The Attorney General just admitted that the Federal Government commited a Hate Crime

During the press release of Dylan Roofs indictment, The U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch states, “Federal hate crimes statute that prohibits the use or threat of force to obstruct any persons free exercise of their religious beliefs.” Loretta Lynch is a Harvard College Law School graduate and has served as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. She is eloquent, intelligent and articulate. Listen to her here at 3:06.

As the top, leading attorney for the U.S. Government, and the top official of the FBI, she speaks with knowledge and experience of and for, the law.
Now, let’s slip sideways, and review the verdict against the Catholic nuns in Colorado.

The Affordable Health Care Act has a mandate: the nuns have to complete a form, saying the home has a religious mission and objection to paying for contraceptives. The reason of their challenge is that, by saying so, they become complicit—because then others will make sure that their employees have coverage. The nuns have to decide between two courses of action: (1) sign and submit a self-certification form, thereby violating her religious beliefs; or (2) refuse to sign the form and pay ruinous fines.
The Threat Of Force, of Having to pay fines IS the obstructing act that prevents the free exercise of their religious beliefs. A clear violation of the Federal hate crimes statute.

The whole agenda is based on selective Constitutional enforcement.

They swing the agendas towards their end goals.

a reply to: xuenchen

I prefer the term arbitrary.

a reply to: Violater1

because then others will make sure that their employees have coverage.

Why do people care so much about other peoples birth control...

a reply to: Violater1

Paying fines is a threat of force? I think you're stretching the definition. Just maybe...a little bit...

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Violater1

because then others will make sure that their employees have coverage.

Why do people care so much about other peoples birth control...

They don't

But some want to FORCE others to PAY for THEIR birth control!
Use YOUR OWN money!

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Violater1

Paying fines is a threat of force? I think you're stretching the definition. Just maybe...a little bit...

So blackmail is OK then ?
Extorting money is not "a threat of force" ?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Violater1

because then others will make sure that their employees have coverage.

Why do people care so much about other peoples birth control...

It is both saddening and disturbing, that you only see this as birth control
and NOT as an infringement on your Constitutional and/or Bill of Rights.
You are an example of the problem, of why this country is spiraling out of control,
and has descended past the slippery slope.

a reply to: Violater1

That's nice.
Maybe you can do the next reply with no ad homs.

This is about birth control, it is right there in the quoted part that is in your OP.
Sorry that in the 21st century we all know the benefits of BC that extend far beyond just a contraceptive.
And they gov is not singling them out, this is for everyone so how could it be a hate crime?

a reply to: M5xaz

It is about providing health care that will pay for it.

Sorry that is how health insurance works, and birth control is part of health insurace.

I don't want to pay for you to medicate your kids with meth, hyperbole yes, but I don't scream and cry about it.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Violater1

Paying fines is a threat of force? I think you're stretching the definition. Just maybe...a little bit...

Oh so when they don't pay the fines they will not be forced into confinement in a dirty jail or prison cell?
WAKE UP!

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Violater1

because then others will make sure that their employees have coverage.

Why do people care so much about other peoples birth control...

Because you make us pay for it?

Pay for your own, and I wouldn't care one bit.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Violater1

That's nice.
Maybe you can do the next reply with no ad homs.

This is about birth control, it is right there in the quoted part that is in your OP.
Sorry that in the 21st century we all know the benefits of BC that extend far beyond just a contraceptive.
And they gov is not singling them out, this is for everyone so how could it be a hate crime?

a reply to: M5xaz

It is about providing health care that will pay for it.

Sorry that is how health insurance works, and birth control is part of health insurace.

I don't want to pay for you to medicate your kids with meth, hyperbole yes, but I don't scream and cry about it.

Do you care about my birth control? No. Do you know why? Because you aren't paying for it. We provide ours out of pocket. No one pays for it but us. So it's no one's business what we use or how often except for ours.

It gives us liberty. You should try it instead of asking us to pay for everyone else's birth control in addition to our own.

a reply to: ketsuko

So, you think that women's reproductive health care should be an insurance rider, and that women should pay an extra health care insurance premium just so that their doctor can oversee their birth control?

a reply to: links234

It's goverment promoted extortion. Do this or we'll do x, y, Z to you and make sure you suffer, that's the way goverment works. Just like any other organized crime syndicate.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Part of employing people is these things called "terms and conditions of employment", many of which are laid down in law.

"Forcing" "nuns" to pay for their employees health insurance that includes birth control is not extortion, doesn't' stop the nus from exercising their religion, and is no more unreasonable than allowing employees to pay for their own birth control out of wages and salaries - which would also be paid "by the nuns".

Or do you think that employers should be allowed to prohibit the spending of wages and salaries on birth control because they have a religious objection to using it themselves too??

It's a non-argument.

a reply to: Violater1

I also "Face Palm" the logic that women should pay extra for their health insurance or shouldn't have the same insurance provided doctor, that does their breast exams and pap smears, also oversee their birth control needs.

a reply to: Violater1

If you look at this Egregious event through a keyhole, you are missing opening of a door. The view that many of us here are seeing, through the door, is that the Fed is being two faced about their own laws. The Fed can violate US law, but enforce that same law on you! Simplistically, if the Fed says that only white people can be on the net on Mondays, and that Tuesdays are only for (fill in your race), and that anyone in the Fed can be on the net any time, would be a violation of your rights, related to your race, or ethnicity.
Does that open the door for you?

a reply to: ketsuko

....
I am glad that paying for your own medication gives you liberty, and that you are able to do so.

Just to clarify, when you say out of pocket you do mean with no insurance at all right?

Because if you don't then some one is in fact helping you pay for it.

And I never said it was my business what you do with it, kinda my original point.

It is nobody's business if you take it or not.
And shouldn't deny you the right to do so either.

a reply to: Violater1

How is it a hate crime if the nuns are not being singled out?
Does the ACA only apply this to catholic nuns?
Please enlighten all of us.

And your what if this and what if that does nothing to open the door.

Because it is just what if.