(02-09-2020 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 03:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2020 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2020 08:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you actually want to have a conversation about this? Or are you just looking to ask a rhetorical question?

Either way. You choose.

In my eyes, the difference is how the following of one’s conscience manifests itself and who it affects.

In the case of Hobby Lobby, the following of one’s conscience directly affected the employees of the store, and those choices were based on religious grounds. Hobby Lobby used religion to affect basic healthcare (birth control) of their employees, who were not necessarily working there because of their religious beliefs.

For Chick-fil-a, they were donating to some groups with rather questionable stances/activities that were based on religious beliefs.

No idea what the Little Sisters of the Poor references.

For Romney, his decision didn’t manifest itself in a way where it took away access to anything. It really didn’t affect anyone directly.

Who is CFA allowed to donate to? How are the recipients approved?

The common thread between Romney, Hobby Lobby, CFA, and the Little Sisters is religious beliefs. I see all four the same.

Easy to google

Regarding CFA - I was talking about the initial uproar over people boycotting CFA, which was the free market at work. I disagree with some of the more recent issues where places like airports (San Antonio, I believe), kicked them out or something along those lines.

You’re right that there is a very superficial and common thread with all of those people/businesses.