Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sorry but I want to scold you. [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)77. That's a really desperate attempt to exonerate Hobby Lobby.
But who is responsible for the situation?...not HL they just can now follow the law.
Yes, the case just magically appeared before the SCOTUS. Hobby Lobby was a completely innocent bystander.
And I've got this Nigerian prince friend who's got a great deal for you.
Hobby Lobby was perfectly happy to provide birth control for years. Then two years ago, a conservative group approached them about suing the government. They agreed to bring suit. And they agreed to press, and fund, that suit all the way to the SCOTUS.
That is not an innocent bystander. They sure as hell knew they were inserting themselves between their employees and their doctors. And they paid a shitload of money and took a shitload of effort to do so. And apparently the status quo was just fine until they thought they might score political points.
If they arrest you and take you to court, and the judge rules you were right, is it fair for the defense to come after you to ruin you?
So many screwed up parts here.
First the trivial: If you were arrested, then you are the defense. The state that arrested you is the prosecution. You'd be ruining yourself if the defense "came after you to ruin you".
Second, if you were arrested, you were forced to do something against your will - go to jail, and then go to trial. Hobby Lobby was happily paying for birth control for years. If it was such a horrific burden on their religious beliefs, don'tcha think they'd have sued before someone sought them out? Dont'cha think back before coverage was required by law, they wouldn't have covered these forms of birth control? Don'tcha think they'd have demanded their retirement plans not profit from other people's birth control? Don'tcha think they wouldn't send large piles of money to China, the abortion capital of the planet?
And no, "we didn't know" is a bullshit excuse. People keeping kosher know to ask "does this have pork in it?" If it was such a horrific religious affront, they'd have specified no coverage for those birth control devices when they started the health plan. Long before the ACA existed.
Hobby Lobby spent a lot of time, money and effort in order to get in between their employees and their doctors. But Chinese babies? They can be slaughtered to help Hobby Lobby's bottom line.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
112 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I do not think a figurative call to arms against creeping fascism should deserve such derision.
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#9
That's not the problem. Like she said, it's the condescension that's at issue.
nomorenomore08
Jul 2014
#68
Yes, let me know when you've scheduled that protest at the steps of the SC
theHandpuppet
Jul 2014
#12
All 5 justices in the majority decision were male. 3 of the 4 dissenting justices were female.
nomorenomore08
Jul 2014
#69
Don't you get it, the very real outcome of this discriminatory ruling against women
boston bean
Jul 2014
#72
It certainly isn't hurting the "larger cause" of fighting encroaching theocracy.
nomorenomore08
Jul 2014
#74
I think the Godwin reference has hidden truths about those who seek to influence the conversation
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#109
If Middle America is truly on the side of the theocrats - which is by no means a sure thing - then
nomorenomore08
Jul 2014
#70
And yet, 90% of this forum use the personal relative pronoun "who" for corporations,
Art_from_Ark
Jul 2014
#96
Hobby Lobby isn't responsible for being the tool used bring down the BC mandate in the ACA?
herding cats
Jul 2014
#34
We shouldn't be bothering our pretty little heads with things like politics
theHandpuppet
Jul 2014
#66
I think folks might be shooting at what they can aim. The court is not realistically addressed by
TheKentuckian
Jul 2014
#39
Many successful boycotts in our history... why would is this one specifically doomed?
LanternWaste
Jul 2014
#84
Hence, the successful boycotts did not negatively impact the liberal brand in these instances...?
LanternWaste
Jul 2014
#92
so a successful boycott always has a negative result for the boycotter? LOL. And you think you
bettyellen
Jul 2014
#95
I will accept a scolding but I think I disagree. Protesting at the SCOTUS will
rhett o rick
Jul 2014
#71
I see your point. Make it a media event maybe to energize Democrats to GOTV. nm
rhett o rick
Jul 2014
#81