You already lost this argument. SCOTUS ruled against you.
So shut up already.
Yet the SCOTUS could have, conceivably, ruled in the totally opposite direction, and what would your view point be then?
When the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the ACA, I thought that was a real boneheaded and convoluted opinion.
I also disagree with their dismantling of campaign finance reform (in the end, we can argue about Tom vs. Jerry, but money in politics is the first problem we're facing, ymmv...).
The 'Hobby Lobby' decision is also ill-conceived. You agree with the context of this decision in terms of the particular case, but I think you fail to realize the ramifications.
I asked another poster what he would think if, based on this decision, a (
Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Scientologist) employer refused to pay for (
a vaccine with pork ingredients, a life-saving blood transfusion, or PTSD-related treatments with a psychiatrist), etc. I got no answer.
Maybe you'll be able to convince me why there's a difference between those religious exemptions and those for HL.
Pandora's Box.