"is not entitled" does mean that Hobby Lobby's owners will have to act against their faith (assuming the ruling survives all appeals). Also this is not from Sebbelous but rather a government lawyer. still technically the position of the administration. just keeping it real guys.
Yes and since the lawsuit states:
It's not going to work like that. The 10th Circuit Court has already found the HHA Mandate is a violation of RFRA and that does include corporations.
My thoughts exactly .....
yes it may be her opinion byt not her words. I too believe the ruling to be wrong but not willing to put wirds in the wrong mouths. you can make a case for jay carney being obamas mouth as that is his job description.
What the heck is about the words ....
Really PLC1 ....
You're going to blast "right-wined websites" and then quote ThinkProgress ....
As I stated above .... it matters not that the regime may or may not have described the case against Hobby-Lobby in those exact words.
The Becket Fund, who is representing Hobby-Lobby has indeed dealt a blow to the Communist Regime by winning a temporary restraining order granting a special injunction until the district court has time to fully rule in the preliminary injunction.
The DOJ likely has no choice but to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take this case at this time, which most likely will rule that the HHS Mandate violates RFRA, in which case the mandate will be struck down nationwide.
Now, the quote may or may not have come in those exact words from the regime. The quote may not even be accurate in the fact that it appears the regime indeed is not going to be able to force Christians to act against their faith (at least in this case) after all.
But, again .... one thing is crystal clear .... with the regime pushing this case all the way to the SCOTUS .... their intentions are clear.
Unless of course .... you continue to choose denial over reality here or can find another wacko-communist website that has propagandized otherwise!
No doubt. This has been a contentious issue for some time now.
you contenx that someone, anyone, xaid them when they did not. the lawyers said something similer. Sebaleus is namex as she heads the agency responsible for the regulation in question. I hope you were not expecting her to resign, you were bound to be disappointed if so. whether they are evil or not is not a matter of law. whether this regulation is going to stand or not is. and no, Cru, this matter is not settled.
Anytime anyone in this regime or any other administration attempt to take away Freedoms and Liberties by enforcing illegal laws that are against the US Constitution .... that is evil ... plain and simple!
It is not "putting words in someone else's mouth" it is accurately describing their action .... again ... it matters not if they said it in that context or not .... what matters are their actions .... everything else is a strawman argument!
