Talking About Hobby Lobby And Religious Freedom With Liberal Friends

The Federalist ^ | July 1, 2014 | Rachel Lu

[right-wing agnostic]

Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to provide objectionable forms of birth control (abortifacients) to its employees, because paying for that would violate sincere religious beliefs held by its owners.

That’s what most moderately-informed Americans are likely to take away from the most recent Supreme Court decision in favor of the family-owned company. Some conservatives have expressed disappointment that the decision, as written by Justice Samuel Alito, wasn’t broader, and the precedent it set was indeed deliberately narrow. But it’s still a win for religious liberty, and after the debacle last winter concerning Arizona’s Senate Bill 1062, it’s good to have another chance to present religious liberty, and in particular the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), in a more positive light.

[right-wing agnostic]

Some of you may think that it's strange for me, an agnostic, to defend religious freedom. But, unless I want to do what liberals do and impose personally held beliefs THAT HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS on our society. If I were to do that, I'd be no better than the liberals I despise./rwa

[GraceG]

I screwed with the lib yesterday by starting off our discussion about hobby lobby saying this:

“If only the Hobby Lobby issue was Hobby Lobby not wanting to pay for abortion drugs and still providing birth control pills as an alternative I could actually support their position”

I went on about this point being the best “Reaching across the isle compromise” and could barely hold it in while the idiot lib agreed with me saying that it would be a “Good Compromise” instead of supposedly denying access to all birth control.

Then I brought up the truth that the Hobby lobby case WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT not wanting to pay for abortion drugs and that they do provide birth control pills in their insurance policy.

Lib didn’t know what to say after they realized they agreed with Hobby Lobby....

[mavfin]

Problem is, a few days ago was the *first* time I or anyone in my family had seen the info that Hobby Lobby was paying for the ‘normal’ contraceptives. Several libs I know had not heard that either. Once they found that out, they didn’t really have a problem with the ruling. One of them said “If the only thing they won’t supply is stuff like the morning-after pill, I don’t have a problem with that”.

Seems the liberal news media has been very good at hiding that little fact about the normal contraceptives.

[Rusty0604]

That is good. Very good.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Lib didn’t know what to say after they realized they agreed with Hobby Lobby....”

Should have called you a racist. That’s what I took from it. /sarc

[BlessedBeGod]

... the Hobby lobby case was actually about not wanting to pay for abortion drugs and that they do provide birth control pills in their insurance policy.

But other parties to that same lawsuit didn't want to pay for birth control, either. So, it was actually about both. Hobby Lobby wasn't the only litigant.

[17th Miss Regt]

Yep. Yesterday the headline story in my local paper said that it was all about denying women the right to birth control. No nuance, no nothin’. Just an outright propaganda LIE.

[fella]

If Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to pay foe abortions why must individuals have to pay for them if they don’t need nor want them? I know the muhammadians have been exempted from the get go.

[tanknetter]

That’s pretty good.

My approach has been to downplay/minimize the ruling, saying how narrow it, only applies to closely held privately owned companies, only applies to abortiafascients, citing Alitos majority opinion about not reading anything further into it.

Then, when they continue to be wound up, accuse them dismissively of just being paranoid...

[TBP]

Will they listen?

[angry elephant]

Yep. Yesterday the headline story in my local paper said that it was all about denying women the right to birth control. No nuance, no nothin’. Just an outright propaganda LIE.”

Also there can be the discussion about how many abortions a month do these women want anyway? Are they worried they will have to pay their own fare for three or four abortions a month?

Doesn’t that say something about how slutty the folks who support having the company pay for it are?

One would think that if a woman worked for a place for a year and wanted one abortion that she had to pay for herself, that would not be a big deal. But I guess they are concerned they will have to pay for 40 abortions a year.

[i_robot73]

Being in the same boat, I don’t see why you’d think it strange. Logic is logic vs. 1st Amendment.

I still find it hard to see how we can, since ~1913, have re-instituted slavery (IE: one working for the benefit of another): income tax (EITC, probates, non-taxpayers), and, in this instance, 3rd parties (employers) being on the hook for an employees health-care costs (benefits)....let alone all the other conflicting ‘laws’ vs. Amendments vs. 9th/10th (but that’s just the ‘wacky’ (L) in me I guess).

I’d still give me left n*t (figuratively) to hear some talking head, during an election cycle, ask the ‘guests’ ‘At what % of $$ confiscation do you consider it slavery’

[MrB]

Understand that the underlying and fundamental principle of so-called “liberalism” is anti-christianity.

So, they may say they’re for “religious freedom” (thus Clinton passing that act in 1993), but what they really mean by “religious freedom” is “anything but Christian”.