Obama Administration: We Can and Will Force Christians to Act Against Their Faith

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Those people should not be forced to pay for something that is against their religious beliefs.

So According to your Logic then.
A Jewish company wont have to give their Employees Paid Holidays , that dont agree with the Jewish Religion.
Theres the Rub..

Originally posted by windword
....Hobby Lobby is a huge business employing 1000's of women. The CEO doesn't have the right to deny these women legal medical benefit through their health care package simply because he doesn't approve any more than he can dictate how an employee spends their paycheck.

Contraception is a very real necessity. This is life, not a political game for these women.

The government can't simple deny all the religious institutions(for profit) across the country their 1st amendment rights.

People don't need the morning after pill. There is nothing that states the morning after pill is a means for a women to survive. And that is what this is about.

It's about Hobby Lobby exercising their freedom of religion by not supporting an insurance company that provides a means of contraceptive that has no medical benefit.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by beezzer
People don't HAVE to work at Hobby Lobby. No-one is making them.

And Hobby Lobby don't HAVE to be in business if they do not want to follow the same rules as everyone else. No one is making them.

So, you will be writing the White House, demanding that they drop the exclusion for ALL businesses? Muslim ones, Amish ones, Indians, etc? You, and every single other person here claiming that this forcing of Christians to pay for birth control? If not, then you have lost your argument.

Originally posted by CB328

being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance

So the truth comes out- it's not that Obama is favoring non-christians, they are just giving exemptions to religions that think health insurance is against their faith. As usual, conservatives are highly exaggerating to create outrage.

Freedom is not doled out to select groups. You love equality, right? How are certain groups more special than others under the law if there's equality?

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

5. He holds positions on issues that are not Biblical, such as supporting abortion and homosexuality.

Should he have a biblical position on every single issue? If he did then we would surely still have slavery in this country.

I mean, how dare he support the removal of a few cells that don't have a developed conscious from a woman to help ensure her well-being?

How dare he believe that two people being in love is not a sin? Everybody knows that us homos are going to burn in hell for eternity.

I would pity you for being such a fool, but foolish actions in malice do not deserve that pity.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Those people should not be forced to pay for something that is against their religious beliefs.

So According to your Logic then.
A Jewish company wont have to give their Employees Paid Holidays , that dont agree with the Jewish Religion.
Theres the Rub..

I think that's perfectly acceptable actually. Do I somehow deserve days off with pay as if I'd been there working? No! It's some cushy thing people have come to expect and no employer is compelled to do anything of the sort. So, yes a jewish company could not give paid holidays just like a christian company could hand out free rosaries if it chooses. I think the actual answer to all these matters is FREEDOM. For everyone, not selected groups under select conditions but across the board liberty for all.

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Abortion is legal in the United States. The radical Christians have to get over it and move on. That war was fought and lost. There are no more battles.

But the radical Christians will just keep re-opening the abortion debate until they get their way. That's what I mean when I say they are intent on imposing their beliefs on others. It's all they think about. They can't accept the fact that abortions are legal.

As usual, you pro-aborts have it all backwards and upside down. This thread isn't about whether abortion is legal or not. This thread is about whether the government should be able to FORCE a Christian-owned company to PAY for abortions for their employees. It's about the government forcing their beliefs on a Christian business owner. This is not complicated, and it amazes me how many can't see the issue through their hate.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

As usual, you pro-aborts have it all backwards and upside down.
This is not complicated, and it amazes me how many can't see the issue through their hate.

The only one Promoting Hate and Sterotypes in the last Few Pages... is you.
You are wrong, Hobby Lobby is wrong, Have a Happy New Year.

Originally posted by kthxbai
No, "radical christians" are NOT a vast majority of this nation, not even a SLIGHT majority of this nation. If they were a majority, we wouldn't be having this conversation because that "evil obama who is out to destroy everything they believe in" would not have been elected. The people doing this are not Christians, they are not a majority and they will not succeed. They are an extremist group just like the other extremist group that attacks us as a country. They are no different from the jihadists, they are cut from the same cloth.

If they were a "vast majority", then they would have their way, Obama wouldn't be president, all the opposition to them would have been squashed and we'd be living in a theocracy because that's what they want. They are not a majority at all, THANK GOD!

Are you actually claiming that people who don't want to pay for abortion pills for their employees are terrorists? That's sure what it sounds like you are saying.

Originally posted by beezzer
Wow. I leave to do a little shopping (needed scotch and prime rib) and this thread exploded!

So we have a company called Hobby Lobby. Doing well. Minding it's own business. Then comes along Obama and big government saying WE are going to TELL you how to run your business now regardless of your beliefs!

Hobby Lobby says, um, "no."

Government says, "Okay. We'll just fine you 1.3 million dollars a day until you go against your religious beliefs".

People here say, "YAY. RAH"

Others say, "um, the whole 1st Amendment issue."

People reply, "Get over it. Suck it up, baby. Christianity sucks!"

Do I have it right?

That about sums it up. Some people seem to think that because they don't approve of Christianity, that it's alright for the government to force Christian-owed businesses to go out of business, or violate their religious beliefs.

Let's get right down to it...this thread comes down to the argument of whether or not the government has the right and authority to enforce the Bill of Rights. The amendment that deals with 'freedom of religion' was written both for those who wish to practice a religion and those who do not whether it appeases one's agenda or not. Or to put it in more simple terms, what it really comes down to is that the government is obligated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be as completely objective as possible in any matters pertaining to the application of these laws and rights to everyday life. It can NOT say that one group is exempt and another is not. It MUST take the position that, barring the violation of basic civil rights, it must take no position and leave the decision to do or not do so in the hands of the individual citizen. AND, that is EXACTLY the position it has taken in this case. It is NOT forcing any particular person to make the decision but is simply allowing the right to the choice.

Allowing the right to said choice is what the constitution really boils down to. And, to that, I say "God bless freedom"(and, yes, I realize the irony of this statement). Even God allows for free will. Sure, He would prefer an individual to make the 'right' decision but he still allows us our free will because He understands that the best decision is made on your own and not one forced upon you. Take a lesson from Jesus and teach by example(that goes for both religous and non-religous types). And, just so you know, I don't consider myself religous in the slightest...spiritual, yes, religous, no so I understand everyone's need for something numinous in their lives. What I don't understand is so many other's need to force their idea of this numinousness onto someone else.

**edit**Speaking of which, I was posting on my facebook(which I usually don't but god damn the devil's whiskey and New Year's, I'm in a talkative and opinionated mood tonight lol), this serendipidously showed up in my 'Sponsered Links' section.

PUT CITIZENS UNITED IN THE DUMPSTER OF BAD IDEAS

Originally posted by Timing

Originally posted by Mad Simian
reply to post by pavelivanov22

 

But, isn't trying to force their own employees to follow the business owners religous beliefs(saying they can't have contraceptives or the option to get an abortion if they so choose) just as bad as their so-called argument that the government is forcing them to do the same?

And this is the point I'm trying to get across.

Obamacare doesn't provide a choice. The only choice you have is what the government says you should have.

So, health insurance plans should be based upon the personal beliefs of the owners? I would really like to make my employee health plan not cover diabetes if it is brought on by obesity, because I strongly believe gluttony is a mortal sin (I'm not including all diabetes, just the kind people choose to get from sinning.) I would also exclude any expenses for any child who cannot be born full-term naturally, because I believe natural selection is God's Will, amd they weaken the human genome by aiding the survival of those not fit to survive. Lastly, I would like to be exempted from any coverage for heart disease in those who do not follow my recommended diet and exercise program.

Sound insane? Yes, of course it does, because IT IS!!!

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so this is the old christians have to pay for birth control on the medical plan thingy again ?

where is the outrage for a church being able to tell a woman what to do with her body ?

edit on 31-12-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

Maybe the same place the outrage is for a government being able to tell a company how to run their business, or tell people what they must spend their money on?

reply to post by dogstar23


The problem is in your argument the coverage of insulin for Diabetics is perfectly sane because insulin saves a Diabetics life.

There is absolutely no data to back up that a patient will die if not given the morning after pill. Meaning, a person will not die if the Morning After Pill is withheld from being prescribed.

I am a Child of God given Liberty through the Final and Ultimate Blood Sacrifice of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the Only Begotten Son of God to proclaim the true and pure Word of God and to proclaim His Word and His Word alone. God's Word plainly states: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." — Galatians 3:28

I would rather be judged by God's Law than the precepts of men.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Those people should not be forced to pay for something that is against their religious beliefs.

So According to your Logic then.
A Jewish company wont have to give their Employees Paid Holidays , that dont agree with the Jewish Religion.
Theres the Rub..

No business is required to pay employees anything extra for holidays, or offer those days off.

link

So, no, a Jewish company doesn't have to pay extra for Christian holidays, if they choose not to. Nor should they be required to do so.

By the same token, no company should be forced to pay for abortifacient drugs, if doing so violates the religious beliefs of the company owner. A company not paying for those drugs doens't prevent people from using them, if they so choose; it simply means the company doesn't foot the bill.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
This is NO surprise to many of us, who have known, since before he was elected the first time, how anti-Christian this person is.

He claims he is a Christian, but he also has shown this to be a lie, in many ways:

1. He vowed to "stand with the Muslims" if things went bad
2. He attended a Muslim school as a child, and was stated to be (by a teacher) an excellent student of Islam.
3. He wears a ring stating that "there is no god but allah".
4. He mocks Christians and the Bible.
5. He holds positions on issues that are not Biblical, such as supporting abortion and homosexuality.
6. He refuses to reference God when it comes to Christian holidays, such as Thanksgiving and Christmas.
7. He spent over twenty years in a church that preached hate.
8. He has stated that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on earth".
9. He stated, before the United Nations, that, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.", yet he has no issues with Muslims and others (including himself) slandering Jesus and Christians.
10. His favorite book - Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky - was dedicated to Lucifer: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” That quote is on the opening page.

So, considering all the facts, it's no real surprise that he's doing this. Since he took office, the push to criminalize any public Christian activity has increased by leaps and bounds.

I can't help but noting, right on the first page, how some, instead of discussing the topic from the OP, want to come in and criticize Christians and Christianity, instead. The hypocrisy is astounding.

So what? No where in the Constitution does it state the president must be a "christian";

Originally posted by mavwynn
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

5. He holds positions on issues that are not Biblical, such as supporting abortion and homosexuality.

Should he have a biblical position on every single issue? If he did then we would surely still have slavery in this country.

I mean, how dare he support the removal of a few cells that don't have a developed conscious from a woman to help ensure her well-being?

How dare he believe that two people being in love is not a sin? Everybody knows that us homos are going to burn in hell for eternity.

I would pity you for being such a fool, but foolish actions in malice do not deserve that pity.

If he isn't supporting anything Christian (as all my examples proved), then he should not be claiming to be a Christian. That is what I stated. He has the freedom to whatever position he chooses (within the law of the land), but he should be honest about it. That is what I stated. That, and that, given his position, him passing laws violating the rights of Christian business owners isn't a surprise.

If you wish to address those points, let me know. This thread isn't about those specific issues.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


What "abortion pill"? The "morning after" pill only delays ovulation; It DOES NOT stop implantation.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

As usual, you pro-aborts have it all backwards and upside down.
This is not complicated, and it amazes me how many can't see the issue through their hate.

The only one Promoting Hate and Sterotypes in the last Few Pages... is you.
You are wrong, Hobby Lobby is wrong, Have a Happy New Year.

Don't just pretend - post anything I have actually stated that you see as "hate". Otherwise, you are doing nothing but making a baseless personal attack.

besides, if you have failed to see the hateful, anti-Christian posts throughout this thread, then you aren't paying attention.

Anything relevant to add, or are you too busy avoiding the issues and trying to stir up problems by insulting other posters?

The issue is the government dictating to a company owner that they must pay for abortifacient drugs, going against that owner's Constitutionally protected religious freedoms.