And here we go with the "when does life begin" debate....

 

I had already started a thread on that question before I saw this...

The 2 suits are apples to bananas. In the Hobby Lobby case no one argued that women couldn't or even shouldn't use the 4 drugs that the company objected to just that the company shouldn't be forced to pay for them. In this case no one is denying a woman the "right" to kill her baby just giving her full information about the procedure.

The 2 suits are apples to bananas. In the Hobby Lobby case no one argued that women couldn't or even shouldn't use the 4 drugs that the company objected to just that the company shouldn't be forced to pay for them. In this case no one is denying a woman the "right" to kill her baby just giving her full information about the procedure.

But religion is at the core of both cases.

Speaking of bias... :eek:

Just reminding TTP that he is wrong again as usual.... You are pro- abortion, I am anti-abortion.. who is bias...

Just reminding TTP that he is wrong again as usual.... You are pro- abortion, I am anti-abortion.. who is bias...

 

Obviously you when you use the term murder. :thumb:

But religion is at the core of both cases.

 

Ah yes, the smoking gun...

It was an ALL male court that gave women the right to murder their own babies so your argument holds no water...

Were they all Catholic though?

Doesn't matter what the core is the claims are totally different.

 

Again no one is saying the satanists can't kill their babies just like no one is saying that women that work for Hobby Lobby can't use the 4 drugs they don't want to pay for.

Obviously you when you use the term murder. :thumb:

What would I be charged with if I killed an unborn baby while driving impaired ?? Usually the taking of a human life is murder...

But religion is at the core of both cases.

 

That's an assumption you can't make until you see what the material they are required to endure.

What would I be charged with if I killed an unborn baby while driving impaired ?? Usually the taking of a human life is murder...

 

I am just having a little fun with you and softly asking that you step back and look at your position as objectively as possible.

 

And I hear you on the unborn fetus laws. There certainly is a lack of consistency between those laws and what is legal as an abortion.

 

With that said, I don't know all the specifics on the unborn fetus/DUI Laws so I am speculating and welcome anyone to start a thread on it so we can break it down.

Doesn't matter what the core is the claims are totally different.

Does matter. Once the high court starts carving out exceptions based on religion, where will it end? Is not Satanism or Wicca equal to Christianity in the eyes of the law? I think it's fairly safe to say the Supreme Court will be avoiding any more Hobby Lobby-like cases in the next few years.

That's an assumption you can't make until you see what the material they are required to endure.

 

Kinda why I liked referring to it as a smoking gun.

 

On a more serious note, I think your point is only one of the issues. Not only do you have to look at the material but you have to determine the logic/lobbying behind the material.

Does matter. Once the high court starts carving out exceptions based on religion, where will it end? Is not Satanism or Wicca equal to Christianity in the eyes of the law? I think it's fairly safe to say the Supreme Court will be avoiding any Hobby Lobby-like cases in the next few years.

 

K5 shot!

That's fine. If a Satanist employer doesn't want to pay for some drug or service mandated by Obamacare based on his/her beliefs then so be it, that's the only precedent this case set and I'm fine with it. If I as a potential employee of that Satanist want to work for someone who pays for that service/product I don't work for the Satanist. Simple.

 

If a Christian Scientist employer doesn't want to pay for health care so be it, I would take that into consideration when deciding to work for that company. The same thing applies if a Jehovah's Witness employer didn't want to pay for transfusion services.