Yeah, birth control, Pearl Harbor, I always seem to mix them up… :P

18

 

Share.

18
Leave a Reply

9 Comment threads
9 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

How the F”@#$ is that an attack on religious freedom?!?!?!?

Those are exactly the same, SMH

How offensive to the memory of those lost.
What an arse!

I hope he keeps up the good work. Comments as stupid as this are the sort of thing that is making the young rethink their religious affiliations and vote with their feet.

Well said, David.

It’s not about freedom of religion. It’s about freedom of conscience and it has to work both ways, secular and religious. Just as it’s not right for government to force distribution of bibles in public schools, it’s not right for government to force employers to offer insurance benefits that they find morally offensive. A government operating properly within its constitutional limits engages in neither. Not to say the comparison to Pearl Harbor isn’t tacky.

Gary, all due respect, you are talking out your ass.

That is an ad hominem argument. What is your actual refutation?

No, it’s a statement of fact Gary. When you babble such ideologue nonsense (which you have done before out here, because you ARE a BLIND IDEOLOGUE), you are indeed talking out of your ass. As for a refutation, are you kidding? Your argument is so asinine (pun intended), it’s not even deserving of a refutation. One question though, what if a company is run by a faith-healer goober who doesn’t believe in doctors or medicine or hospitals. Does he get to use his religious views as a way to keep his employees from getting any coverage at all? That would… Read more »

Article one section eight of the Constitution enumerates what congress can legislate on. The ninth and tenth amendment reserve anything left over to the states. Where in that language is congress given the right to enforce employer insurance mandates period?

Yawwwwwnnnnn…

In case you’ve forgotten, the ACA is the law of the land. And employers do have the option to not provide coverage and pay a surtax. What are you missing Gary? Oh yeah, nevermind you’re still talking out of your ass.

Oh, and while you’re feebly atttempting to obfuscate, address the question that I raised. Don’t think I missed that. 😛

Yes, a surtax that will force them to subsidize a public health plan they find morally objectionable. Personally I’m fine with abortion and contraception but that’s beside the point. I believe in freedom of conscience equally for people who think like me and people who don’t.

Slavery and white male privilege were once the law of the land but that didn’t make them right.

Hmmm… and now racism (and sexism) stemming from those days are now a thing of the past? Please… keep the ass-talking going. You’re on a roll. 😛

You didn’t answer me Gary. This is your final chance.

And no, the surtax doesn’t subsidize a public health plan. Do you know ANYTHING about ACA? Stop watching Fox News, you dolt. There is NO public option.