Like there's any chance that you would give a flying **** about their feelings even if you thought they were sincere.

Youre right, I really dont. Just like parents honestly held beliefs that their kids shouldn't get medicine doesnt mean **** to me.

Btw ikes, the death toll from the gulags was far, far lower than the concentration camps. Youre going to the mat for Reason on their wrong facts.

No? There's a wide range of estimate in Russia. I could get on board with maybe more or probably more in concentration camps, but far, far lower is just wrong.

That's a separate question, but in this case, no I wouldn't. There is no functional difference between providing comprehensive insurance coverage that affords a woman the opportunity to receive contraceptives and providing them with a salary that affords them the same opportunity. If prior to the HL case, Hobby Lobby had taken steps to make sure that their employees were not using compensation for things that the owners found morally objectionable, I would be much more sympathetic to their claim. Hobby Lobby's owners didn't however. They were actually investing in and, I assume, making money off companies that manufacture contraceptives. I would not expect anyone with sincere religious beliefs whose conscience is supposedly seriously affronted by the notion that one of their employees might make the private decision to utilize healthcare coverage to get contraceptives to be investing in the companies that produce them.

So, since part of what I believe to be a manifestation of "sincere convictions" is evidence that you aren't a massive self-serving hypocrite, the answer to your assertion is that actually there is a very good chance I would be sympathetic toward their position if I thought they were sincere.

This is deeply semantic. If you compare true concentration camps (and exclude death camps like Treblinka, Chelmno, Birkenau, etc.) with just the gulag, you would probably find that more people died in the gulag (over a much longer time period). But this is a pointless comparison to make, because both Hitler and Stalin killed way more people in other ways.

No one is forcing religious conservatives to do anything which effects them directly. No homophobe priest is going to have to marry a gay couple.

They can suck a metaphorical dick if they think their beliefs mean they can direct civil rights policy for everyone however.

Also these same people are all about the 1A when it cones to homophobic rants that get them fired so they should love hearing gay rights people attacking them. Equal rights for all.

I'm just going to go ahead and laugh at your insincere assertions of insincerity and asinine equating of getting money and buying contraceptive. If a hobby lobby employee buys cocaine, does that mean hobby lobby basically bought their employee cocaine? Would Hobby Lobby not have the right to object to buying cocaine because they pay them? Of course not, get that **** out of here.

I'm equating getting different forms of compensation that can both be used to get contraceptives. One Hobby Lobby says affronts their religious beliefs, the other doesn't. Hobby Lobby's objections are exactly that the compensation they are required to provide, ie comprehensive health insurance, might be used to procure contraceptives they object to and that infringes their religious beliefs. There is no meaningful difference between an employee choosing to use the money Hobby Lobby pays her to buy contraceptives and the employee choosing to use the health insurance Hobby Lobby provides to pay for it.

Thanks for being a total ass for no reason, though.

It's deserved. Your argument is specious and a follow up to a completely dishonest argument you started with. Again, Hobby Lobby pays people with money. Money can be used to buy cocaine. Would Hobby Lobby be able to object to buying cocaine for their employees?

If the answer is yes, your little argument you've half-baked is a turd. There is a difference between Hobby Lobby paying for contraceptives directly and paying an employee money for the exact same reason there's a difference between Hobby Lobby paying for cocaine directly and paying an employee with money.

I'm not getting into the merits of their argument, it is stupid. I'm saying, if they are upset about the possibility that their employees are using their health insurance to buy contraceptives, then they should also be upset if their employees use their paycheck to buy contraceptives as well. Either way Hobby Lobby is facilitating the transaction.

Even granting them that meaningless distinction, they were still investing money into and profiting from companies that manufacture those contraceptives, so Hobby Lobby's owner's "sincere" religious convictions still come out smelling like ****.

Once again, thanks for being a dick for absolutely no reason.

Oh look, we found a third argument after getting 1 and 2 destroyed. I don't care enough to go into the investment argument, but I'll simply note again, you don't care if those feelings are sincere or not. You really should find the good argument against the hobby lobby ruling. It's itt.

Lol you clearly haven't even read one post of mine, much less understood the context it was in, yet here you are, cocksure as ever, mocking me the whole way. Seriously, is this type of **** a bannable offense?

First of all, I've only ever put forward two arguments against the sincerity of HL owner's convictions. HL's investments are not "new" as an argument Second of all, as I alluded to in the last post, I wasn't making an argument against the Hobby Lobby "ruling." (lol at calling it a ruling). If you'd actually read my original post you, hopefully (that may actually be expecting a lot out of you), would have understood that. Instead you clearly read one sentence you disagreed with assumed some context and then little Ikesey, esquire, got all excited, took over and hopped in the point and laugh mobile.

Satanists seek exemption to abortion restrictions, citing Hobby Lobby.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...obby-abortion/

Won't go anywhere but lol still.