pineinthegrass wrote: If they want to be closed on Sunday that's fine with me since it doesn't really affect me. I was just trying to think how someone else might think they've been "damaged" and possibly challenge it in court if they were so inclined. If those companies had separately owned franchises, I could see that maybe a franchise owner could be "damaged" by not being allowed to be open on Sundays and losing that business. But so far as I can see, all of the stores are privately owned by the main company. So if they don't mind losing the Sunday business, that's fine by me.
You know what's interesting is, regardless of any perceived revenue loss, not being open on Sundays makes their company a more attractive place of employment for many people, especially younger folks who really don't want to spend their whole weekend working. In fact, if you look at sites such as Glassdoor, you'll find that Chik-fil-a gets pretty strong reviews from employees.
Another thing some here might find interesting is the situation regarding liquor stores being open on Sundays. Years ago I had an ongoing debate with a staunch supporter of having liquor stores open on Sunday who continually ranted about those "damn Christians" who oppose it. I tried to explain to him that it was mostly the liquor store owners themselves who opposed being open. When he finally saw a couple owners on the news saying "I'd rather not be open on Sundays because I'd like to have a day off", he finally understood the truth of the situation. But, this guy was like LJ in drag - never miss an opportunity to attack Christians.
Latest polling has women split 50/50 on the Hobby Lobby decision. Are the 50% who support it capable women who are used to buying their own birth control and aren't dependent on goverment employer mandates to obtain it?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
ThePetParent wrote: I am Pro-Choice and I do not have religious beliefs or believe or give credit to religious propaganda.
I do not believe Plan B or Abortion should be used as a single form of birth control but if an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy occurs I believe a woman should, without a doubt do it ASAP.
I fully support a woman choice to do with her body as she sees fit...period.
The key word in your reply here is "believe". The problem seems to be that the left wants to force their beliefs on everyone and object when those who believe something different don't want to abide by their beliefs. Why should the Greens, or anyone else for that matter, have to provide something for you based on what you believe to be true?
The Greens believe that inducing a miscarriage, which is the actual means by which Plan B operates, is the intentional destruction of human life, something which science actually demonstrates to be true by the way. Now, you can ignore the science and facts to your hearts content in pursuit of your belief that this human life is not yet human enough to be endowed with rights as long as we remain clear on what exactly you are resting your arguments on here. What you believe to be true. And that is exactly what the Supreme Court upheld here - the ability of the individual to practice what they believe free of government interference.
The federal government doesn't have the power, or the right, to compel individuals to violate their beliefs. That's perhaps the most fundamental individual right that we were all endowed with when we were created equal to everyone else. That is what the self evident truth is after all, isn't it? That we were all created equal and all created endowed with the same unalienable rights? Do you know what that term, unalienable, means PetParent? That means it can't be taken from you or surrendered by you.
What makes this Union unique, what makes it exceptional, is the protection of these unalienable rights by the organizing document of the government. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So fundamental to our unique form of ordered liberty is this principle that the prohibition has been expanded to include legislatures of any kind anywhere in the Union or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction of any or all of the several States. Now, I happen to believe that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds with that proclamation given the actual text only mentions Congress; but as so many on the left love to point out when the Court rules favorable to them, it's the law of the land. No level of government may make a law which prohibits the free exercise of religion. That's what the law of the land is. Neither Congress, nor the president with his phone and his pen, nor any department of the executive branch of the federal government may make any law or rule which prohibits the free exercise of religion. You don't have to share those religious beliefs, but you damned well have to allow others to practice them and make accommodations for them in any public law or rule. That's where the rubber meets the road. The Department of Health and Human Services tried to use the force of government to compel individuals to violate their religious beliefs and the Supreme Court rightly told them they couldn't do that. It should have been a 9-0 ruling. That is wasn't should be troubling to every citizen of every State in the Union.
