mostly just hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway

http://www.youtube.com... Pro, just a little advice for the future...As a debater, you must supply and support your opinions with sources, studies, etc. if you want to hold any credibilty. Another thing, I don't really see you building off of your arguments. You are kind of static as far as that goes. Like I said, just some friendly advice. Now, onto my argument... A. "Good Liberals" In your argument, you stated, "...people are acting the way they are cause they are supposed to be "good liberals." Number one, this is not a strong case for your stance at all. You cannot say such a statement just based on your belief. Relevant to what I stated above, arguments are based on facts, a good "back-and-forth" between the debaters, and allowing statistics, studies, etc. to support your beliefs. B. "So, Hobby Lobby buys from China, who has women who are forced to have abortions." Following that statement, you say that this, "points out their hypocrisy." May I ask, how, in any way, does this point out hypocrisy in the people who believe that this ruling was wrong? If anything, it points out the hypocrisy of the Green family. The Green family's main argument in the case was that being forced to cover employee's contraceptives and pills like the Plan-B pill, went against their religious traditions and beliefs where abortion and such things as, are wrong. But yet, they will allow themselves to buy from China, where, in fact, women are forced to have abortions, and the Green family has no problem with that. I would think that if the Green family were to abide by their religious traditions, they would not be buying from companies in China that force abortion upon women. C. "Why would someone be mad that they have to buy their own birth control, and they can't force their employers to do so?" This case involved Hobby Lobby and the Obama Administration. The workers of Hobby Lobby did not take Hobby Lobby to court. Hobby Lobby went to court with the Obama Administration because Obamacare would have Hobby Lobby pay for their employees' contraceptives, which in turn went against the Green families religious beliefs. This case was never about people being angry with Hobby Lobby. The First Amendment also makes no mention of companies or industries. The First Amendment is in regards to an individual's rights. [http://www.law.cornell.edu...] Also, this is a company that employs people of different religious beliefs. From Atheism to Catholicism. I had a debate on this awhile ago that is somewhat related. The debate was regarding why religious justifications must stay out of the legislation/law-making process. I made this same argument in that debate. Being a company that employs people of different beliefs, they cannot use their personal religion to deny their employees coverage of contraceptives when many people within the company do not hold the same beliefs. At the same time, going against a measure, such as Obamacare, which is at least a step in the right direction. (I have not done much research on the whole Obamacare thing.) It really is, in my book, a mild form of oppression to their employees. D. "...is it opens a slippery slope." Once the Supreme Court has ruled on something like this, it is very hard to just limit the decision to contraceptives. Also, the Supreme Court has ruled on cases much like this one in the past and went against the religious side of things. Read this article from Rachael Maddow... "Rachel Maddow was dismayed by the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision on Monday. The court ruled that Hobby Lobby and other "closely held" corporations cannot be required to cover contraception for their employees if doing so would contradict religious beliefs. Maddow pointed to two cases where organizations cited religion as the basis of their business practices in the past, but the courts did strike those practices down. One was the case of restaurant owner Maurice Bessinger, who believed that segregation was justified by the Bible. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that he had to desegregate his Piggie Park restaurant chain. Years later, a federal appeals court also ruled that the Fremont Christian School in California could not withhold health benefits to their married female employees. The Supreme Court's ruling on Monday was "very, very different" from those two other decisions, Maddow lamented Monday. "The five members of the conservative majority voted that the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of a company"s employees " those are effectively overruled by the religious beliefs of the boss," she said. "The boss" religion determines what laws apply to his or her employees and his or her business, at least on this issue." [http://www.huffingtonpost.com...] I will leave you with that for now.