          • Default Ideology

            I can see that I thoroughly got under your skin for you to go on to such a tirade. Quite comical. Yes calling my understanding “pathetic” is ad homenim even though you say it’s not. Again people who don’t have an argument do exactly what you have done. And to make the matter worse for you, there isn’t one single legal action you can point to that confirms the Executive Actions taken by POTUS are illegal. Again just because you think they are doesn’t mean they are. Show me one single legal action taken by any of the most conservative legislators to stop the POTUS Executive Action. Not letters about people complaining, I’m talking about a real court case that challenges what you say is illegal. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. Unless you can point to a real active case that is pending, ANYWHERE, I have proved my point. Be specific and cite the case. The readers are waiting.

          • freedomringsforall

            You are again lying and taking words out of context to misconstrue their meaning.

            Typical left wing Alinsky tactics.

            Obfuscate divert the communication to an off topic argument that you think you can “WIN” because you have no facts on your side and you refuse to admit that you are wrong.

            And yes I correctly, factually and accurately stated that your statement was so sour fully uninformed it is pathetic.

            And all that read here can see that there is nothing “ad hominem” (and being that you can’t spell it I doubt you know what it means) about it.

            It was factually correct and accurate.

            Yes indeed let any who reads here see that I have presented the facts and I am correct by the text of the constitution and by all scholarly work ever written on the constitution that the constitution does not give us our rights.
            And that SCOTUS and Obama have illegally, by the constitution, altered laws.
            They have done it.
            It is all over the news and eventually it will be litigated and struck down by the courts or the legislature.
            The legislative branch is the only branch with the enumerated power of legislation and amending it.
            That is a fact.
            The facts will undoubtedly win out in the end.

            You are the name caller trying to play like the race bating trick.

            If you disagree with Obama and state the facts and prove his incompetence and have the audacity to say so you are racist.

            If you disagree with you and state the facts and prove your incompetence and have the audacity to say so you are name caller.

            Yes all that read here can see that I have presented the fact that the constitution does not give us our rights and that only the legislature has the enumerated power to legislate and amend legislation.

            Yes all that read here can see that you are trying to obfuscate the issue and bate me into an argument off topic in an attempt to “WIN” an off topic argument that you think you can win.

            Perfect Alinyski tactic of the progressives.

            Too bad you are not going to get away with it here.

            Yes all that read here can see that you are wrong.
            Just because you are sour fully uninformed and think that Obama and SCOTUS have the right to alter legislation does not mean it is right because there is a little thing called the constitution that does enumerate that power to the legislature.

          • Default Ideology

            I see you failed my challenge. You can’t point to any legal action or specified law that prohibits POTUS’ Executive Action. You’re clearly ignorant on the law and constitution. You only resort to writing a bunch of words with an idiotic rant. I laugh a the fact that I’m able to get you so twisted. You’re funny. The only thing you said was “blah blah blah constitution.” Nothing was violated. Please go back to your childish propaganda world, and the adults will carry on.

          • freedomringsforall

            I see you failed your own challenge to not name call.
            You should be ashamed of yourself for name calling instead of facing the facts and admitting your error.
            So, I guess by your own words you fail to have any facts to back yourself up.

            Again you apparently have not read most anything I posted.

            Again for all to read here are the facts that you deny:

            Typical left wing Alinsky tactics.

            Obfuscate divert the communication to an off topic argument that you think you can “WIN” because you have no facts on your side and you refuse to admit that you are wrong.

            Yes indeed let any who reads here see that I have presented the facts and I am correct by the text of the constitution and by all scholarly work ever written on the constitution that the constitution does not give us our rights.
            And that SCOTUS and Obama have illegally, by the constitution, altered laws.
            They have done it.
            It is all over the news and eventually it will be litigated and struck down by the courts or the legislature.
            The legislative branch is the only branch with the enumerated power of legislation and amending it.
            That is a fact.
            The facts will undoubtedly win out in the end.

            You are the name caller trying to play like the race bating trick.

            If you disagree with Obama and state the facts and prove his incompetence and have the audacity to say so you are racist.

            If I disagree with you and state the facts and prove your incompetence and have the audacity to say so, according to you, I are name caller and my facts don’t count.

            Yes all that read here can see that I have presented the fact that the constitution does not give us our rights and that only the legislature has the enumerated power to legislate and amend legislation.

            Yes all that read here can see that you are trying to obfuscate the issue and bate me into an argument off topic in an attempt to “WIN” an off topic argument that you think you can win.

            Perfect Alinyski tactic of the progressives.

            Too bad you are not going to get away with it here.

            Yes all that read here can see that you are wrong.
            Just because you are sorrowfully uninformed and think that Obama and SCOTUS have powers that are not enumerated to them by the people so that they have the right to alter legislation does not mean it is right because there is a little thing called the constitution, and the people, that do enumerate (and/or loan) that power to the legislature.

          • James Graham

            “Default”, yes I’m back. And I see that you continue to hold to this idiotic circular argument that SCOTUS is the law, that SCOTUS can make the law, and that SCOTUS is superior to the real law of the land, the Constitution. And of course, just as a reminder, SCOTUS gave themselves this power by fiat.
            Nice try….still won’t stick.
            Cheers.

          • Default Ideology

            Hi James, Yes the supreme court gave themselves the power through their own case law. Its weird, but that’s how they got their power. Nice to hear from you again.

          • James Graham

            Which doesn’t change the fact that SCOTUS acted outside of Constitutional authority to grant themselves the power which they claim to have. You can keep stating that SCOTUS “gave themselves the power” but it doesn’t change the simple _fact_, which is…that SCOTUS does not have legal nor moral standing to set itself above the law (ie the Constitution). Sorry, but because it may seem that way (in other words “it is what it is”) doesn’t establish it as anything with authority to make that claim. The Constitution exists to make darned certain (as long as Americans who care continue their due diligence) that no single body of government has more power than any other….you know….that pesky “checks and balances” thing…

            Just saying that SCOTUS is superior because SCOTUS said so is silly in so many ways. Come to think of it, I could decide to call myself “SCOTUS II” and announce that I am superior to the Constitution, setting aside the fact that “the people” are in fact superior to SCOTUS and all other governmental powers since we are the ones these other powers are in a contractual relationship with….the contract being the Constitution.

            We are the last power to to which all others answer when the contract is broken.

          • AmyB123

            If the business is paying for the benefit for their employees they have every right to choose which plan they want to offer. That is the problem here, the misconception that employers somehow owe something to employees. They do not. If you don’t like what is offered – apply elsewhere. That is your choice. But if you don’t like what is offered by the people paying the bills, you don’t get to demand they offer what you want. That’s why they are the “boss” and you are the “employee”. No one has a “right” to force business to provide anything.

          • freedomringsforall

            What are you talking about
            Do you usually complain to people that are basically on the same side of the issue as you?
            Have you even read a single sentence that I have posted here?

          • AmyB123

            Again, my comment is misplaced. My apologies.

          • AmyB123

            Why do you continue to attempt to drag race into a discussion about religion? Race has nothing to do with this conversation.

          • freedomringsforall

            1.) I have had no discussion with you and I have no idea what you are talking about
            2.) I have never said anything about race
            3.) You must be confused as to who you are talking to because I haven’t had any discussion with you and I have not said anything about race and I have not had any discussion about religion here..

          • AmyB123

            Sorry, was trying to reply to whomever keeps using the reference about “going to the back of the bus”. The computer kept jumping back and forth between comments.

          • freedomringsforall

            That is me but that hasn’t anything to do with racism.
            Obviously you have not read the exchanges to understand them.
            You must be just jumping to a silly conclusion taking a few words out of context.
            Read the exchanges
            You will understand it has nothing to do with race.
            You will understand I am on the same side as you.
            Please read peoples exchanges and understand them in context instead of taking a few words out of context and jumping to unfounded assumptions.
            Have a nice day.

          • James Graham

            “When SCOTUS makes a decision, it will be final. Then what?”

            Bzzzt WRONG! The Constitution is the “final” say. SCOTUS is no less subject to the Constitution than any other of the branches of government.

          • Default Ideology

            As I have said in a previous post, SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. SCOTUS interpretation actually is the final say. Even if James Graham disagrees and likes to make buzwords.

          • James Graham

            No buzzwords are necessary, “Default”. I see you have failed to address the illogic of claiming that a governmental body, SCOTUS, a part of one of the powers that are separated _and limited_ by the Constitution is somehow superior to said Constitution. No “Default”, buzzwords are not necessary…just good old common sense. SCOTUS has its place. The founders did not intend, nor is it now the case that SCOTUS is the “final say”. I suppose that if SCOTUS makes such a claim, then sure, SCOTUS believes such a claim. If that’s the case, then SCOTUS has set itself up to be above the law. But that’s a silly leap of logic. What matters here is the force of the Constitution with respect to the force of the claims by SCOTUS. What matters is what SCOTUS can convince “we, the people” to believe, regardless of original intent. That’s where the danger lies. There are reams of writings and opinions that address this. The Constitution is the final say. Do you disagree that SCOTUS must be in submission to the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution? In fact, because the powers are enumerated by the Constitution, the Constitution is by definition _superior_ to the edicts of the SCOTUS. Again, no buzzwords necessary to understand this. I suppose that next, you will insist that one must be a “Constitutional Scholar”. Don’t bother….it isn’t true. If we need “scholars” to spell out our unalienable natural rights, we’re all screwed.

          • Default Ideology

            Just so I understand what your position is… Are you saying that SCOTUS does not interpret the constitution? That SCOTUS doesn’t evaluate the constitutionality of laws? If they don’t do these things, what is their purpose? I stated somewhere in another post that there were some Founding Fathers that didn’t like the idea of having a SCOTUS. Yes, the power does actually exist in with SCOTUS. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. It’s just how it is.

          • freedomringsforall

            Well he basically agrees with you that the constitution is the final arbiter and says that you disagree with that even though you had just told him that.
            How messed up is that?
            default ideology is a real trip

          • freedomringsforall

            Amen
            And how many times have laws been turned over or struck down because a new court finds them offensive to the constitution.
            right on.

          • wildchill

            And yes you would follow any “law” that your liar and thief passes. I myself draw lines in the sand and when they cross that line I no longer “follow”their “laws”. You can call me what you want but I will still refuse to live a lie like you have chosen. I am a patriot and they will not tread on me. Period .

          • Default Ideology

            I’m not sure who or what you are referring. My “liar and thief?” Not quite understanding that. We are talking about laws. Many don’t like the law… Ok…. That’s what SCOTUS is for. What am I missing here?

          • AmyB123

            Apparently you don’t understand analogies. It’s a comparison. I am sure you can understand why a Muslim expects to be exempt from the requirement of removing head coverings to take driver’s license photos, right? Because it is against their religion to do so. Well, same thing applies to Hobby Lobby’s owners. They should be exempt from providing a BENEFIT (that’s what health care is, a benefit provided by an employer at their discretion) that violates their religion.

          • Default Ideology

            Okay. I disagree with your analogy, I also disagree with Hobby Lobby’s position. SCOTUS will have the final say.

          • wildchill

            The liar and thief that you voted into office…You know the one who thinks he’s above the law…He can “mandate”anything he wants …that doesn’t mean the patriots of this country will comply. If its an uproar he wants , that’s exactly what he could get…but I don’t think he will like what comes of it.

          • Default Ideology

            I didn’t vote Obama into office. However, if republicans (or whoever) didn’t like Obama in his first term, how is it he was voted in for a second term. Oh that’s right, the election process. I guess republicans, or any other party for that matter, has to do a better job of getting the vote.

          • Josef Roesler

            You’re very naive to pretend to think that the socialist party doesn’t pay for votes from it’s members. Had he ever once told the truth about his socialist agenda, he would have never been elected.

          • Default Ideology

            Okay, what does that have to do with your assumption that I voted the president into office? Further,I don’t believe your claim about the “socialist party” since you provide no evidence. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, I just have not seen concrete evidence for it. You claim to think that I’m naive, okay, show me how I’m naive. Show me the evidence… Otherwise you are just making baseless propaganda that crumbles under scrutiny. You made the claim, the burden is on you.

          • freedomringsforall

            Notice his wording of “getting the vote”; not getting out the vote.

          • James Graham

            Bzzzt WRONG! The Constitution is the “final” say. SCOTUS is no less subject to the Constitution than any other of the branches of government.

          • Default Ideology

            Actually, SCOTUS interprets the law and the constitution. It really does have the final say.

          • James Graham

            Uh-huh, sure.

            And who makes this claim, the SCOTUS, or the Constitution?

          • Default Ideology

            Okay James, live go ahead and live in your world. SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of the law and constitution. When they make a decision they can be ignored. Lets see how that works out.

          • James Graham

            So “Default”, my question stands….who makes this claim that SCOTUS has the final say, SCOTUS, or the Constitution?
            Who makes this claim that SCOTUS is above the law (ie the Constitution), SCOTUS or the Constitution?
            BTW: I have noticed that your posts never capitalize the word “Constitution”. Is that by accident or design?

          • Default Ideology

            US Constitution: Article 3, Section 2: And the following court cases: Marbury v. Madison, and Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee.

            When a law is challenged by anyone in the United States, and is accepted to be heard by SCOTUS, they (SCOTUS) determine the constitutionality of the law. They are making an interpretation of what the Constitution says, as it applies to the law they are reviewing. Thank you for the grammar critique. I believed I used the word as a description of law, however I may have used it otherwise. I claim the error.

          • James Graham

            My quesiton remains: Who makes this claim that SCOTUS is above the law (ie the Constitution), SCOTUS or the Constitution? Who gives authority to SCOTUS to set itself above the law?

          • Default Ideology

            To be clear, if SCOTUS has the power to interpret the Constitution, then doesn’t that give them the authority to be above the law?

            Your last question is awesome, thank you. Now we are getting somewhere…

            It seems to me that the only real power here is SCOTUS. Think about it for a minute. You and I can vote all kinds of stuff into law. Right? Our Representatives can create laws we agree with. Our President can sign laws and veto laws, but in the end, if something is challenged and SCOTUS accepts the case, They are the final arbiter. Don’t you think that’s strange? Doesn’t it place SCOTUS above all other branches when a law is challenged? SCOTUS got its power from itself in both of those cases I presented. Article 3 section 2 of the Constitution doesn’t really spell out the power, but the mere position of interpretation gives them the power.

            No one claims that SCOTUS is above the Constitution, But the power of interpretation of the Constitution is actually the authority over the Constitution. This power is based on the Supreme Court’s ability to act as the interpreter and arbiter of the Constitution. Neither the president nor Congress has the right to do this. The Supreme Court is the only body that has the right to interpret what the Constitution means and it is this right that gives it the power to scrutinize all aspects of government.

          • James Graham

            Default said: “SCOTUS got its power from itself….”.

            “Default”, you’ve answered my question.

          • Default Ideology

            Okay, not sure why you are so surprised about that. That’s how all power is seized.

          • James Graham

            That’s why I added “….” rather than quote the whole thing.

          • freedomringsforall

            ONLY if you, as Default, do not believe in any power, or any authority as the founders wrote over man that gives man natural or God given rights.

            As was stated, “Okay, who has the ultimate decision of the constitutionality of any law? SCOTUS right?”.

            The statement was “ULTIMATELY”.
            Well —–
            “ULTIMATELY the people decide what is constitutional by having natural (or God given) rights and freedoms to be so endowed.
            The people write and determine what is the constitution of the United States of America and what is not and revise it either directly or indirectly through our Representative Republic form of governance.
            The legislature is enumerated with the power to legislate and amend law.
            The SCOTUS is sat and enumerated with the power under the written constitution to interpret the constitutionality of the written law (hopefully as qualified experts) and the actions of the administration and the legislature for the people.
            Again “for the people”, they are not an authority unto their own just as the administrative branch is not and the legislative branch is not.
            There are checks and balances on the SCOTUS also.

            The document of the constitution is the peoples declaration of what constitutes our governance and restrictions to it..
            So, the people are the final arbiters of what does and what does not ultimately constitute our governance and they enumerate the power of interpretation to the SCOTUS only upon the peoples will to do so and only until such a time as SCOTUS no longer holds their trust to interpret the written document of the constitution of our governance.
            At such time the people can and are admonished to take back the power willfully loaned to the SCOTUS.
            So, the people are endowed by their natural (or God given) rights and freedoms to constitute the governance of their will and have the right to temporarily loan the right of interpreting the peoples written documentation of their governance over to a body (hopefully of qualified and faithful experts) and the people can take that back at any time if, in their beliefs, SCOTUS becomes derelict.
            So, “ULTIMATELY” it is the peoples decision (via their natural or God given rights and freedoms) on what will constitute their governance, and what will be written documenting that constitution of their governance, and as to how that written document of the constitution of their governance will be interpreted.

          • Default Ideology

            Holy crap. You’re on a rampage. Are you high on Meth or something? Sheesh.

          • freedomringsforall

            I was not talking to you.

            And:

            Any who are reading here can see that I have simply stated hard cold dispassionate facts and that it is you rampaging with personal commentary not me.
            You should not defaming people just because you think you are beyond prosecution hiding behind an anonymous id on the internet.
            Just because you framed your defamatory comment in the form of a question does not mean it is not defamatory and that a judge won’t rule it defamatory.
            A judge most likely would.

            And again:
            Another silly little Alinsky tactics to try to start something off topic because you do not have the hard cold facts on your side.

          • Default Ideology

            I just love that I can get you so twisted… If you weren’t talking to me why did you reply to me? Maybe you’re smoking crack rather then meth.

          • freedomringsforall

            Any who are reading here can see that I have simply stated hard cold dispassionate facts and that it is you rampaging with personal commentary not me.
            You should not defame people just because you think you are beyond prosecution hiding behind an anonymous id on the internet.
            Just because you framed your defamatory comment in the form of a question or an inference does not mean it is not defamatory and that a judge won’t rule it defamatory.
            A judge most likely would.

            And again:
            Another silly little Alinsky tactics to try to start something off topic because you do not have the hard cold facts on your side.

          • James Graham

            16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

            “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

            The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

            Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

            A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

            No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

          • Default Ideology

            Okay, who has the ultimate decision of the constitutionality of any law? SCOTUS right? Or, in most cases, the lower courts, who are ultimately subject to the decision of SCOTUS.

          • freedomringsforall

            The statement was “ULTIMATELY”.
            Well —–
            “ULTIMATELY the people decide what is constitutional by having natural (or God given) rights and freedoms to be so endowed.
            The people write and determine what is the constitution of the United States of America and what is not and revise it either directly or indirectly through our Representative Republic form of governance.
            The legislature is enumerated with the power to legislate and amend law.
            The SCOTUS is sat and enumerated with the power under the written constitution to interpret the constitutionality of the written law (hopefully as qualified experts) and the actions of the administration and the legislature for the people.
            The document of the constitution is the peoples declaration of what constitutes our governance and restrictions to it..
            So, the people are the final arbiters of what does and what does not ultimately constitute our governance and they enumerate the power of interpretation to the SCOTUS only upon the peoples will to do so and only until such a time as SCOTUS no longer holds their trust to interpret the written document of the constitution of our governance.
            At such time the people can and are admonished to take back the power willfully loaned to the SCOTUS.
            So, the people are endowed by their natural (or God given) rights and freedoms to constitute the governance of their will and have the right to temporarily loan the right of interpreting the peoples written documentation of their governance over to a body (hopefully qualified experts) and the people can take that back at any time if, in their beliefs, SCOTUS becomes derelict.
            So, ULTIMATELY” it is the peoples decision (via their natural or God given rights and freedoms) on what will constitute their governance, and what will be written documenting that constitution of their governance, and as to how that written document of the constitution of their governance will be interpreted.

          • Default Ideology

            Wow… I’ve really gotten to you. Love that.

          • freedomringsforall

            Any who are reading here can see that I have simply stated hard cold dispassionate facts and that it is you making personal commentary not me.
            Again silly little Alinsky tactics to try to start something of topic because you do not have the hard cold facts on your side.

          • Josef Roesler

            What you are missing is that the criminal who passes unconstitutional laws has alkso stacked the SCOTUS in his favor in order to have the Constitution changed in his favor. Just because a bunch of socialist SCOTUS say something does not make it Constitutionally correct.

          • Default Ideology

            Stacking SCOTUS: How, There’s 4 conservatives and 4 liberals and one swing. The Constitution has not changed, you need the house for that. Calling SCOTUS socialist is laughable. Are you sure you understand how the US Govt works?

          • russellbennett

            The health care bill exempts Muslims because their religion considers Insurance to be Gambling. Its in their, I read it.

          • Default Ideology

            I’m not sure what law you are referring. But if what you are saying is true it’s my assumption that law only applies to the actual religious organization, not a Muslim business owner, such as a Muslim who owns a string of grocery stores.

          • Pamela K. Cahoon Laub

            So one “religion” is exempt because of their beliefs, but Christians’ beliefs can be trampled?

          • Vrahnos

            Well,well.Time to turn up the heat.I am a conseridive independent.After reading this post I can see that you,Default Ideology,are a bigeted racest You think that christians should have nothing to do with anything and should stay out of everything and eccept what the government tells us to do without question no matter what.That also makes you a commie and a commie lover.Now go ahead and try to deny it go ahead try!Go ahead and say the same thing about me and remember that when you do that you are very stupid and should shut your pie hole.

          • Default Ideology

            I’m not sure about your “heat.” Also, I’m not sure how my worldview is “racest” (racist is the word I think you meant). Christianity is not a “race.” In any case, I’m not a communist. We live in a country based on laws. Laws that everyone needs to follow. I agree with that. There are laws that I don’t like, probably just like you. Nevertheless we need to follow the law. The only thing I can say about you is from your short little grammatically challenged paragraph, along with your angry words. I wonder if Jesus likes you being so hateful.

          • Vrahnos

            Turning up the heat eh?Well when I call you a commie what does that do?The thing is your ideals is much like this,”niggers should’t be on the same street as I cause they are infeariour to me and my ideals”.Sure we are a nation of laws,but there are some bad ones on the books that need to be changed.To say otherwise you might as well be living in China or the old U.S.S.R.As far as a “racist” goes look at the above.The same ideal applies to both your view of religion and law.With your ideas you think that government rules the people and it’s not suppose to be that way in out country,we the people of the U.S.rule the government and any other idea than that is a commie idea.

          • Default Ideology

            Do you know how to use a space-bar after punctuation? You should try it sometime. As for everything else you have written: It seems like you want to call me names rather than challenge or converse with me about facts. I’m not racist, I disagree with religion, but I do agree that there are laws that should be changed. Not sure what else to say. How about this. When typing punctuation, hit the space-bar once. Twice if you use a period (.) It will make you paragraph a little more readable.

          • Royce Jones

            If all religious people shut down their businesses most of the nation would be unemployed.

          • Default Ideology

            Okay… is there a point?

          • Coaldawg

            And if SCOTUS succumbs to Obama, I think Hobby Lobby will close up shop. Then what about those lost jobs? Wait, Obama would hope to put them on the govt. “lifeline” and hope they would become so dependent that they will all become dem’s.

          • Default Ideology

            I really don’t think that Hobby Lobby will close its doors over this. But in reality, it would be Hobby Lobby causing the job loss over a religious issue. This is why religion is on such a decline in this country. IMHO.

          • Captain Jack

            So why should Christian Based companies “get” out of business (earn a honest living)??? Sounds like you are coming off a little intolerant of others. Maybe you should give up your right to earn a living because you disagree with certain people? I ask you would that be fair? I think not. You ought to rethink your comment.

          • Bacchus

            Christians have an obligation not to follow Satanic Laws.

          • Default Ideology

            Agreed. And they can be penalized if they don’t follow the law. You’re right, there’s always a choice.

          • rhonan

            Right, just like black folks who want to be treated decently shouldn’t apply to racists. When you apply for a business license, that means you agree to follow the law. That is the choice a business owner is making when they open a business. Telling Hobby Lobby they have to provide a minimum list of services as part of their employee healthcare plan tramples their ‘rights’ the same way that telling them they can’t have a whites only employee restroom.

          • AmyB123

            There is a reason things like health care, vacation time, etc. have always been called “benefits”. They are not a “right”. They are a benefit provided by an employer at their discretion for full time employment. The employer gets to chose what benefits they offer and the employee can choose whether or not that is someplace they wish to work. Not sure why this generation seems to believe they are entitled to whatever their little hearts desire but the reality is you have to earn things like higher paychecks and benefits.

          • rhonan

            That is true. Hobby Lobby may freely chose not to offer health care to their workers. While it would be petty, and hurt them in the long run, they are free to not offer health care if they don’t want to comply with the law. They don’t have to offer a free meal with every shift worked, but if they did, the government could certainly require that that food be provided in compliance with FDA regulations.

          • freedomringsforall

            You are being petty
            Wake up
            Christians are not forcing non-Christians to pay for things for Christians against non-Christian’s beliefs.
            Christians are asking that nobody be forced to pay for anything against their beliefs.
            So, please join us in believing that Christians and non-Christians alike should be equally treated and not forced to pay for anything through the health card bill that is against anyone’s belief system.
            MAKE SENSE
            NOT WAR

          • freedomringsforall

            Hello
            Wake up
            Christians are not forcing non-Christians to pay for things for Christians against non-Christian’s beliefs.
            Christians are asking that nobody be forced to pay for anything against their beliefs.
            So, please join us in believing that Christians and non-Christians alike should be equally treated and not forced to pay for anything through the health card bill that is against anyone’s belief system.
            MAKE SENSE
            NOT WAR

          • rhonan

            The ACA already respects the beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby. They are not being forced to take birth control against their will. They don’t have to pay for birth control if they don’t want to either, they just can’t offer healthcare benefits without it. I can’t think of a more perfect example of someone wanting Special Rights.

          • freedomringsforall

            Wow

            Your statement does not:
            Account for what happens when the Christians then need to get health care on their own, does not account for why many very smart people including the Supreme Court do not see it your way, and makes no sense, and contradicts your own point, and also makes a point for the opposition.
            1.) The Christians will be faced with the same dilemma if not on the company insurance, that is one of the reasons Hobby Lobby is fighting this corporately.
            2.) The Supreme Court would have not taken up the case, or the nun case, if it was as stupid, and simple, and obvious as you say. And a stay would not have been issued if nobody thought there was merit.

            3.) makes no sense:

            You are not aguing your issue that one should not be forced to buy things for others under the Obama care law.

            4.) you contradict yourself:

            Your statement:
            They don’t have to pay for birth control if they don’t want to either, they just can’t offer healthcare benefits without it.
            That contradicts your argument that they are not being forced to do something.
            Yes they are and by extortion no less:
            You and your workers pay for contraception or you do not offer healthcare to your workers.
            5.) Your stipulation that if they do not want something against their beliefs forced on them through the law and don’t want anything against anyone’s personal beliefs forced upon anyone else through the law that somehow they want special rights is nuts.
            Call up any constitutional expert, scholar, or lawyer worth anything and they will say that has got to be one of dumbest thing they have ever heard in regards to the law.
            I would love to see you go on TV with a national debate with a constitutional expert, scholar, or lawyer and make that point:
            Christians are wanting Special Rights because they do not want Christians or any other faith, group, or creed, or anyone period, to be forced to pay for something that is against their beliefs.
            You would be laughed off the stage.

          • rhonan

            I remember how another debate some time ago insisted that the Supreme Court clearly took up the ACA in the first place to rule against the individual mandate, which many conservatives thought was not Constitutional, they upheld it. The Supreme Court often takes cases where they mostly agree with the appellate courts decision because by doing so, they set a national standard with one case, and save court resources. Oh, and the Nun’s case was probably taken up so that the Supremes can put on the record that it does not violate your religious rights to require that you request a religious exemption when one it provided.

            My employer gives employees a choice of either accepting the one plan the company offers, or getting insurance on their own. That plan offers birth control, including the morning after pill, as well a providing pregnancy termination services when medically required. That violates no one’s rights, because they do not have to use a service they don’t want to, just because it is provided. By the logic here, A Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rights are violated when they are provided health insurance that covers any procedure that requires a blood transfusion.

            As for Special Rights, that is exactly how a number of Constitutional law experts have described Hobby Lobby’s argument. They are trying to argue that even though they are a for profit company, the owner’s religious beliefs trump the rights of his employees.

            Then again, I’ve always said that the ACA was a stupid idea from the beginning, because it was based on an idea from the Heritage Foundation, and is little more than a subsidy for the for-profit insurance industry. The only solution to the healthcare crisis is to get corporations and their profit motives out of the process entirely. Ultimately, single-payer in some form will be recognized as the most efficient solution to the problem.

          • freedomringsforall

            So, let’s make a law that you have to sit in the back of the bus because after all your objective is a ride home so nobody’s rights are violated.

            Your beliefs are of no concern to us and you can simply move somewhere else where they don’t practice that bigotry.

            Then lets argue for decades to uphold it so that will certainly prove that it is lawful and constitutional.

            Also, you are still missing the point that you would be laughed off the stage if you argue that the Hobby Lobby and all the others want no one to be forced to purchase things that are against their beliefs and that that is asking for equal treatment for everyone’s beliefs under the law.
            You aren’t forced to pay for something special that Christians want paid for and Christians aren’t forced to pay for something they don’t want to pay for.
            What if they wrote into the law that Satanists can get their baby sacrifices paid for. Whether you would or not I certainly do not think we need to take al poll to know that not many people would want to pay for that.
            So, the obvious constitutional logic would be that you shouldn’t be forced to pay for it because you do not believe in it.
            Well, that is all the Christians are asking for is that nobody (including them) should be forced to pay for something through this stupid health care law that is morally repugnant to them.

            Again you are also missing the point that if the Christians working for the corporate entities are to purchase on their own it is the same situation that is why the nuns and other corporate entities are doing this as the collective.
            You simply do not seem to understand that it defies all logic to say that when you are asking for freedom from oppression for all that you are not asking for any special right for you.
            You are not understanding that your arguments are exactly the same as the bigots of past civil rights arguments.

          • freedomringsforall

            Amen
            but you can even take a one to one equivalent comparison:
            I just can’t wait to see the same judge force an Islamic bakery into providing cakes for gay couples.
            I guess that will probably end up in being 2 less demons here on earth that we have to deal with.
            Lets just hope and pray they only take the judge with them and not innocent by standers.

    • Chad

      You wonder why the left fights so hard against conservatives. Because they dwell on idiotic comments like yours Hargraves Ian. You should be ashamed of your self. Go buy a dictionary and learn how to articulate your argument in a productive way. In the meantime…just stop talking. You’re not helping.

      • wed333

        Maybe YOU need a dictionary to learn how to spell “yourself”.

      • Eric

        Dont be an azzhole.

    • Huffsucks FacebookDick

      Religion = Ignorance, Rape, Incest, Molestation and psychopaths stealing from the stupid…. miss any other shining beacons the church is known for?

      • awegweiser

        Torture, murder, war after war after war – after all “God is on our side”.

      • Doug

        Inquisition and Crusades.

      • vegangel

        Getting people to think fairytales are history.

    • awegweiser

      Spoken like a true ignorant bigot. And shouting at that.
      So you despise Obama, despise Muslims, despIse “faggots”. Jesus woud surely love you since you seem to know nothing about being a Christian.

    • Captain Jack

      Although I am not a Muslim nor agree with Gay lifestyle, I will make one reply. You won’t win over any of them by slinging unkind words about them. We can stand up for Hobby Lobby and against these idealogies without being hateful

    • Bacchus

      not if they serve bacon with their chicken. mussies are allergic to bacon. its not okay to eat bacon but its okay to commit murder. go figure.

  • LD Gracy

    We have a constitution right to freedom of religion. Obama says that is subordinate to the ability to get free contraceptives. Once the government is allowed to define our religious convictions and how far they may extend, religious freedom is dead in this country.

    Our country was founded on the right to worship the way we wanted, not as the state dictated. When was that right repealed?

    • Ronald Roth

      When you can DENY someone to the right of choice your RELIGION has overstepped it’s boundaries.

      • Atticus

        The morning after pill IS an abortifacient. I can deny someone the ‘right’ to spend my money to murder an unborn child.

        • awegweiser

          Two single cells that may or may not have joined is ‘”murdering an unborn child”? Really stretching reality, aren’t you. Such a frenzy to produce unwanted children, even those with severe deformities is baffled to me. Where is is all that concern and help after they arrive? Instead we see cuts in such funding. Were is all your concern about children then? Vote more GOP Governors and Congress into office?

      • Gail Finke

        Employees can buy whatever they want to buy with their own money. An employer not paying for their employees’ birth control doesn’t deny them anything.

        • Terri H Johnson

          Actually, because Hobby Lobby subsidizes the cost of the employee’s health insurance , they can decide what that coverage includes and excludes. Employees always have the ability to opt out of their company’s insurance offerings and join the healthcare exchange for coverage in line with their needs.

          • James Graham

            Bingo! Well said and to the point!

        • vegangel

          The whole point of benefits is not having to pay out of pocket. This tangential argument does nothing but sound self-righteous. You can pay for penicillin out of pocket too; that doesn’t make it right.

          • freedomringsforall

            I do not agree with your position in general, I don’t believe that you are seeing things straight and let me give you a pointer on your comment here.

            When you say, ” The whole point of benefits is not having to pay out of pocket”, well you either do not understand business or you simply stated your point oddly.

            If you actually meant that at imediatley or at the moment you don’t have to pay the cost in full then I guess you simply stated your point oddly and I would suggest different wording that makes you sound more credible in the future.
            Even though I don’t agree with your overall position I hope that this is helpful because even I hate to see someone look un-credible just because of their wording.

            If though you really meant to be stating an open ended fact, “The whole point of benefits is not having to pay out of pocket”, well I guess that is a different story.

      • pjmerc

        You have the right to work for a different company too. If you don’t like the company policies, get a different job. You aren’t being forced to work at Hobby Lobby.

        • Doug

          All the guys at my golf club took up scrapbooking just to help Hobby Lobby.

      • Terri H Johnson

        Actually, because Hobby Lobby subsidizes the cost of the employee’s health insurance , they can decide what that coverage includes. Employees always have the ability to opt out of their company’s insurance offerings and join the healthcare exchange for coverage in line with their needs.

        • Default Ideology

          Not according to the new law… Is that not what the court battle is about?

          • Terri H Johnson

            This company, like all companies, should have the right to decide what coverage includes. Yes, the court will decide soon whether Hobby Lobby will be forced to do something against the beliefs of its founders. Thank you for your insight.

          • Default Ideology

            Not to be argumentative, but the law always dictates what employers shall and shall not provide. Companies, if allowed their own decisions would exploit people for prophet. I’m not saying that Hobby Lobby owners would be so evil, but lets face it, businesses have to follow the law regardless if they like it or not.

          • James Graham

            Of course “businesses have to follow the law, regardless if they like it or not.”

            I’m sure that if the founders of this nation believed that they “have to follow the law, regardless if they like it or not”, we’d likely still be under British rule. No….one does not “follow the law” because the law says so. Come to think of it, I seem to recall a SCOTUS decision many years ago that actually stated that we are not bound by unconstitutional laws (or something to that effect).

          • Default Ideology

            I’m not sure where to take this conversation. You seem to be under the assumption that people don’t have to follow laws. Okay? SCOTUS is the “decider” if laws are constitutional or not. They are the ones that have that say. SCOTUS is the final arbitrator of constitutionality. I’m curious if you slept through this part of your education.

          • James Graham

            I refer you to but one of many writings on this topic.

            http://loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/Extensions.fisher.pdf

            One particular, but certainly not the only thought on this debate:

            “Journalists and reporters play a key role in promoting judicial supremacy. When the Supreme Court hands down a decision, newspapers typically treat it as final and definitive.

            Writing for the Washington Post in 1996, Joan Biskupic said that the importance of the Supreme Court is not in the number of its cases but rather “in the court having the last word. The justices are the final arbiter of what is in the Constitution.”31

            It is true that the Court is the final “arbiter,” but that voice is final only within the judiciary. It is not the final
            voice on constitutional law, as is evident throughout U.S. history.”

            I strongly urge everyone following this thread to check out the link at the beginning of my comment, above.

          • Default Ideology

            Great, so you agree that SCOTUS is the final arbiter regarding the constitutionality of the Health Care Act as it applies to Hobby Lobby. Perfect. We agree.

          • James Graham

            No, “Default”, we do not agree.

            I’m disappointed in you because 2 minutes before I posted, I predicted that you would latch on to a (not so) clever reply. Never mind that you didn’t respond to the other similar points in the article.”

            Here, let’s read that next to last paragraph again:

            “It is true that the Court is the final “arbiter,” but that voice is final only within the judiciary. It is not the final
            voice on constitutional law, as is evident throughout U.S. history”

          • Default Ideology

            Okay. Here is my reply. You’re wrong. They use the constitution and base their decisions on their INTERPRETATION of the constitution. It’s pretty simple. Which is pretty evident throughout US History.

          • imonmyway

            Wouldn’t it be lovely if those who, by hook and crook, forced this unpopular law on the rest of us had to live by it too?! Oh, but no! They have exempted themselves and their bffs. Everything about this law stinks. Only when it hits liberals in the pocket book will they turn against it. They don’t care much about religious freedom, but they dearly love their money!

          • freedomringsforall

            Amen to that
            All the liberals get exempted from this tax
            The government workers, unions, and other Obama cronies etc..
            What ever happened to equal treatment under the law.
            Just one more reason this piece of crap is unconstitutional.

          • Default Ideology

            Everyone has to follow the law. Congress has to follow the law. It seems you hold to a position that isn’t factual. Please show me what it states Congress or anyone else doesn’t have to follow the Health Care Act. As far as “unconstitutional laws” are concerned. This is exactly what SCOTUS will be evaluating with this law. They will evaluate the constitutionality as it applies to secular businesses that are owned and operated by religious people. In that context you are correct.

        • vegangel

          Then they could choose to offer policies with “limited benefits” or ones that exclude pre-existing conditions. The point of the law is to offer broader protections to individuals and take some of the power away from large corporations–even Christian ones that started in someone’s garage.

      • freedomringsforall

        HELLO!
        Is their life inside that cranium?
        Christians are not forcing non-Christians to pay for things for Christians against non-Christian’s beliefs.
        Christians are asking that nobody be forced to pay for anything against their beliefs.
        So, please join us in believing that Christians and non-Christians alike should be equally treated and not forced to pay for anything through the health card bill that is against anyone’s belief system.
        MAKE SENSE
        NOT WAR

    • awegweiser

      Contraceptives are NOT free, clearly you swallow the bullshit pumped out. They are paid for by the premiums paid into insurance policies. What other vicious myths do youj buy?

      • rhonan

        This site is full of birthers and tin-foil trucker hats are pretty common.

        • freedomringsforall

          1.) First off LD Gracy isn’t saying that it is ultimately free.
          The “understood” point for all who can understand much of anything is just as you say everyone has to pay for some peoples contraception through the mandated minimums of Obama care, i.e. through the premiums.

          2.) Obama says that Obama care is a tax that everyone has to pay.
          That is why they say it is mandated.
          If you haven’t heard they have been fighting about that for years now.
          Minimums are set for all policies (or taxation vehicles) by virtue of their premium payment.
          Contraception is included.
          So, those that do not believe in contraception are forced to pay for it under the mandate (taxation vehicle).
          So, I guess you are so ill informed that you think the case of the nuns and contraception in front of the Supreme Court is a myth also.

      • Doug

        Don’t swallow the contraceptives either.

      • freedomringsforall

        Wrong
        Obama says that Obama care is a tax that everyone has to pay.
        That is why they say it is mandated.
        If you haven’t heard they have been fighting about that for years now.
        Minimums are set for all policies (or taxation vehicles).
        Contraception is included.
        So, those that do not believe in contraception are forced to pay for it under the mandate (taxation vehicle).
        So, I guess you are so ill informed that you think the case of the nuns and contraception in front of the Supreme Court is a myth also.
        You are obviously the one doing the swallowing.

        • awegweiser

          And those who believe in no medicine at all must pay, anyway. A couple who thought that prayer alone would cure their kid’s disease, lost TWO of them. And there even are those who believe in magic potions, voodoo, spells and incantations,etc. No, the bad ACA will not pay for those “treatments”.
          As for the nuns, all they need do is sign a document certifying they are indeed a real religious organizations and they are exempt. Instead they take up the Court’s time and further enrich lawyers.

          • freedomringsforall

            It isn’t as simple as you state.
            If you would read up on the case you would see that.
            Almost nothing with this “law” is as simple as is stated by those that have supported it.
            All the concepts of the differences in peoples beliefs that you state, whether you or I agree with them or not, are perfect reasons why their should be no mandate.

          • awegweiser

            The basic concept of insurance is that all who benefit or may benefit, need to pay into a pool from which payouts are drawn. Why should I pay my car insurance when I have not had a claim for the last 20 years? Because I might have one tomorrow, and others surely will. Spreading the cost over as many as possible so as to provide the benefit for as many as require it. Were all were to freely choose to pass on car insurance, the premiums would be in the stratosphere (the protection to society from lousy drivers is another issue).
            Without a mandate, we would be back to the crappy system we had, where the less advantaged suffer, and we have the worst system in the industrial world (for example, check out infant death rates around the world). Without a mandate. anybody holding absolutely any crackpot philosophy could opt out, and the rest of us left holding the bag.
            Of course, what would have been far better than this version of the ACA would have been a single payer – Vermont has one. But, who do you suppose opposed such scheme?
            There would have been howls of “Socialism” and the insurance companies would have been deprived of their rip-off profits.
            Oh, one item. The ER – the last and only refuge of the uninsured, where the waits can be excruciatingly long and the costs are horrendous – who picks up the tab that patients do not have … you and I, freedoms …

          • freedomringsforall

            Yeah

            Finally you made many points that anyone against this law have been making from the start.

            Got to Love your first sentence:

            The basic concept of insurance is that all who benefit or may benefit, need to pay into a pool from which payouts are drawn.

            Thank you could not have made the point better myself.
            I am old as dirt.
            I have never been to a doctor and probably never will.
            I do not benefit from this so why should I pay.
            Even if I do end up in health care some day trust me I am so old that I will never consume the hundreds of thousands that I have paid into the system.
            And if the diagnosis is for hundreds of thousands of dollars in care I have arranged to tell them to pull the plug.
            I am certainly not worth that.
            The nuns will never need contraception so why should they pay for your life style.
            The Christians of Hobby Lobby and all the other Christians from other corporations and organizations will never benefit from contraception or abortive drugs so why should they pay for your stuff.
            You are absolutely correct 100%.
            Those that use the services should pay for the services those that do not should not be forced to.
            If you want people to be forced to pay for other peoples stuff then get you rear over here tonight and pay for my 10 liquor mixed drink that costs almost $100.00.
            If you don’t want to then take your fing mandate and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
            If you don’t want to pay for my stuff then I don’t make me pay for your stuff.
            When you gonna get it; when you take your shot gun to the neighbors and demand their $1,000.00 and they say to H with you give us your $1,000.00 and they are quicker at the draw than you.
            What then.
            You gonna look up at the sky and say well shi_ Lord I guess I get it now.
            If I keep demanding that some body else pay for my crap, sooner or later somebody is going to demand that I pay for their crap.
            Who even gives a crap about all that bs it is not constitutional on many, many basis.
            You are silly if your point is that wow I don’t care if we loose our constitutional rights and freedoms just as long as I get the health care I want.
            If that is what you want then you need to go to Iran.
            You will get all the health care you want on a one payer system but then if they get any inkling what so ever that you are a westerner or a Christian then you will be beheaded.
            Wow, I guess health care is worth the loss of some constitutional rights and freedoms huh.
            HAHAHAHAHAHA
            here is a funny for you:
            Ya know that angry birds game.
            My girlfriend has been harassing me for a long time to do that.
            Guess what
            My response to her over and over and over was that nothing is for free.
            Was I right; or what?
            Hopefully you understand that it just came out in the last couple of days that the NSA has been collecting all of everyone’s personal data that they can through that game because somehow they hacked the game in a way that it gives them total access to your phone.
            End game is that you go ahead and go all in for this Obama care crap; you will get what you are looking for and much, much more.
            Trust me I knew way back in ’76 that the NSA was tapped into ever wire they could get their hands on and collecting every bit of data and information on everyone they could.
            So, have many of your senior Senators and Congressional Reps.
            It would be interesting to know why you would fight so passionately for a law that demands the slaughter of millions of Gods little children.
            Let’s say you think that people that think that way are crazy even though pure high tech modern science can show you the little fingers and toes and the heart beat and the facial expressions of those little children of God right in front of your face.
            How can you possibly think that it is unconstitutional for people to want to protect those little children of God.
            Even if you think they are crazy.
            Those same people who you ridicule and demean for their views would fight to the death to save you from tyrannical death.
            Why can’t people that have never lived under any other system understand that that crappy system is the crappy system that the entire world has been jealous of for a century.
            Why can’t people that have never lived under any other system understand that that crappy system is the crappy system that the entire world runs to when they have a serious health problem.
            Why can’t people that have never lived under any other system understand that that crappy system is the crappy system that all the rich and in need of the BEST health care the world has to offer come to.
            I may hate the system for my own personal reasons but no matter how crappy you want to call it, and no matter how crappy you want to rate it, it might be the scrappiest system in the world until you go to the other country with your best rated health care system and then ours is all of a sudden where you want to be no matter how crappy you previously rated it.
            No matter how much you can ridicule and rail and hate Capitalism it is, by the magic hand, the most efficient and best system that man has ever devised to let God’s miracles be displayed.
            I feel the need to share an experience that I had tonight.
            A friend invited me over and we watched the Nuremburg trials and the documentation of the hunting and execution of NAZI war criminals.
            We were about 3/4 of the way through the film and had watched a lot of the crimes and the hunting and the different European countries execution of the NAZI war criminals (many by hanging) and then they showed a very short segment of the U.S hanging ( not more than two).
            I started laughing because it was absolutely shocking; the difference between all the shots of many different European countries hangings of prisoners and the U.S. hanging of prisoners.
            You would think that after all the centuries of hangings that the European monarchs are infamous for that they would be the most precise professional hangings.
            No
            The films of the European hangings were so gross, and so unprofessional it was sickening.
            They would try 3 times and more, they would even climb onto the bodies to try to make sure that this time their neck would snap even twisting the neck and climbing off the hanging body at the end of the drop.
            It was like grade schoolers trying to figure out how to hang a body after centuries of their countries doing this.

            Then when they showed the U.S. military (our country had been in existence for only about 170 years or so) you knew just by the site of the professional looking gallows that the prisoner would not suffer.
            Then they walked the prisoner up the steps and put the rope around his neck and dropped the hatch and bang; dead in a millisecond.
            I started laughing almost uncontrollably.
            The U.S. had not been around hanging people but for a blink of an eye compared to the European history of hanging people.
            Yet there was absolutely no comparison as to the efficiency and the professional and moral humanity in which the U.S. did that compared to the Europeans that had been doing it for centuries.
            It was such an incredible comparison as to our dedication to humanity and to our sense of our dedication to constitutional law and it’s pronouncement of God’s given rights and freedoms that it made me burst out in a spontaneous reflexive laughter.
            Why can’t people get it.
            We have been so dedicated to do not tread on me that we will even give the worst criminals the world has ever seen/or experienced the most moral and beneficial trial and execution known to man.
            I am sure that they measured the platform and the rope, and its tensile strength, and the drop and everything with amazing perfection just to give the most horrific criminals of our time the most human execution possible.
            All because God bless us that is who we are;
            Or were.
            You can call our health system before Obama care crappy all you want, but I defy you to find anyone anywhere in the world in need of serious health care that would mouth those words.

  • SusieQ

    Is this country topsy-turvy! The top dog in the country can’t use his PEN to excuse these groups , all for doin’ the big unions bosses a favor but nuns and others with religious convictions. Nah! Shame they weren’t muslims. Bet they are not touched by any of this if they object.

    • Ronald Roth

      Another idiotic Muslim comment. LMAO The bigotry just shows through. This is because Obama is black… come on you know that is it. Say it you are racist and a bigot.

      • SusieQ

        Racist, racists, racist, racist, racist, racist,racist, racist,racist, racist, now have you heard it enough.

        • Ole Man

          All you have to do is look at most of the comments posted on these pages to know that the racist claim is quite true.

          • SusieQ

            Do you guys repeat racists in your sleep?

        • Doug

          One more would have cemented the deal.

      • SusieQ

        Are you new on the payroll?

      • GPM

        Obama is one-half white.

        • sroysr

          and biden is one-half wit!!!

          • rhonan

            Oh no, he is all wit. Has more wisdom than anyone in the Tea Party too.

          • Doug

            That’s a good one. Clever.

        • rhonan

          One of the things I like about Obama is that he is more Irish than GWB.

      • pevans1

        Racist! Racist! It’s Bush’s fault! Bush’s fault!
        Ha ha ha! Fricken commie loser!

      • wildchill

        The first one to call racist or bigot are usually the true racist. Who cares if Obama is black ,white or green, if he can’t lead then he needs to get out of the way.

      • imonmyway

        There it is! It had to happen! When you realize you’re losing the argument, use your favorite crutch…racism! Sooooo predictable and sooooo lame!

  • Lyndsay

    ONCE AND FOR ALL YOU MORONS: contraception is not abortion. This is stupid. Plus, hobby lobby is a shitty company to work for. Even their employees are miserable. PLEASE JUST CLOSE YOUR STORE. THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE.

    • wed333

      Some forms of contraception are, in fact, medicinal abortions to which some people object on religious grounds. If you (or anyone) would like to use those types of contraception and your health plan doesn’t cover it, then pay for it yourself. What’s wrong with that?

      • Ronald Roth

        The morning after pill is NOT an ABORTION PILL… look up the facts before you jump.

        • Peggy Joseph

          I still don’t want to have to pay for other people’s mistakes and stupidity.

          • awegweiser

            Or accidents? Of life threaten conditions for the Mom?? Or Rape/Incest pregnancies? Or severely deformed fetuses? Wow, what a loving and caring person you must be … and devoutly religious too, ??

    • keysrat

      You obviously did not listen to the recording or read the article. Hobby Lobby is not opposed to contraceptives. It’s the pills that abort the fertilized egg after conception. I total agree because this is just another form of abortion.

      • Ronald Roth

        Wrong again. Do you even know how the Morning after pill works? No? Look it up it is not a form of abortion. This is really all about Obama being black. Period. End of story. All of your racism and bigotry is showing everyday people. Fess up you hate it.

        • Chris

          I could care less what color he is, I think he’s incompetent when it comes to running the country. Not to mention the number of scandals this administration has overseen, but doesn’t ever know about. The fact that you cry racism because anyone disagrees just proves you have no argument or you are incapable of engaging in a civilized political debate. Have good day.

          • Ole Man

            You lost your argument when you said “I think”. You don’t think for yourself. You’re a sheep spouting talking points.

          • Chris

            No sheep stay with herd and don’t think for their selves I keep myself informed so I can make my own assessment of a situation and therefore I can think. Enjoy your koolaid sir.

          • topmah

            Are you describing yourself, Ole Man? Obviously…baaa, baaaa…..

          • SusieQ

            Sheep say baaa, baaa he says racists, racists. Ha!

          • Doug

            Susie you can come up with better than that.

          • SusieQ

            Ok, How about raaaaaaacist, raaaaaaaacist! I figure that sounds more like a raaaaaaaaacist little lamb.

        • keysrat

          I think it is more about Obama’s white side. His twisted mind probably came from his trailer trash whoring mother who probably didn’t even know who Obama’s real father was. He looks more like Malcolm X than Obama Senior. Regardless, he was raised as a Marxist communist by his mother, grandparents and the ideas of his father and mentors.

          • obadiahlynch

            “Whoring” .. way to keep it classy, people of bizpac

          • awegweiser

            Don’t expect too much from some of this nasty and vicious crowd, – civil discourse is beyond them.

          • obadiahlynch

            Ya .. just yesterday I was on someone for referring to Sarah Silverman as a, I do believe it was, “Filthy Jew”. It’s amazing; like you’re on FreeRepublic or something over here.

          • rhonan

            Seriously, anyone here who isn’t a racist gets branded immediately as a liberal troll. Then again, I’m pretty sure the only people here who aren’t racists are us reason evangelists trying to save them from their ignorance.

          • Nimadan

            I totally agree with your take on Zero’s origin. Granted, compared to all the other stuff he’s done, doing, and will do, his lies about his family are pretty small stuff.

    • Eric

      I bet you’ve never worked a day in your life, welfare c**t.

      • Ronald Roth

        Intelligent. Typical of the red neck masses.

        • SusieQ

          Redneck, redneck, redneck, redneck, redneck, ok?

          • Ole Man

            I am a redneck and we’d kick his moronic a$$ out of the group for making us look stupid.

          • Doug

            I think you need two more in this case.

          • SusieQ

            My fingers got tired.

        • SusieQ

          Thank you!

      • SusieQ

        These are not real people, probably paid by Media Matters headed by non other than George Soros, No one could have such childish rhetoric unless they are paid teenagers.

      • Ole Man

        Name calling? Really strong point.

        • SusieQ

          Thank You!

      • obadiahlynch

        Way to keep it classy, Bizpac folks.

    • Gail Finke

      Wow. You are a beacon of calm rationality and this i the most cogent argument I have ever heard. I now see that everything I understood about the Constitution, freedom of religion, and employment law was wrong.

      • Ole Man

        He wasn’t calm. That part is true.
        The part about everything you understand being wrong is also true.

      • obadiahlynch

        Get used to it

        • Gail Finke

          Ha ha. No.

    • pjmerc

      No one says you have to shop at Hobby Lobby. No one forces anyone to work there either. If you don’t like their policies, boycott the place, but you don’t have the right to force them to obey an illegal law- which is what the ACA is.

      • Ole Man

        Supreme Court says it is a legal law.

        • James Graham

          SCOTUS is not the final say, since they also are subject to the Constitution.

    • Terri H Johnson

      If their employees are miserable, then they would probably be miserable in other retail stores as well. Some people just aren’t meant to work with the public. Hobby Lobby has fantastic store hours. There is not other large retail chain that gives their employees Sundays off. I imagine that HL’s employees probably enjoy having that day off regardless of whether they are Christians or not.

  • wed333

    When and why did contraception become an “illness” that requires health care coverage? Is it any wonder that insurance premiums are through the roof? Why can’t people be responsible for their own actions and pay for their own contraception? Honestly, how much do rubbers cost?

    This has nothing to do with health care or women’s health. It is a political game to push abortion down everyone’s throats using our own tax money to do it. Shameful.

    • Ronald Roth

      Wrong again. Contraception is the key. The Morning after pill is not an ABORTION PILL. LMAO By practicing contraception you save the tax payers BILLIONS… repeat BILLIONS!!!

      • Maureen

        By not being a slut you can save billions also, moron.

  • ME

    As a woman I do not need my employer to pay for any kind of Birth Control for me.. I am a big girl and can and will take care of my own personal needs.. It is called Personal Responsibility . People need to grow up and stop expecting someone to take care of their every whim.. If you want to play then you will have to pay..

    • Ronald Roth

      Another uncaring moron. I bet you call yourself a Christian too. LMAO

      • Terri H Johnson

        How is she an uncaring moron?? Because she wants to take responsibility for herself, she’s a moron? That makes absolutely no sense. I would love to see millions of women step up and take care of themselves as well as their children. THAT would save this country billions.

        • Maureen

          Ronald Roth is the moron. All of his replies are moronic.

  • Ronald Roth

    The morning after pill is not an ABORTION PILL. LMAO some people are morons

    • Atticus

      Case in point.

    • FirstAmendment

      Not the point. It ‘IS’ a contraceptive and why should any employer (or tax payer for that matter) pay for you to have sex??? Pay for it yourself!

      • Ole Man

        The old “paying you to have sex” argument.
        How is that happening?
        Don’t spout talking points unless you can explain them.
        No one is being paid to have sex.
        They are being offered a health choice, reproductive freedom.

  • Richard Baumeister

    Its about time we amplified the true meaning of Freedom of religion. The right to exercise the act of practicing our religion unimpeded by government. This includes new laws that violate that right such as The affordable care act or Obamacare. Abortion to us is a supreme violation and it is being forced upon us under the guise of the government taking care of us in a way that we see as murder and we will never see it any other way. Simply make this an option we can refuse! All the rest of you can murder to your hearts content with the governments help.

  • J. C. Smith

    While all of this is true, what’s really as stake here is the freedom of all Americans. Obamacare is pure tyranny. It enslaves us all.

    • Ole Man

      How? How does it enslave anyone?
      Stop posting if you can’t do anything but sound stupid.
      You do nothing to convince people you are right.

      • ron thomasson

        The only thing worse than being an Ole Man is being the Delusional, Ole Man that you are…

        • Ole Man

          You can’t answer a simple question, and yet you call me delusionsal?
          Right!

  • MSG L

    I am not a christian, but I will stand with Hobby Lobby any day.