Politics

[Domina Nostra]

All these examples are discrimination by definition. With that said all the that cake place has to say look sorry we are extremely busy that weekend won't be able to fit you in.(I say this because when my wife and i got married this is the first question they asked when is it) Nothing anyone can say about that. And it's a reasonable excuse for someone not go against their beliefs.

I was being flippant. You're heterosexual and you didn't get exactly what you wanted. So let's be a little more precise. You have a right to be deined services, just not for this reason.

 

[irishff1014]

I was being flippant. You're heterosexual and you didn't get exactly what you wanted. So let's be a little more precise. You have a right to be deined services, just not for this reason.

I understand what you are saying i wasn't picking at you. I was just using on example that you had given. Not sure how i didn't get what i wanted but ok.

 

[Domina Nostra]

If someone came into a shop and the shop owner said "I am a deeply religious person and marriage is a very serious matter to me, so i have some questions []...."

If he doesnt like the answer to, lets just say the masturbation question, is he within his rights to refuse service?

I think that would be entirely crazy and the guy would go out of business very quickly. If I went into that store I would turn around and leave as soon as he asked his question.

Would I report him to the authorities and try to sue him into baking me a cake without asking his crazy question? NO. There are a million other bakers in town, and I can still sleep at night even knowing that a few of them think I am sinner.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I think that would be entirely crazy and the guy would go out of business very quickly. If I went into that store I would turn around and leave as soon as he asked his question.

Would I report him to the authorities and try to sue him into baking me a cake without asking his crazy question? NO. There are a million other bakers in town, and I can still sleep at night even knowing that a few of them think I am sinner.

Why is asking not to be complicit in a marriage that doesn't conform to the religions teaching he believes in, crazy?

What is the difference between these scenarios:

1. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore i can't make a cake for a gay wedding.

2. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore I can't make a wedding cake for a couple having pre-marital sex.

3. Sorry, I am a religious person and wedding is sacred therefore I can't make a wedding cake for a masturbator.

4. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore I can't make a cake to celebrate your 3rd marriage.

5. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore I can't make a wedding cake for you since you had a child out of wedlock.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I understand what you are saying i wasn't picking at you. I was just using on example that you had given. Not sure how i didn't get what i wanted but ok.

Sorry, I misread you!

I think the same kind of people who are hyper-concerned about baking a cake for a gay wedding would be worried about lying as well.

 

[wizards8507]

But in this case it is discrimination. This isn't a matter of turning them away because they didn't like your prices, or turning them away because they wanted you to travel to another state to do the service and you objected to the travel, or turning them away because you are already booked for that weekend. They are discriminating against them based on their sexual preference and nothing else. Generally as long as the person meets certain criteria in the service industry (they can pay for it, they choose a time that you are normally available, etc) then you have to provide the service.

You're describing how it is. I'm describing how I believe it ought to be.

I should be able to refuse to do business with you simply because I don't like your face.

 

[GoIrish41]

Why is asking not to be complicit in a marriage that doesn't conform to the religions teaching he believes in, crazy?

What is the difference between these scenarios:

1. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore i can't make a cake for a gay wedding.

2. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore I can't make a wedding cake for a couple having pre-marital sex.

3. Sorry, I am a religious person and wedding is sacred therefore I can't make a wedding cake for a masturbator.

4. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore I can't make a cake to celebrate your 3rd marriage.

5. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore I can't make a wedding cake for you since you had a child out of wedlock.

Is a baker really complicit in a marriage when he bakes a cake for a wedding? I mean, his job is baking cakes.

6. Sorry, I am a religious person except the part about reserving judgment for God, so I can't bake your cake because I judge you to be a sinner.

7. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore I can't make you a cake because I'm against two people who love each other pledging that love forever.

The baker isn't being asked to join the couple in their wedding bed. He's making a freakin cake. Reading back through the posts I've seen some suggest that the gay couple is perhaps trying to make this an issue by choosing this baker. I might suggest that the baker is making an issue by discriminating agains this couple. He should make the cake and stop being a douche.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Why is asking not to be complicit in a marriage that doesn't conform to the religions teaching he believes in, crazy?
What is the difference between these scenarios:

1. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore i can't make a cake for a gay wedding.

2. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore I can't make a wedding cake for a couple having pre-marital sex.

3. Sorry, I am a religious person and wedding is sacred therefore I can't make a wedding cake for a masturbator.

4. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore I can't make a cake to celebrate your 3rd marriage.

5. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore I can't make a wedding cake for you since you had a child out of wedlock.

Beause if he believes that he can only bake for people who were perfectly pure before, during, and after their wedding, he isn't going to survive as a baker!

But let's be clear, the people in these cases were not people who: (1) believed that they weren't allowed to make cakes for sinners, and then (2) arrogantly and groundlessly assumed that that all heterosexuals were pure and all homosexuals were sinners. That is just a parody of the issue.

As far as the differences, that is a religious question for religious people. And while all hyper-educated biblical scholars seemed to have come to the convenient conclusion that homosexuality is really just one sin among many, this is not NECESSARILY the case. Lo and behold, many Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even Bhuddists have taught through the centuries that homosexuality is a particularly bad sin since it involves a much deeper perversion of the natural order. It follows that same-sex marriages are also a particularly grave perversion.

In other words, some people might actually think its much worse than those things!

From the Cathoolic perspective, the second marriage isuue is least somewhat similar, ithe sense that it undermines the Catholic meaning of marriage. I could see a Catholic baker--especially in a Catholic country--refusing to bake a cake for a second marriage.

However, in Catholic theology all the other things are acts that you can repent of (masturbation, premarital sex). You can't repent of something that you intend to vow to continue doing or don't intend to stop doing.

As a Catholic,

 

[Domina Nostra]

Is a baker really complicit in a marriage when he bakes a cake for a wedding? I mean, his job is baking cakes.

6. Sorry, I am a religious person except the part about reserving judgment for God, so I can't bake your cake because I judge you to be a sinner.

7. Sorry, I am a religious person and weddings are sacred therefore I can't make you a cake because I'm against two people who love each other pledging that love forever.

The baker isn't being asked to join the couple in their wedding bed. He's making a freakin cake. Reading back through the posts I've seen some suggest that the gay couple is perhaps trying to make this an issue by choosing this baker. I might suggest that the baker is making an issue by discriminating agains this couple. He should make the cake and stop being a douche.

This is why religion had to be specifically protected in the Constituion. Lots of people don't respect people they don't understand and would casually force them to disobey their consciences.

 

[wizards8507]

I might suggest that the baker is making an issue by discriminating agains this couple. He should make the cake and stop being a douche.

Brilliant, seriously (no sarcasm at all). YOU might suggest that. There's no need for the government or anyone else to mandate it. If a baker is discriminating, call him out as a douche by not supporting his place of business. Eventually, he'll figure out that he can't discriminate because he'll lose customers. Racist pizza guys and homophobic bakers will go out of business without the need to pass a single law because no one will shop there.

 

[ab2cmiller]

I'm just curious after 13,291 posts in this thread, mostly by people who are either staunchly liberal or conservative, what has been the result? Has anyone that's read this thread ever had their mind changed on a topic by what someone else has posted?

 

[GoIrish41]

Brilliant, seriously (no sarcasm at all). YOU might suggest that. There's no need for the government or anyone else to mandate it. If a baker is discriminating, call him out as a douche by not supporting his place of business. Eventually, he'll figure out that he can't discriminate because he'll lose customers. Racist pizza guys and homophobic bakers will go out of business without the need to pass a single law because no one will shop there.

I'm not in favor of creating a law to make a baker bake a cake for anyone -- it is silly. I haven't gone to a Chick-fil-A since I learned about their views and I never will again (ironically, their sandwhiches taste like balls so its not much of a saccrifice on my part). As surprising as it may seem I completely agree with your post. Although, I think this is a completely different thing than the healthcare related exemptions to insurance coverage by employers with religious objections. Said employers are forcing their beliefs on their employees who may well not agree with them. While most everyone else has to comply with this law, these people do not. It is a disappointing ruling by the SPOTUS.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Beause if he believes that he can only bake for people who were perfectly pure before, during, and after their wedding, he isn't going to survive as a baker!
Who said "perfectly pure" though... In order to protect the sanctity of marriage, how is he crazy for refusing his services to those people who commit acts which clearly go against his religious teachings?

But let's be clear, the people in these cases were not people who: (1) believed that they weren't allowed to make cakes for sinners, and then (2) arrogantly and groundlessly assumed that that all heterosexuals were pure and all homosexuals were sinners. That is just a parody of the issue.

See next paragraph

As far as the differences, that is a religious question for religious people. And while all hyper-educated biblical scholars seemed to have come to the convenient conclusion that homosexuality is really just one sin among many, this is not NECESSARILY the case. Lo and behold, many Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even Bhuddists have taught through the centuries that homosexuality is a particularly bad sin since it involves a much deeper perversion of the natural order. It follows that same-sex marriages are also a particularly grave perversion.

In other words, some people might actually think its much worse than those things!

In the second paragraph, it seems anyone could be turned away for service based on their sins. Then in the 3rd paragraph, homosexuality becomes a sin of a higher order and so same sex marriage is too. So it looks to me like the levels to this are:

Worst: Homosexuality, ???

Bad: Pre marital sex, Out of wedlock birth, multiple marriages, extra marital affair

Not that bad: Masturbation, living together before marriage

At what other point besides the worst, is it acceptable to refuse service on religious grounds?

From the Cathoolic perspective, the second marriage isuue is least somewhat similar, ithe sense that it undermines the Catholic meaning of marriage. I could see a Catholic baker--especially in a Catholic country--refusing to bake a cake for a second marriage.

Isn't everything I listed an undermining of marriage? Maybe at different levels, but they still are not adhering to it.

However, in Catholic theology all the other things are acts that you can repent of (masturbation, premarital sex). You can't repent of something that you intend to vow to continue doing or don't intend to stop doing.


So is this all dependent on whether the person/couple is going to stop commiting acts that violate the sanctity of marriage? Because...

You can still masturbate when married.

Pre marital sex shifts to extra marital affairs.

Open marriages... Can a baker refuse service if he somehow learns that the couple is in an "open marriage"?

As a Catholic,

.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Brilliant, seriously (no sarcasm at all). YOU might suggest that. There's no need for the government or anyone else to mandate it. If a baker is discriminating, call him out as a douche by not supporting his place of business. Eventually, he'll figure out that he can't discriminate because he'll lose customers. Racist pizza guys and homophobic bakers will go out of business without the need to pass a single law because no one will shop there.

Yes sir

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I'm just curious after 13,291 posts in this thread, mostly by people who are either staunchly liberal or conservative, what has been the result? Has anyone that's read this thread ever had their mind changed on a topic by what someone else has posted?

I dont think any political epiphanies have happened, but you get a good grasp of people's reasoning for their beliefs.

 

[Wild Bill]

I'm not in favor of creating a law to make a baker bake a cake for anyone -- it is silly. I haven't gone to a Chick-fil-A since I learned about their views and I never will again (ironically, their sandwhiches taste like balls so its not much of a saccrifice on my part). As surprising as it may seem I completely agree with your post. Although, I think this is a completely different thing than the healthcare related exemptions to insurance coverage by employers with religious objections. Said employers are forcing their beliefs on their employees who may well not agree with them. While most everyone else has to comply with this law, these people do not. It is a disappointing ruling by the SPOTUS.

Hobby Lobby is not forcing anything. They are choosing not to pay for something. If their employees disagree, they are free to find another place of employment.

Keep in mind, Hobby Lobby has no obligation to pay for insurance at all. They can choose to pay the fine instead. They'd actually save money and could have avoided litigation/litigation expenses. They chose, to their own financial detriment, to litigate a small portion of the law and continue to pay for their employees healthcare. I'm sure 99.9% of their employees appreciate their decision.

 

[Wild Bill]

I'm just curious after 13,291 posts in this thread, mostly by people who are either staunchly liberal or conservative, what has been the result? Has anyone that's read this thread ever had their mind changed on a topic by what someone else has posted?

Yes, I have.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm just curious after 13,291 posts in this thread, mostly by people who are either staunchly liberal or conservative, what has been the result? Has anyone that's read this thread ever had their mind changed on a topic by what someone else has posted?

This is a great question. We talk about some fairly weighty topics in this thread, and many of us are fairly set in our belief systems. Not having such conversations, in my opinion, does us a dis-service. While most are staunchly on the left or the right, I think this thread offers the opportunity to hear some pretty smart people offering perspective to where those who think differently are coming from on a wide variety of issues. It's not always enjoyable, but I think gaining perspective is important as we face huge challenges as a nation. So, I come here despite the frequent name calling and mud slinging to learn what makes others tick, what is important to them, and why. Unless we understand where others are coming from, it will be more difficult to discover where we can come to some common ground. I find the political analysis on IE, for the most part, to be substanative. I'm a fairly liberal guy, and I'm not going to ever come to join my right-leaning chums on abolishing the minimum wage, or gutting the safety net, but I think I have a deeper understanding about what guys on the right are thinking instead of just assuming that they are mean-spirited, Gordon Gecko types. It may not be much, but for me it means something to have the debate and to gain understanding. This goes for everyone but the tea party guys ... those guys are assholes.

 

[Rack Em]

Alright I've perused this thread a bit over the last day and this is pissing me off. This issue is getting way off topic and the discussion is all hypothetical instead of grounded in the rule of law in which the case was decided.

The only thing this ruling is doing is telling HHS that they wrote a shitty rule. It wasn't the least restrictive means of distributing contraceptives to employees (a compelling government interest). Therefore the rule is stricken and it goes back to HHS so they can rewrite it in a way that doesn't infringe upon a closely held corporation's conscientious objections to paying for that contraception.

- No one is getting denied anything.
- Hobby Lobby just objected to paying for 4 abortifacients.
- Women who want them and refuse to change employers will be able to get them once HHS rewrites the rule.

 

[GoIrish41]

Hobby Lobby is not forcing anything. They are choosing not to pay for something. If their employees disagree, they are free to find another place of employment.

Keep in mind, Hobby Lobby has no obligation to pay for insurance at all. They can choose to pay the fine instead. They'd actually save money and could have avoided litigation/litigation expenses. They chose, to their own financial detriment, to litigate a small portion of the law and continue to pay for their employees healthcare. I'm sure 99.9% of their employees appreciate their decision.

I've been careful not to throw any punches at Hobby Lobby. In my eyes they are legitimately following what they believe.I would never take their rights to petition for a change to a law that they don't agree with. I just don't agree with the decision. I think it is short-sighted and I think that a for-profit corporation should not be treated as a person who has a religious exemption. There decision is going to lead to challenges from businesses across the country ... and not just on Obamacare. SCOTUS has kicked open a door for a whole lot of "religious objections" about all manner of laws, IMO. And not all of those objections are going to be legitimate.

 

[condoms SUCk]

Based on your name I thought you'd have a different take. Just to be clear you don't (unless you're business owner) pay for other people's health care plans. At least not directly. You could be talking about the raising cost of health care as whole, and how the price of one effects the costs of many. In which case disregard.

Yeah I was speaking in broad terms.
I just don't understand the mind set of some folks, again not sure where personal responsibilty became something you slough off onto someone else.

case in point-


"Activists in Detroit have begun lobbying the United Nations to step in and solve the city’s water troubles, in which half of residents cannot or are not willing to pay their water bills on time.

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department spokeswoman Curtrise Garner said it’s not the department’s goal to shut off people’s water, but bills need to be paid.

“We want people’s water on, just like they do; but you do have to pay for your water. … That’s the bottom line,” she told CBS’s Detroit affiliate."



Read more: Detroit residents can't pay their water bills, activists lobby U.N. for help - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[Domina Nostra]

.

"how is he crazy for refusing his services to those people who commit acts which clearly go against his religious teachings? "

For obvious reasons. You can't go very far in commerce if you will only deal with people that not only have the same beliefs as you, but also live them out.

However, there is a difference between, say, (1) catering a "Ghetto" party at a fraternity house where everyone is dressing like gangsters and (2) selling the same frat boys food at your restaurant. You might feel complicit in the racism of the first and not the second. It's not hard to understand, and it doesn't need to be perfectly air-tight philosophically.

"In the second paragraph, it seems anyone could be turned away for service based on their sins. Then in the 3rd paragraph, homosexuality becomes a sin of a higher order and so same sex marriage is too. So it looks to me like the levels to this are: . . ."

The point of the second paragraph is that people ACTUALLY denied services in very limited situations where they felt like they were becoming part of something that they considered to be morally wrong. They obviously didn't feel the same thing was happening in the other cases. Whether that is perfectly consistent depends on their religion tenets and how sever they consider the issues to be.

But yes, some people actually think that there is a significant difference between (a) two men getting married and (b) a man getting married to a woman who has had premarital sex. The difference is so obvious that we are having a national debate about one and not the other. And some people might take religious stands based on things they think are worse (I watched the kid get teased, but I wasn't going to stand there and let them beat him up...)

So is this all dependent on whether the person/couple is going to stop commiting acts that violate the sanctity of marriage? Because...

You can still masturbate when married.

Pre marital sex shifts to extra marital affairs.

Open marriages... Can a baker refuse service if he somehow learns that the couple is in an "open marriage"?

No. What I have been saying is that these cases arose in the context where a person felt like providing services made him complicit in something he thought was bad: gay marriage. They believed their actions demonstrated their support for the institution. Just like catering a "black face" party might make you feel complicit in the racism of the hosts in a way that is completely different than serving those same people food at your restauarnt.

From a Catholic perspective, not everything that is inconsistent with marriage (lying to your spouse, for example) or weakens an individual marriage, threatens to redefine or undermine the institution. Someone can cheat on their taxes without supporting a goverenment coup!

 

[pkt77242]

Alright I've perused this thread a bit over the last day and this is pissing me off. This issue is getting way off topic and the discussion is all hypothetical instead of grounded in the rule of law in which the case was decided.

The only thing this ruling is doing is telling HHS that they wrote a shitty rule. It wasn't the least restrictive means of distributing contraceptives to employees (a compelling government interest). Therefore the rule is stricken and it goes back to HHS so they can rewrite it in a way that doesn't infringe upon a closely held corporation's conscientious objections to paying for that contraception.

- No one is getting denied anything.
- Hobby Lobby just objected to paying for 4 abortifacients.
- Women who want them and refuse to change employers will be able to get them once HHS rewrites the rule.

Really? This whole entire thread is one off topic mess.

The only other issue I have with what you said is what do you consider to be an abortifacients? Plan B and IUDs are not generally considered to cause abortion. Plan B for example, can stop the egg from dropping, stop insemination of an egg or stop a fertilized egg from implanting but it can not cause an implanted fertilized egg to be aborted. So while it doesn't fit my definition of an abortion causing drug, I was wondering criteria you were using to label a drug or abortion inducing?

 

[Rack Em]

Really? This whole entire thread is one off topic mess.

The only other issue I have with what you said is what do you consider to be an abortifacients? Plan B and IUDs are not generally considered to cause abortion. Plan B for example, can stop the egg from dropping, stop insemination of an egg or stop a fertilized egg from implanting but it can not cause an implanted fertilized egg to be aborted. So while it doesn't fit my definition of an abortion causing drug, I was wondering criteria you were using to label a drug or abortion inducing?

The one Hobby Lobby used: interference with the fertilized egg. Essentially, life begins at conception.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

No idea what is going on, so make it easy for me: Should I start getting my bedazzler kits, doilies, and pine box derby cars at Michael's instead?!?

 

[wizards8507]

No idea what is going on, so make it easy for me: Should I start getting my bedazzler kits, doilies, and pine box derby cars at Michael's instead?!?

Don't forget foam spheres for your solar system and DNA dioramas.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[IrishJayhawk]

The one Hobby Lobby used: interference with the fertilized egg. Essentially, life begins at conception.

Hobby Lobby defines "conception" as one thing. The FDA and many scientists define it as something quite different.

This is a slippery slope case. Period.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

"how is he crazy for refusing his services to those people who commit acts which clearly go against his religious teachings? "

For obvious reasons. You can't go very far in commerce if you will only deal with people that not only have the same beliefs as you, but also live them out.

However, there is a difference between, say, (1) catering a "Ghetto" party at a fraternity house where everyone is dressing like gangsters and (2) selling the same frat boys food at your restaurant. You might feel complicit in the racism of the first and not the second. It's not hard to understand, and it doesn't need to be perfectly air-tight philosophically.

"In the second paragraph, it seems anyone could be turned away for service based on their sins. Then in the 3rd paragraph, homosexuality becomes a sin of a higher order and so same sex marriage is too. So it looks to me like the levels to this are: . . ."

The point of the second paragraph is that people ACTUALLY denied services in very limited situations where they felt like they were becoming part of something that they considered to be morally wrong. They obviously didn't feel the same thing was happening in the other cases. Whether that is perfectly consistent depends on their religion tenets and how sever they consider the issues to be.

But yes, some people actually think that there is a significant difference between (a) two men getting married and (b) a man getting married to a woman who has had premarital sex. The difference is so obvious that we are having a national debate about one and not the other. And some people might take religious stands based on things they think are worse (I watched the kid get teased, but I wasn't going to stand there and let them beat him up...)

So is this all dependent on whether the person/couple is going to stop commiting acts that violate the sanctity of marriage? Because...

You can still masturbate when married.

Pre marital sex shifts to extra marital affairs.

Open marriages... Can a baker refuse service if he somehow learns that the couple is in an "open marriage"?

No. What I have been saying is that these cases arose in the context where a person felt like providing services made him complicit in something he thought was bad: gay marriage. They believed their actions demonstrated their support for the institution. Just like catering a "black face" party might make you feel complicit in the racism of the hosts in a way that is completely different than serving those same people food at your restauarnt.

From a Catholic perspective, not everything that is inconsistent with marriage (lying to your spouse, for example) or weakens an individual marriage, threatens to redefine or undermine the institution. Someone can cheat on their taxes without supporting a goverenment coup!

I guess it really boils down to this.

I think the redefinition and undermining of marriage has already been brought by straight people, but so many people are breaking the rules that traditional religious people cant publicly rebuke them (See: "For obvious reasons. You can't go very far in commerce if you will only deal with people that not only have the same beliefs as you, but also live them out.") so they are left flailing on gay people.

 

[Buster Bluth]

1. You keep referring to all businesses as "Corporations", while in the trial this was true, it serves for every mom and pop store across the country. You have no interest in allowing a religious person to have a business and honor their conscience.

I have no interest in letting LLCs have religious values. That is what this is about. Nothing more.

2. Nice, conflation of beheading gays and denying birth control without even dropping a "ha ha".

I didn't conflate anything. I used one as an absurd example and one as a realistic example. You're playing the "persecuted christian" card at every opportunity.

So, let me follow your line of reasoning. A man can have faith. A man can own a business. As soon as that man opens his business, he must magically transform into someone who does not care what his business sponsors. Even if he finds some decisions as making him morally culpable? So, in essence: You are not allowed to be faithful to your belief, while owning a business, if you want no part of ending conceived pregnancies. Got it.

Is he morally culpable when his tax dollars start wars? Matthew 5:43-44 spells out Jesus' thoughts on that. Where are you screaming about culpability then?

YOU can be faithful to your belief. The society's mandate for minimum health care has nothing to do with that. YOU don't have to use the pills. YOU aren't culpable whatsoever.

You haven't once asked me if I thought business should be able to not offer contraceptives, nor have I stated it. I think that decision should be entirely up to the business, and not the government. I am in favor of universal catastrophic care, but I don't think the government should be in the business of forcing companies to offer health care packages that contain any extra care like Viagra, the pill, etc.

I am simply 1000000% against granting religious rights to a piece of paper. Next time I'm at mass (and that won't be until Christmas as not to upset the family too much) I don't expect to be sitting between Arby's and NAPA Auto Parts in the pews. That won't ever happen. That piece of paper won't ever be in line behind me at confession, or be damned to an eternity in hell. It doesn't have a soul, and it cannot have religious views.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Hobby Lobby used to offer the very coverage they have been complaining about.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...bby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/