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

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Originally posted by TheComte
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.

Owning a gun in the U.S. is not only legal, it is my right! Therefore, those private companies and government buildings that do not allow me to carry my gun(s) on their property are impeding my RIGHT to carry.

Funny thing, since THAT is in the constitution! Abortion is not. So, shouldn't I be allowed to carry my gun inside any business that I choose? After all, it is the business owner that needs to get over it, as guns are legal.

Sure, in a state that allows open or concealed carry go ahead and bring it anywhere you like. I don't see how that has any bearing on this subject at all.

Getting an abortion is not the same as owning a gun. Not by a long shot. Kind of a ridiculous comparison, if you ask me.

I live in a state that allows open and concealed carry (second with a permit), and there are plenty of businesses that are allowed to post "no guns allowed" signs, and violate the right to carry. If those businesses can disregard my right to carry a gun wherever I go, then by the same token, a business should be able to not pay for an abortion pill for someone else.

Originally posted by TheComte
Are you for real? It amazes me you don't see the difference. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm actually against it personally. I just don't impose my beliefs on others like you seem to want to do. The abortion question has been debated, a decision has been rendered and it has been held up by the Supreme Court of the land. The anti-abortionists lost. It's a simple question of law.

Abortions are to be made available. That is the law. No business owner, Christian or not, can take that away from a citizen. It's so simple I'm shocked you radicals are clouded by your own hate and can't see the obvious.

Agreed, I too an not pro-abortion and am a Christian, a very liberal Christian just as Christ himself was. As Christians, it's not our place to force our beliefs onto other people We go by the laws of the land. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

We can only make the decision on abortion in our own lives, not in the lives of others. It is legal. They are free to choose that. We can advise against it and offer other options, but the decision is theirs to make. We shouldn't be picketing or trying to force them to see things the way we see them.

The healthcare is law. Law allows for abortion to be a choice. It is legal for them to have the abortion or to take preventative measures (and I do support birth control, very much). It doesn't matter what religion a company's owner may be, he/she has no right to force that onto his employees.

This is a company that operates in 42 states, over 500 stores. That is a LOT of employees and their rights must be respected. By law, they are entitled to the health coverage and by law the company will provide it.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Originally posted by TheComte
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.

Owning a gun in the U.S. is not only legal, it is my right! Therefore, those private companies and government buildings that do not allow me to carry my gun(s) on their property are impeding my RIGHT to carry.

Funny thing, since THAT is in the constitution! Abortion is not. So, shouldn't I be allowed to carry my gun inside any business that I choose? After all, it is the business owner that needs to get over it, as guns are legal.

Sure, in a state that allows open or concealed carry go ahead and bring it anywhere you like. I don't see how that has any bearing on this subject at all.

Getting an abortion is not the same as owning a gun. Not by a long shot. Kind of a ridiculous comparison, if you ask me.

I live in a state that allows open and concealed carry (second with a permit), and there are plenty of businesses that are allowed to post "no guns allowed" signs, and violate the right to carry. If those businesses can disregard my right to carry a gun wherever I go, then by the same token, a business should be able to not pay for an abortion pill for someone else.

Take it to court then. Good luck.

It still has no bearing on this case which is about health benefits.

I am all for religion and the 1st amendment, but I think that the founders of Hobby Lobby are acting in an extremely moronic manner. Why you ask? Because their right to freedom of religion does not carry over into their business, considering that all businesses are subject to federal law, and the laws of the state in which they incorporated and do business. The fact that Hobby Lobby is incorporated makes all the difference. If they were a non-profit organization then maybe things would be different, but they are not.

Their 1st amendment rights have not been infringed upon in any way. Also, they are infringing on the rights of their employees in my opinion, if an employee received a prescription for one of these medications. It is not a Constitutional right that they would be violating, but they would be violating federal law, and the employee is left footing the bill. Maybe you are one of those people, everyone I mean, who thinks that because these medications are of a different nature than other medicines, that it doesn't really matter.

And you would be totally wrong. The fact is that the law was passed, and since the law states nothing about religion, nobody's rights were infringed upon. And just because it is someone's opinion that these medications are immoral or somehow unnecessary does not make any difference. Anyone who wants their opinion to matter in cases like this should run for Congress. Or for the presidency. And although the people I am referring to probably hold others to high standards, while not applying them to themselves, I am not following that path, as I say my opinion does not really matter either. If I wanted to change things based on my beliefs, I would put myself in a position where my opinion would carry some weight.

It's funny how people always think they are always right, or at least most of the time. I do not know if it is a blessing or a curse, but for some reason I have always been able to view any problem from the middle of both extremes. I usually consider both sides before making up my mind, and am not afraid to change my opinion based upon new evidence or arguments. I also can admit when I am wrong. My point is that it seems too many people are actually conceited enough to believe that their opinion somehow carries more weight than that of someone else, despite the fact that the person has not fairly and objectively considered BOTH sides of the issue. It is okay to hold and be passionate about something, but you will always be in the wrong unless you have given the other side's arguments a fair and objective chance.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


Exactly. As I already stated, this law(or the enforcement thereof) has nothing to do with anyone's religous ideals. It must take the neutral ground which is exactly what it has done.

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

I wish he was still alive to see whats happening the our Beloved Country... These are sad times.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Druscilla
Keep your knees together?
How about we pass a law that forces all boys and men to get a vasectomy where they're only allowed to get it reversed (on their own dime) when they can demonstrate financial responsibility, like, for instance, keeping a current and active accidental pregnancy insurance policy, similar to car insurance, just in case there's an accident?

So, because some women can't control themselves, you think all men should be required to have surgery??? But, you also think that no woman should be "required" to have a baby, right? Oh, the hypocrisy!

Yes, if a woman doesn't want a baby, she should use an aspirin - held between her knees.

You take my statement too literally.
I was using that as a retort against the old Puritan, sexually repressed, self denialist, keep-your-legs-closed commentary.

By no means am I saying that anyone should forego sex if they want it.
Fly. Be free. Go have orgies if that's the thing that a person likes.

My stance is against the restriction of medical coverage options due some employers desire to conduct faith-based superstitious morality policing.

When it comes to pregnancy, women bear half the blame, but, 99% of the burden, thus, 99% of the weight of choice for preferred access options in Medical coverage Insurance as it applies to anything specifically female-oriented, like pregnancy, or abortion pills should be available and accessible without restriction by some overly repressed, morally self-entitled employer getting all uppity about a woman's choice.

Call down.
Read where my statements come from and what they were in response to, in what context.

... and respected foe? Really? Hilarious

However, let's put aside our differences for the moment, find enjoyment in that which brings us together and enjoy the new year.

In other words, HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone!

BTW, can anyone tell I've gotten quite the head change despite the fact that I'm typing quite eloquently and without the help of spellcheck, mind you? lol

reply to post by Druscilla


Preach it, girl!

Christians need to start reviewing their Bibles and start studying the words of Christ which will one day be the only the source of solace in our lives. John 15:18-20. "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ' A servant' is not greater than his master.; If they persecuted me, they will persecute you. "

This article just shows you not only the reality of the world we live in today, but also shows you the words of prophecy are being fulfilled before our very eyes; Rev. 13:13-17 , "It works great signs even making firing come down from heaven to earth in the sight of men; and by the signs which it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast, it deceives those who dwell on earth, bidding them make an image for the beast that which was wounded by the sword and yet lived; and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast should even speak, and to cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is the name of the beast, or the number of its name."

- "It" in the passage above refers to the United States.

-"beast" refers to the Vatican hierarchy, whose power structure has been in existence since 538 ad. and was "wounded" by the French Revolution, when Napoleon ordered his General Louis-Alexandre Berthier to arrest the pope and remove him from power, which he did in Feb. 1798. The "wound" which refers to the Vatican religious and political clout that is being healed before our very eyes. The healing process started in 1929 when the Vatican became officially recognized as an independent Political state.

-"image of the beast" refers to a creation of the Vatican, similar to how humans were "created in the image of God." Therefore the creation of the Vatican, refers to the Sunday worship, which any Catholic Catechism admits that the Vatican changed the 4th Commandment of the 7th day Sabbath to Sunday.

Don't be fooled by the coming false apparitions of religious figures and even the appearance of Satan as the
Anti-Christ in order to give credibility and credence for people to be forced into a false system of worship. Christ warned humanity close to 2 thousand years ago of the coming deception that will fool the overwhelming majority of the whole world .

reply to post by Emergingtruth


So says you. You sure do claim to know for sure the meaning of obscure passages, even though they were written and cloaked in metaphorical language of the times in which they were written.

What makes your beliefs or interpretation "the right one?" Nothing.

Oh yeah...i forgot.

And you talk about deception? Pot, Meet Kettle.

Beware false prophets.

reply to post by Mad Simian

Sounds like you are a taoist. lol And, don't take that as an insult, as it is the closest philosophical/religous pov that I identify with.

How dare you! I am NOT a maoist!

[edit]oops you said taoist

Although I don't quite see how I am a Taoist. Taoists are the quintessential moral relativists. A famous Taoist, I think Zhang Zi, railed against Conficuianism. Confucianism being a fairly ethical, upright, socially conscious morally philosophy. Taoism in contrast is "beyond" all particulars, or, morality. This is not to suggest that Taoism is immoral. But it does take a necessarily complacent view towards social ethics, inasmuch as the Tao is the absolute unity of all things, and so to parse action into "right and wrong" would be to subscribe to a different perception than the Tao.

In anycase, while I love many things about chinese and oriental culture, I'm not too keen on this particular doctrine.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by pavelivanov22
Sad to see this in USA brought up by christian principles and was blessed by God,

Please Sir, Show me a Link to where the US was Blessed by God.

The US is Probably the Most Barbaric Country since Mongolia's Genghis Khan.

You appear to have a very myopic veiw of the Us and it's history. The United states use to be "city on a hill" A bastion of freedom and liberty founded upon the principals of the Judean frame.(the ten commandments)
America has been the most blessed and prosperous nation: The greatest military might the world has ever seen.
It is only in the last 100 years that America has sunk to be as you characterize"barbaric". WE have become a Babylon.It has its barbarack side now only because dishonorable people have infiltrated it's institutions. This all took place because God's people allowed then to take prayer out of schools and such. They did not fight to the death to preserve their religeous faith in the running of their country and the teaching of their children.
But never forget, This country still has the largest basket of real Christians extant in the world today. There are those who never gave in and never turned from God. God calls them "Zion". Not this zion that claims ownership of Israel but the true zion which has Christ as its head. The true believing and Christian acting people of God are right here. They are other places too but this is the stronghold of the daughter of zion. I have news for all concerned. God will destroy nations and peoples who threaten this group he calls the apple of his eye. People who do not bless God's people are cursed. They all will parrish and the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the saints of the most high. I declare it! It is written! It will be.
And Obama and everyone else had better make their peace with it now or get in God's way and parrish.

While he's at it could he also force them to have better music, accept gay marriage, and do something with the westboro baptist church

Happy New Year

You know Babylon wasn't such a bad place, they created math and language, astronomy, agriculture.. and a history recorded all the way back to the creation of the solar system.

No other peoples can tell us where the moon came from... why there is an asteroid belt in our solar system.. nor how gods landed and created man in their image.

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Originally posted by TheComte
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.

Owning a gun in the U.S. is not only legal, it is my right! Therefore, those private companies and government buildings that do not allow me to carry my gun(s) on their property are impeding my RIGHT to carry.

Funny thing, since THAT is in the constitution! Abortion is not. So, shouldn't I be allowed to carry my gun inside any business that I choose? After all, it is the business owner that needs to get over it, as guns are legal.

Sure, in a state that allows open or concealed carry go ahead and bring it anywhere you like. I don't see how that has any bearing on this subject at all.

Getting an abortion is not the same as owning a gun. Not by a long shot. Kind of a ridiculous comparison, if you ask me.

I live in a state that allows open and concealed carry (second with a permit), and there are plenty of businesses that are allowed to post "no guns allowed" signs, and violate the right to carry. If those businesses can disregard my right to carry a gun wherever I go, then by the same token, a business should be able to not pay for an abortion pill for someone else.

Take it to court then. Good luck.

It still has no bearing on this case which is about health benefits.

It is simply a comparison. Carrying a gun can be a right, but businesses are allowed to restrict it. Legally. Having an abortion can be a right, even if businesses refuse to pay for one for an employee.

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Druscilla
Keep your knees together?
How about we pass a law that forces all boys and men to get a vasectomy where they're only allowed to get it reversed (on their own dime) when they can demonstrate financial responsibility, like, for instance, keeping a current and active accidental pregnancy insurance policy, similar to car insurance, just in case there's an accident?

So, because some women can't control themselves, you think all men should be required to have surgery??? But, you also think that no woman should be "required" to have a baby, right? Oh, the hypocrisy!

Yes, if a woman doesn't want a baby, she should use an aspirin - held between her knees.

You take my statement too literally.
I was using that as a retort against the old Puritan, sexually repressed, self denialist, keep-your-legs-closed commentary.

By no means am I saying that anyone should forego sex if they want it.
Fly. Be free. Go have orgies if that's the thing that a person likes.

My stance is against the restriction of medical coverage options due some employers desire to conduct faith-based superstitious morality policing.

When it comes to pregnancy, women bear half the blame, but, 99% of the burden, thus, 99% of the weight of choice for preferred access options in Medical coverage Insurance as it applies to anything specifically female-oriented, like pregnancy, or abortion pills should be available and accessible without restriction by some overly repressed, morally self-entitled employer getting all uppity about a woman's choice.

Call down.
Read where my statements come from and what they were in response to, in what context.

... and respected foe? Really? Hilarious

What I commented on, that you posted, was your statement that men should maybe be forced to have vasectomies. Yes, I took that literally. I note that you didn't comment on that, either, in your reply. I await your response to my question.

If a woman wants insurance that covers abortions, then she can pay for such insurance. No one is saying, in this thread, that she should not be able to. What people are saying is that an employer should not be forced to pay for such insurance, if that disagrees with their religious beliefs. A "company" is simply a business, and it's the owner, or owners, that foot the expenses. Forcing someone to pay for something that goes against their religious beliefs infringes on those beliefs. It prohibits them from "the free exercise thereof" their religion.

If you don't want someone telling you that you can't have an abortion, if you want one, then by the same token you should not be able to tell someone that they have to pay for that abortion. Paying for the insurance that covers one is paying for one.

Yes, because when I encounter someone with views that are mostly opposite of mine, I use the lists to keep track. Doesn't mean I won't ever agree. I will even star (and flag, for threads) a foe, if I agree with them on a particular thing. Strange world, eh?

I just thought of another way to try and help you see this from my point of view. You don't seem to be pro-religion. Your choice, of course. How would you feel if someone passed a law stating that you, as a business owner, had to pay employees for time taken off work for religious practices? Would your not wanting to pay for that be a restriction on their rights? I don't think it would be. I don't think not paying for abortion drugs is, either.

reply to post by Emergingtruth


Says who? You make a lot of claims, and offer not even reasons for why. I have to say, I don't agree that you are accurate at all in which labels you assign. If you can offer reasons for each label, I would love to discuss those with you.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


The thing is that employers, as far as I know, do not pay for this insurance. Sure, they use the stability of their business to help to create a group discount for said employees but, at the end of the day, it is the employees themselves that pay for the insurance itself(at least this is my experience having been employed by similar corporations in the past). And, nowhere within this law does it state that those who suscribe to this insurance policy HAVE to take advantage of ALL of the 'benefits' of said policy. Like I said, the government takes no stance on an individuals' choice in such matters but simply insures that, legally, the choice itself is protected by the Constitution as opposed to taking one side or the other and stepping on the proverbial offended parties' civil rights.

**edit**Just so you know, I've worked for several incorporated businesses, and in ALL cases, I paid for my insurance out of my own paycheck. In other words, the corporation DID NOT pay for said insurance. I doubt that the situation with Hobby Lobby is any different unless some completely outlandish laws have been passed since I last worked for such a corporation(which is unlikely since I make a concerted effort to keep up with such laws and whatnot).

reply to post by pavelivanov22


Man this thread is filled with sheep. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. If they do not want to provide the morning after pill (WHICH IS NOT ABORTION stupids).


Morning after pill in fact delays ovulation. The more you know.