Court Strikes Limited Blow Against Obamacare Contraception Mandate

How tolerate you are. This religious nut provides significantly higher pay than other retailers of similar jobs; gives Sundays off; provides a great working environment; and makes their employees happy. Sounds like a bonafide nut to me.

I love how some people that claim you should be open to others lifestyles and tolerant of others are so closed minded and untolerant of others when said individuals have a lifestyle or morals that are different than their own especially around religion.

If the emplyees at Hobby company don't like the benefits package they receive, they should leave their jobs and before accepting a new job, make sure that their health plans offer contraception coverage.

There are more important aspects to a benefit package than whether birth contol pills are to be part of the overall package.

Retirement funding for example...

Of which they have available and match. They seem to have a very good compensation package and according to I think it is indeed.com -- the employees rate this business very high in satisfaction.

There is also some people would think oddity I've read about them -- like Bible verses and such in meetings. But if the employees are happy with it and don't mind, why should the government be involved?

Also, I know when I look/interview for a job, I ask for the entire package:

Healthcare/other insurance/vacation/retirement/compensation.

I decided from there if I like the overall package. At one company they may pay more in healthcare insurance and covers more medically, however, the other company pays a higher salary -- I may go for one or the other depending on what is more important to me.

LOL they are interfering with some of the most personal decisions that a woman can made along with her doctor and her partner all in the name of their religions beliefs and for that I have zero repeat zero tolerant of that kind of behaviors.

An the way it should work at least until the men not the women on the SC interfere is that if Hobby Lobby owners do not care to follow the law they should sell or shut down their businesses.

Bet you think that if coal miners do not care to work in mines that do not meet federal safety standards they should find other employment as after all coal miners are very well paid and they always can leave their jobs.

Oh by the way Hobby Lobby owners do not have a problem it would seems of doing billions of dollars worth of business with China with a government that had force over a half billions abortions over the decades as long as they can get cheap goods to sell at a larger mark up.

You got to love these people.

And I repeat LOL - they are NOT. They are saying that an employee cannot have an abortion -- they are saying we will not pay for insurance that covers this.

So it is fair to force this group to pay for things they do not believe in... you consider that tolerant? So you do not believe in their religion --- what if you were forced to pay for their church -- would you think that is fair?

It seems it is ok for you to dictate that someone pays for because you think it is morally ok. But if it were not morally ok to you, you should have to pay for it. Right you are tolerant. You really said it when you said you have zero tolerance. I proved my point -- you are intolerant but yet you expect others to be tolerant of what you believe in.

They obviously believe in the law (and so do the judges) thus why they brought it took court for them to decide -- they do not simply ignore the law. The law now determine they were correct and now that you do not like it -- you are stating they are against the law? You really have no logic. Again you in your belief can say it is ok to do something against the law, but yet when Hobby Lobby followed the law and rules of our court system and ended up with a verdict you did not like --- you are still right? And who is the nutcase?

And you think you make sense?

And as I said over and over (ie coal miners) this is not a safety issue -- safety issues are obviously different and different laws and agencies govern over these.

You simply enjoy twisting things to make them fit your pretty little world.

You again put words in my mouth and change things around -- you cannot even stick to what I am saying over and over I say they are not preventing anyone from having abortions or taking the day after pill.

They simply do not want to pay for this. Are you able to comprehend this? I have much more respect for you if you stated --- yes they should be paying for abortions even if they believe it is murder. And in return I should have to pay for their church even though I do not believe in it. You simply just want it your way or highway.

Your statement is ludicrous in that they would not be able to even do any work in the US -

I wouldn't doubt they do business with China - pretty much any company/business does -- but you have also not supported the billions of dollars they do spend/work with in China. And I highly doubt it is billions.

You gotta love people who continuously twist things to support whatever they want.

ABORTION by way of an IUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nonsense..............

So what I am sure there are a lot of things that they do not wish to paid for that does not mean that we as a society should allow them not to do so and by not doing so imposed their faiths on their employees.

Why is their faith of more import then their employees beliefs?

Once more you like to talk about abortions and when the issue is not IUDs but instead half a billions real repeat real force abortions over the last decades they have no problem at all with help paying for them by doing business with China.

i stated this on my facebook page, and figured i'd post it here

i've never been in a Hobby Lobby but i've been in a Canadian version a few times, if the scrapbooking department is anything to go by, i vote more contraception, not less

Those the demand tolerance are the least tolerant of people. Bill RM proves this. How can you have a discussion about this when Bill can't even talk straight about what the ruling stated?