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

i was arguing that it was the hypocrisy of hobby lobby. con just misunderstands me. maybe i said something confused, i don't know. con goes on to establish tha they are hypocritical, but it doen't really establish anything about why the court should have ruled one way or the other, just that hobby lobby is a bunch of hypocrits. they still have well established religouis beliefs to be protected. the point about people being mad at hobby lobby i suppose con is tecincally correct about. but it's the point, why should anyone be mad about employers not being forced to violate their estalished religious beliefs for something they can take care of themselves. con tries to argue that the first amendment doesn't make mention of companies. but it's established law by the court that corporations do have first amendment rights. the court said they are 'persons' and have those rights. but even if we didn't follow that reasoning, hobby lobby is a closely held company. they shoudn't be forced to give up their religious beliefs jus tbecause they want to incorporate. it's not like they are a huge corporation with the public as board membes whose only motive is to incrase the bottomline. which is an almost public entity. to look at it any other way would be to use technicalites of a corporate entity against the busiess ownes to deprive them of their rights. how is it a mild form of oppression? if it isn't right to ask a private enterprenaour to vioalte his rights if he's not a corporation, how is it right to ask a closely held corporation? and it's not even like birth contol and such access is a real 'right'. it's never een been considered that until the obama adminstation passed the law within the law few years. con is asking us to use legislatively created "rights" to trump well established constitutional fundamental rights to religion. constituion always trumps laws. con acts as if we should take the slippery slope to his favor. but hte slippery slope works both ways. on one hand, if we ruled against hobby lobby, it'd be taking the first amendment in a direction in which it has no meaning. but then again, we havepeople like parents who will argue that htey shouldn't have to vaccinate their kids. the only way to approach this is to treat it as a categorical exception. well establihsed traditional belifs should be respected, as the case is here. that doesn't mean that less traditional beliefs shouldnt be respected, as long as they are sincere and within a rigous respect for the belifs of the individual. someon wanting to segregate based on their beliefs of the bible, is simply going too far. we have to draw lines like that some how. it's not always obviously consistent. it's more about keeping things within socially accepted boundaries. there's no othe way to measure these things. to act as if there is is to miss the point that the lippery slope works both ways and there can be no true bright line rules. as to the last point. it is not really people's religious beliefs that they should have access to birth control. it is in no way framed that way cause that is not what is really happening. the employees mostly have secular and equitable concerns for wanting contraceptives and such. and even if it was the boss's religion trumping hte employees, so what? it is the boss's company. one person's rights are going to have to triump. we shouldn't force the boss to lose when it's his company to begin with.