Ginsburg dead

[The Scott]

The Left use the courts to pass laws that they could never get passed by vote.

Correct-O-Mundo!

They legislate to mutilate.  FTN, my brother!

[avxo]

The Left use the courts to pass laws that they could never get passed by vote.

Both sides try to use the Court as a means to an end: to advance their agenda. It's disingenuous to suggest that it's something that only one side does or does more often.

[Humble Narcissist]

Both sides try to use the Court as a means to an end: to advance their agenda. It's disingenuous to suggest that it's something that only one side does or does more often.

Examples on the right?

[avxo]

Examples on the right?

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

As a follow up to Hobby Lobby and whatever your personal opinion about Obamacare is, are conservatives not currently and actively trying to undercut the ACA by having the Court gut legislation that they don’t have the votes to repeal? Is that not judicial activism and not unlike what they accuse the left of perpetrating?

[Humble Narcissist]

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

As a follow up to Hobby Lobby and whatever your personal opinion about Obamacare is, are conservatives not currently and actively trying to undercut the ACA by having the Court gut legislation that they don’t have the votes to repeal? Is that not judicial activism and not unlike what they accuse the left of perpetrating?

All of those cases are to limit government power and maximize individual freedoms.

[avxo]

All of those cases are to limit government power and maximize individual freedoms.

That's one interpretation, sure. But you asked for cases which the right politicized and those cases were all heavily politicized, especially Hobby Lobby. But see, what you're doing is this: you treat cases that you agree with as "acceptable" and disregard political bias by virtue of the fact that you agree with those cases. Conversely, cases that you disagree with must surely be biased because, well, you disagree with them.

Let's talk about Hobby Lobby: here's a case where an employer basically wants to insert itself between a doctor and a patient and decide that certain medical legal procedures are not to be allowed. You claim that the decision "maximizes" individual freedoms; it may maximize them for some, sure, but it savagely curtails them for others so it's not as cut and dry as you suggest.

The cathecism of the Catholic Church considers birth control to be a sin. Would you be OK with your employer saying "Sorry Mr. Narcissist, you can't get that vasectomy because our CEO is Catholic and believes it's a sin"? What about an employer whose religious views which boil down to "Prayer Heal"? Can he get away with providing no health insurance at all? Can your boss tell you to stop getting vaccinated because he believes vaccines cause autism? More broadly, which of your boss' personal religious beliefs are to be ~shoved down your throat~ considered in connection with your healthcare?

[Humble Narcissist]

Hobby Lobby isn't required to offer health insurance at all.

[pellius]

That's one interpretation, sure. But you asked for cases which the right politicized and those cases were all heavily politicized, especially Hobby Lobby. But see, what you're doing is this: you treat cases that you agree with as "acceptable" and disregard political bias by virtue of the fact that you agree with those cases. Conversely, cases that you disagree with must surely be biased because, well, you disagree with them.

Let's talk about Hobby Lobby: here's a case where an employer basically wants to insert itself between a doctor and a patient and decide that certain medical legal procedures are not to be allowed. You claim that the decision "maximizes" individual freedoms; it may maximize them for some, sure, but it savagely curtails them for others so it's not as cut and dry as you suggest.

The cathecism of the Catholic Church considers birth control to be a sin. Would you be OK with your employer saying "Sorry Mr. Narcissist, you can't get that vasectomy because our CEO is Catholic and believes it's a sin"? What about an employer whose religious views which boil down to "Prayer Heal"? Can he get away with providing no health insurance at all? Can your boss tell you to stop getting vaccinated because he believes vaccines cause autism? More broadly, which of your boss' personal religious beliefs are to be ~shoved down your throat~ considered in connection with your healthcare?

As is often the case, what starts out as a benefit eventually begins to be considered an entitlement. The whole business of employers providing benefits, including health care, began when once again the government inserts itself into a free market which only should concern the buyer and the seller. Employee benefits were created to bypass the price control and restriction government placed on employers. They were not allow to pay above a certain rate. So because they couldn't give raises to keep or recruit good qualified employees they hade to figure out another way to compensate them and give them an incentive to work for them due to the labor shortage caused by the war.

It was purely the purview of the employer as to what benefits they could offer. After all, it was coming out of their pocket. Consistent with the natural tendency often expressed with the adage, "Give them a foot and they want a yard." More demands for more benefits increased. Now we are at the point where, due to political pressure, insurance has to cover things like viagra and birth control. Nothing to do with the health of the person.

In a free market, anyone can give or not give you anything they want. It should be up to the employer to pay you whatever they want, give or not give you any vacation or sick time or maternity leave, or even health insurance. It is up the prospective employee to decide whether ot not he will accept whatever terms are offered.

[pellius]

Hobby Lobby isn't required to offer health insurance at all.

Haha! I wish I read this post before I wrote my post. You essentially said the same thing as I did except in one sentence.

But Matt still beats me as far as verbosity.

[pellius]

That's one interpretation, sure. But you asked for cases which the right politicized and those cases were all heavily politicized, especially Hobby Lobby. But see, what you're doing is this: you treat cases that you agree with as "acceptable" and disregard political bias by virtue of the fact that you agree with those cases. Conversely, cases that you disagree with must surely be biased because, well, you disagree with them.

Let's talk about Hobby Lobby: here's a case where an employer basically wants to insert itself between a doctor and a patient and decide that certain medical legal procedures are not to be allowed. You claim that the decision "maximizes" individual freedoms; it may maximize them for some, sure, but it savagely curtails them for others so it's not as cut and dry as you suggest.

The cathecism of the Catholic Church considers birth control to be a sin. Would you be OK with your employer saying "Sorry Mr. Narcissist, you can't get that vasectomy because our CEO is Catholic and believes it's a sin"? What about an employer whose religious views which boil down to "Prayer Heal"? Can he get away with providing no health insurance at all? Can your boss tell you to stop getting vaccinated because he believes vaccines cause autism? More broadly, which of your boss' personal religious beliefs are to be ~shoved down your throat~ considered in connection with your healthcare?

When living in Torrance, CA. I often went to the Little Company of Mary which is a privately own Catholic hospital. They would not perform abortions. I think there is a huge chasm in trying to make a moral equivalence between abortion, the killing of a nascent human life, and a vasectomy, but nonetheless I think I get the gist of your argument. I don't know what the stand was regarding vasectomies were at the hospital but yes, as a private business, they do have the right not to prefer that procedure. In fact, I believe they have the right to not provide any procedure they don't want to for any reason or no reason. Little Company of Mary is a private business. You, as a prospective patient, are the customer. A customer does not have the right to tell a business what kind of service or products he thinks they should or want them to provide.

[pellius]

All of those cases are to limit government power and maximize individual freedoms.

Yes, there is a difference when a group or individual is demanding new rights. For instance, the right to legalize same-sex marriage. That is a right that has never existed in all of human history. This is not to say people of the same sex couldn't get married. They have and did for decades. I was invited by a friend to accompany her to an invitation she got for Bob Paris' wedding. He got married and that was fine. He did not demand that the government force everyone to recognize, accept, and honor that union. Just like Hugh Hefner was for all practical purposes a polygamist. But he just lived his life as such and didn't demand or care what anybody else thought about it. These matters should be left for the people to decide and not a handful of unelected judges. That is the Liberal strategy. When they can't get their way democratically they take it to the courts.

In the Masteroiece Cakeshop case, where the bakery didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding it was a case of defending an existing law and right. The customer is in a very real sense acting as an employer. He is hiring someone to do a job. The bakery is in a very real sense acting as an employee offer a set of skills he wishes to sell. It is not required that an employee be forced to take a job he does not want, again for any reason or no reason.

[Humble Narcissist]

Yes, there is a difference when a group or individual is demanding new rights. For instance, the right to legalize same-sex marriage. That is a right that has never existed in all of human history. This is not to say people of the same sex couldn't get married. They have and did for decades. I was invited by a friend to accompany her to an invitation she got for Bob Paris' wedding. He got married and that was fine. He did not demand that the government force everyone to recognize, accept, and honor that union. Just like Hugh Hefner was for all practical purposes a polygamist. But he just lived his life as such and didn't demand or care what anybody else thought about it. These matters should be left for the people to decide and not a handful of unelected judges. That is the Liberal strategy. When they can't get their way democratically they take it to the courts.

In the case where, for instance, that bakery didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding it was a case of defending an existing law and right. The customer is in a very real sense acting as an employer. He is hiring someone to do a job. The bakery is in a very real sense acting as an employee offer a set of skills he wishes to sell. Is is not required that an employee be force to take a job he does not want, again for any reason or no reason.

The left has to legislate from the bench because they can't pass their agenda otherwise.  Abortion and gay marriage would have gone down in flames if not a judicial decree.

[avxo]

When living in Torrance, CA. I often went to the Little Company of Mary which is a privately own Catholic hospital. They would not perform abortions. I think there is a huge chasm in trying to make a moral equivalence between abortion, the killing of a nascent human life, and a vasectomy, but nonetheless I think I get the gist of your argument. I don't know what the stand was regarding vasectomies were at the hospital but yes, as a private business, they do have the right not to prefer that procedure. In fact, I believe they have the right to not provide any procedure they don't want to for any reason or no reason. Little Company of Mary is a private business. You, as a prospective patient, are the customer. A customer does not have the right to tell a business what kind of service or products he thinks they should or want them to provide.

No no, what you're saying is an entirely different thing and something which I mostly agree with. It's one thing for a hospital or a doctor to not wish to perform a procedure. Hobby Lobby was a case where an employer tailored the health insurance plan it provided to its employees that refused to cover certain procedures that it found morally objectionable.

[avxo]

The left has to legislate from the bench because they can't pass their agenda otherwise.  Abortion and gay marriage would have gone down in flames if not a judicial decree.

Uhm, newsflash: the "Left" successfully passed Obamacare, a huge part of the left's "agenda". Who's trying to use the Courts to undo it after failing to repeal it?

[avxo]

Yes, there is a difference when a group or individual is demanding new rights. For instance, the right to legalize same-sex marriage. That is a right that has never existed in all of human history. This is not to say people of the same sex couldn't get married. They have and did for decades. I was invited by a friend to accompany her to an invitation she got for Bob Paris' wedding. He got married and that was fine. He did not demand that the government force everyone to recognize, accept, and honor that union. Just like Hugh Hefner was for all practical purposes a polygamist. But he just lived his life as such and didn't demand or care what anybody else thought about it. These matters should be left for the people to decide and not a handful of unelected judges. That is the Liberal strategy. When they can't get their way democratically they take it to the courts.

I have no beef in the whole "gay wedding" thing; frankly, I don't care who you marry or how you get off provided that it only involves consenting adults; beyond that knock yourself out.

The issue, here, or at least how I see it, is that the State confers several "benefits" to married couples: rights of survivorship, the right to make decisions for your spouse if he or she is in the hospital and unable to make such decisions, the ability to file taxes jointly and more.
 
The government can't force me (an individual) to accept any marriage and nothing in the current law or jurisprudence changes that. And that's not at issue. At issue is whether the government can discriminate against people based on who they marry. I don't know if you're gay, but let's say you are. Why should the law, for example, allow your property to flow through to a spouse tax free after your death, but only if that spouse is female?

As for businesses, while I generally think they can't be compelled to do things, they typically require licensing by the State and I think it's reasonable for the State to impose some requirements on the business. I don't think that gives the State carte blanche to force businesses to do anything and everything but it does give the State the ability to set a baseline. For example, I would be fine with a regulation that says: "you want a license to be a contractor? Fine, but you can't refuse to build a home because of someone's sexual orientation" because sexual orientation is irrelevant to the task at hand.
 

In the Masteroiece Cakeshop case, where the bakery didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding it was a case of defending an existing law and right. The customer is in a very real sense acting as an employer. He is hiring someone to do a job. The bakery is in a very real sense acting as an employee offer a set of skills he wishes to sell. Is is not required that an employee be forced to take a job he does not want, again for any reason or no reason.

I agree that the baker in Masterpiece is, broadly, free to turn away business, even if I personally thing that turning customers away is bad business. I don't think it's the government's place to force people to accept others. I think that social pressure and the nature of progress does that just fine.

[Humble Narcissist]

Uhm, newsflash: the "Left" successfully passed Obamacare, a huge part of the left's "agenda". Who's trying to use the Courts to undo it after failing to repeal it?

Again, if the courts outlaw the ACA that is good for individuals.  There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates us to buy insurance from the government.

[avxo]

Again, if the courts outlaw the ACA that is good for individuals.  There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates us to buy insurance from the government.

I’m philosophically opposed to Obamacare, though I certainly believe that healthcare and health insurance in the United States is a huge clusterfuck and is this way in large part due to the Government’s shenanigans.

That aside, I’ll point out again: you are looking at things in a biased way: Court action in support of things you agree with is, automatically, good and conversely court action opposed to your beliefs is, automatically, bad.

Whatever your (and my) personal beliefs about Obamacare, it’s a law that was duly passed by the Senate and the House and signed into law by the President. Remember, you said:

"The left has to legislate from the bench because they can't pass their agenda otherwise.  Abortion and gay marriage would have gone down in flames if not a judicial decree."

Here’s a case where the right does the same: having failed to pass their repeal of Obamacare, they’re trying to get the Court to overturn it. Is this not judicial activism? Why? Because it doesn’t suit you?

[The Scott]

I’m philosophically opposed to Obamacare, though I certainly believe that healthcare and health insurance in the United States is a huge clusterfuck and is this way in large part due to the Government’s shenanigans.

That aside, I’ll point out again: you are looking at things in a biased way: Court action in support of things you agree with is, automatically, good and conversely court action opposed to your beliefs is, automatically, bad.

Whatever your (and my) personal beliefs about Obamacare, it’s a law that was duly passed by the Senate and the House and signed into law by the President. Remember, you said:

"The left has to legislate from the bench because they can't pass their agenda otherwise.  Abortion and gay marriage would have gone down in flames if not a judicial decree."

Here’s a case where the right does the same: having failed to pass their repeal of Obamacare, they’re trying to get the Court to overturn it. Is this not judicial activism? Why? Because it doesn’t suit you?

So now the truth is biased?  Against what, falsehood?  Fuck That Noise.  The government and that fuckwit Obama had NO Constitutional authority to DEMAND people have insurance.  They fined the shit out of my brother and his wife because they had no health insurance. THOUSANDS of dollars were stolen from them. 

God damn Obama and his minions to an eternity of Hell. Communism was tried by the early Colonists and it FAILED.  Look it up, it is historical fact as opposed to what libtards foist upon us, i.e., hysterical fact. 

This is Animal Farm and the Dems are the swine.  Fuck all that feeeeeeeeeeeeeeel I and my family and friends and all real Americans will be the plow horses of this theatrical nightmare. 

You are either for America or against Her.  I know where I stand.  I know where many good men here stand.  And I know who kneels.

Fuck them.  I hope every libtard assumes room temperature when Trump is sworn in for a second term of greatness.  TDS is far more deadly than this fucking bullshit plannedemic called Covid19.

[Body-Buildah]

So now the truth is biased?  Against what, falsehood?  Fuck That Noise.  The government and that fuckwit Obama had NO Constitutional authority to DEMAND people have insurance.  They fined the shit out of my brother and his wife because they had no health insurance. THOUSANDS of dollars were stolen from them. 

God damn Obama and his minions to an eternity of Hell. Communism was tried by the early Colonists and it FAILED.  Look it up, it is historical fact as opposed to what libtards foist upon us, i.e., hysterical fact. 

This is Animal Farm and the Dems are the swine.  Fuck all that feeeeeeeeeeeeeeel I and my family and friends and all real Americans will be the plow horses of this theatrical nightmare. 

You are either for America or against Her.  I know where I stand.  I know where many good men here stand.  And I know who kneels.

Fuck them.  I hope every libtard assumes room temperature when Trump is sworn in for a second term of greatness.  TDS is far more deadly than this fucking bullshit plannedemic called Covid19.

Great Scott!! Legendary Post!

Libtardia will be in disarray if Donald wins again. Crying, melting, lootin, hootin, hollerin, pissing, crappin in streets.
Only this time (I hope) he says "Feck the ANTIFA clowns" and sends in military force to extinguish them ass-clowns!
What sad, puny-minded kommie-kuntz they are! 

[avxo]

So now the truth is biased?  Against what, falsehood?  Fuck That Noise.

It's got nothing to do with "truth".

The government and that fuckwit Obama had NO Constitutional authority to DEMAND people have insurance.

Let's say I agree with you (and, I do, in fact, almost entirely agree with you) that the Government had no Constitutional authority to demand people have insurance. That's our interpretation. The Court, which under the Constitution which I know you love and cherish, is the final arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional refused to declare the law unconstitutional.

They fined the shit out of my brother and his wife because they had no health insurance.

I know people who are in the same boat and I think that's horrible and believe the law is one of many that ought to be changed.

THOUSANDS of dollars were stolen from them.

The funds were "stolen" in the same way that taxes are "stolen" from us (and I do believe that taxes are stolen from us at the maybe-not-so-proverbial point of the government's gun): in a perfectly "legal" way, under cover of bill duly voted on by our representatives and duly signed into law by the President.

And that's the whole point: Obamacare was voted in and is the law of the land, whether you or I like it or not. The Republicans failed to repeal it in Congress so they opted to use the legal route or getting a Court to invalidate it. Whether I think that it should be invalidated or not, the fact is that it's hypocrticial of Republicans to pretend that the Democrats use the Court to "legislate" when they're doing the very same thing themselves.

God damn Obama and his minions to an eternity of Hell. Communism was tried by the early Colonists and it FAILED.  Look it up, it is historical fact as opposed to what libtards foist upon us, i.e., hysterical fact.

I am an atheist. There's no god and no hell, except the one we choose to make for ourselves here and now and I think we're pretty good at it.

You are either for America or against Her.  I know where I stand.  I know where many good men here stand.  And I know who kneels.

I'm as American as Apple Pie, but I don't buy this false dichotomy bullshit. I love my country, but my love isn't predicated on agreeing with everything the Country does, the unconditional belief that we're both special and the best, or the blind belief that one political party is clothed with the flag while the other is the enemy.

Fuck them.  I hope every libtard assumes room temperature when Trump is sworn in for a second term of greatness.  TDS is far more deadly than this fucking bullshit plannedemic called Covid19.

I don't think I ever quite understood why so many right-leaning voters have such disdain of science and IQs ranging between "dagnabbit, I done goofed" and "bodybuilding is a sport!"

[The Scott]

It's got nothing to do with "truth".


Let's say I agree with you (and, I do, in fact, almost entirely agree with you) that the Government had no Constitutional authority to demand people have insurance. That's our interpretation. The Court, which under the Constitution which I know you love and cherish, is the final arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional refused to declare the law unconstitutional.


I know people who are in the same boat and I think that's horrible and believe the law is one of many that ought to be changed.


The funds were "stolen" in the same way that taxes are "stolen" from us (and I do believe that taxes are stolen from us at the maybe-not-so-proverbial point of the government's gun): in a perfectly "legal" way, under cover of bill duly voted on by our representatives and duly signed into law by the President.

And that's the whole point: Obamacare was voted in and is the law of the land, whether you or I like it or not. The Republicans failed to repeal it in Congress so they opted to use the legal route or getting a Court to invalidate it. Whether I think that it should be invalidated or not, the fact is that it's hypocrticial of Republicans to pretend that the Democrats use the Court to "legislate" when they're doing the very same thing themselves.

I am an atheist. There's no god and no hell, except the one we choose to make for ourselves here and now and I think we're pretty good at it.


I'm as American as Apple Pie, but I don't buy this false dichotomy bullshit. I love my country, but my love isn't predicated on agreeing with everything the Country does, the unconditional belief that we're both special and the best, or the blind belief that one political party is clothed with the flag while the other is the enemy.




I don't think I ever quite understood why so many right-leaning voters have such disdain of science and IQs ranging between "dagnabbit, I done goofed" and "bodybuilding is a sport!"

It has everything to do with truth.

You are an atheist.  Me?  I am an Atheist.  I did not lose my faith, I threw it aside.  Let us not go further on that matter,  trust me. As for IQ, well let us not go there as I am trying to break a lifelong habit, if you will. Suffice to say that while I will never say, "People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do", science and more are not my forte.   

Pussies refused to declare that which is wrong, wrong. It is the folly of mankind that some will sell their Nation out for emotional trinkets.   These false pharos serve at the pleasure of their ego and those they wish to please.

For me President Trump represents what is best about America. He has put back the "us" in the U.S.A.   He is for the citizens, not the shitizens.  He is for the Constitution. 

And the dems?  They are for the constipation.  They are for the stagnation and damnation of all that is good in these United States.  Fuck them.   Enough of my rambling.

[avxo]

It has everything to do with truth.

Is it not true that the Republicans failed to repeat Obamacare and are trying to now gut if via legal challenges? Is it not true that this is judicial activism by any other name? Didn't Antonin Scalia himself write that it was wrong for the Court to reverse a law "specifi­cally approved by the Congress of the United States" as part of what he termed "a Kulturkampf" because of their personal beliefs? Did Justice Scalia not explicitly decry using the Judiciary to strike down the action of elected legislative bodies? Or did I miss the part where he added "unless of course, it's to strike down things that align with our personal beliefs"?

You are an atheist.  Me?  I am an Atheist.  I did not lose my faith, I threw it aside.  Let us not go further on that matter,  trust me. As for IQ, well let us not go there as I am trying to break a lifelong habit, if you will. Suffice to say that while I will never say, "People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do", science and more are not my forte.

I don't know what the difference between an "atheist" and an "Atheist" is and I don't play the "random capitalization game" which seems to be popular these days.

For me President Trump represents what is best about America. He has put back the "us" in the U.S.A.   He is for the citizens, not the shitizens.  He is for the Constitution.

Boy, if you think that Donald Trump (or, really, any politician) represents what is best about America you must have have a rather jaded and warped view of this wonderful country. I feel sorry for you.

And the dems?  They are for the constipation.  They are for the stagnation and damnation of all that is good in these United States.  Fuck them.   Enough of my rambling.

I'm not sure where you shop for those blinders, but let me tell you, they do a great job!

[The Scott]

Is it not true that the Republicans failed to repeat Obamacare and are trying to now gut if via legal challenges? Is it not true that this is judicial activism by any other name? Didn't Antonin Scalia himself write that it was wrong for the Court to reverse a law "specifi­cally approved by the Congress of the United States" as part of what he termed "a Kulturkampf" because of their personal beliefs? Did Justice Scalia not explicitly decry using the Judiciary to strike down the action of elected legislative bodies? Or did I miss the part where he added "unless of course, it's to strike down things that align with our personal beliefs"?


I don't know what the difference between an "atheist" and an "Atheist" is and I don't play the "random capitalization game" which seems to be popular these days.


Boy, if you think that Donald Trump (or, really, any politician) represents what is best about America you must have have a rather jaded and warped view of this wonderful country. I feel sorry for you.


I'm not sure where you shop for those blinders, but let me tell you, they do a great job!

You are as I thought.  You do know the purpose of "blinders", do you not?  For the horse to remain focused on the job ahead and not on what is going on around them. 

Given your clever closing remarks I suppose your version is to have your head up your ass.  I am not your enemy but neither are we yet friends.  I cannot see eye to eye with someone whose view of the world is throttled by their balloon-knot.   You remind me of Napoleon and no, I do not mean the French Emperor.


How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg. - Abraham Lincoln

[avxo]

You are as I thought.  You do know the purpose of "blinders", do you not?  For the horse to remain focused on the job ahead and not on what is going on around them.

Yes: the purpose of blinders are for the horse to remain focused on the task. The task its master sets for it, allowing it to be a better tool.

Given your clever closing remarks I suppose your version is to have your head up your ass.  I am not your enemy but neither are we yet friends.  I cannot see eye to eye with someone whose view of the world is throttled by their balloon-knot.

I never said you were my enemy, nor do I think in such terms generally.

You remind me of Napoleon and no, I do not mean the French Emperor.

Animal Farm is a great bit of satire and allegory, but I'm afraid I don't see the parallels.

How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg. - Abraham Lincoln

I much prefer another Honest Abe aphorism: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

[pellius]

No no, what you're saying is an entirely different thing and something which I mostly agree with. It's one thing for a hospital or a doctor to not wish to perform a procedure. Hobby Lobby was a case where an employer tailored the health insurance plan it provided to its employees that refused to cover certain procedures that it found morally objectionable.

I believe it is similar. The freedom of a person or an organization to provide or not provide anything they want. Hobby Lobby tries to recruit qualified employees by offering money and benefits that makes it worth their while. What they offer or not offer is entirely up to them. Just like it's entirely up to a person if the want to accept their terms. I believe they should be free offer any kind of health insurance they want or no health insurance at all.

I use to work part time as an apprentence for my Physics instructor while at UCLA. This job required me to come in on certain days, during certain hours, and performed specific duties. I did this all for free. This use to be very common in many professions because what you got in return was experience and knowledge. So yes, I even believe that an employer can offer you anything they want or offer you nothing at all and it's up to you if you want to accept these terms.

I'm a big believer in freedom and letting people make their own choices and accept the consequences of their choices, whether good or bad. When a third party, such as the government, who experiences none of the consequences and have little to no knowledge of the business being negotiated, presumes that they know best what one party should offer and what the other party should accept, that's when the trouble starts.

In a free society any transaction should be left to the buyer and the seller whether it's what you want to sell and pay for shoes and as well as what you want to sell or pay of labor.