Our God is an awesome God! He created this vast universe and He created each and everyone of us. Scripture tells us that He knew us before we were created in our mother's womb. Each life is significant in His eyes. I believe that we are missing the main point... it is not about "our" rights but rather when does life begin. Life created in the womb is as valuable and sacred as life out of the womb. I believe that every woman and man has a right to their own healthcare but do they have the right to destroy innocent life that God has created? Our Constitution, our moral compass and our living God requires us to defend all life. The Greens of Hobby Lobby are taking that stand and will ultimately answer to the highest authority. They are taking a stand no different than others that have proceeded them such as Abraham Lincoln, Wilberforce and Martin Luther Jr. I pray that God would give them the strength to stick to their convictions.

Mary, you object to the "melodrama" of my post, yet you were sent here by another site that criticized it using rather vulgar masturbation metaphors. I would say that is merely melodrama of a different stripe. I trust you registered your objections to the "melodrama" there as well.

Karen, Yes, you are right that I disagree with your conclusions in your post. But you have the perfect right to explore these issues as a writer. What I object to is the melodrama that I see in your post and also with conservative Christians in general. You want to make everything into a holy war. Quite frankly I think more people would be more likely to listen to conservative points of view if they would simply present their views in a calm and reasonable manner. However, I do realize that in the media, that is not how you get ratings.

Wow, Mary Rogers. You seem so certain about so many things about me--although you haven't said much about the actual line of reasoning in my actual post which, I assume, you disagree with.

We need single payer. Those of us who are not evangelical Christians and Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., have no problem with birth control, abortion, morning after pills, blood transfusions, vaccinations. Lack of single payer means we are at the mercy of our employer's religious beliefs. In this case, Hobby Lobby is clearly more worried about the moral consequences of offering the pill to its employees than it is about the moral consequences of selling endless quantities of Chinese sweatshop knockoffs. A martyr they are not. Their workers, now, would qualify. Single payer. No one needs this.

I am pasting my response to a comment you made on the slacktivist website that was critical of your article: The reason why people object to your line of "reasoning" is because you and a subset of Christians want to frame every disagreement as an attempt to destroy your religion. In other words, you don't play fair. Elevating a legal disagreement to the level of martyrdom is patently ridiculous. I don't see the government feeding Christians to the lions! Christians in this country have unprecedented freedoms compared to most other countries. The problem is not that we don't have religious freedom. We have plenty of that. The problem is that people like you want to DENY others religious freedoms by ramming your ideology down other people's throats. Of course you feel justifed because you are SO CERTAIN that you are right about everything. If you want to make a point you can do it without the melodramatics. You can respect other points of view. Basically people like you really don't believe in religious freedom at all. You believe in the freedom of everyone to believe what you do. If people don't agree with you then that automatically means that they are evil and out to destroy Christianity. You can have a Christian country or a free country, but you can't have both.

We all seem to get caught up in the 'why' for different policies and laws and use them selectively. This is wrong but let's do this with HL. HL is a corporation that is a non-human entity. HL is not an extension or appendage of the Greens precisely because (unlike the 'ol Baily Savings and Loan) the Greens are legally separated and protected from much personal liability through the incorporation which makes HL a separate entity. If the convictions are true, then IF the choice comes between obeying the law or God in the minds of the Greens, they can reorganize HL in a way that truly makes the business intertwined with them personally. Difficult? Absolutely! But, at that point, the case for "the owner's personal beliefs" is far better made.

TOTALLY agree with SB. It's clear to see just how far removed we as "Christians" are and how numb and complacent we have become to the sinful laws and practices of this land. HL as an employer DOES NOT expect to have a say in how an employee spends the salary given them. Their expectation to have a say in what their money is DIRECTLY funding is merely an indication of their knowledge of their own accountability as Christians for the blessings provided them. As for the legal aspect= the pc-ness of this nation and the defense of ones "rights" has fast tracked us down the road of IMMORAL RUINATION. Comparing the funding of pornography to MURDER pales in comparison. Christians are DEFINITELY NOT understanding the larger implications of this. As one day we will all stand before our Maker and account for every single dollar God blessed to our possession. Whether the FORCED allocation of that dollar was mandated by a sinful government or not-we will answer. GOD SAVE US!!

Basic logical reasoning requires analogies to have a fact pattern equivalent to the original. Requiring Hobby Lobby to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives (even if you believe some of them are also abortifacient) is NOT AT ALL like "forcing anti-pornography legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon to buy pornography for her law students." Rather, it's like requiring Prof. MacKinnon to subsidize her law students' internet connection, through which, among many other perfectly good and helpful things, pornography could be obtained should the student seek it out. And, actually, since it's only a hypothetical possibility, as recent studies have shown, that contraceptives covered by the mandate might ever be abortifacient, even my analogy is overstated. The mandate is more like requiring Prof. MacKinnon to subsidize her law students' subscription to the Book-of-the-Month Club on the off chance they might offer something that a tiny minority might think is pornographic.

At worst, Hobby Lobby has a six-degrees-of separation problem with where some of its employee compensation $$ end up. Though CT says HL is required "to purchase goods that violate [HL's] demonstrably long-held religious convictions," CT also identifies the "required goods" as "health insurance services." So, unless HL's objection is to buying insurance services, which it clearly isn't, then HL wouldn't be directly purchasing anything that violates its beliefs. HL "self-funds" its insurance. This usually involves an account COMBINING $$ from employees AND $$ from the employer for their respective parts of the insurance costs. HL would contract with a separate entity to administer the account. Employees (w/ their docs) choose goods/services and ONLY THEN would the administrator review claims and pay the doc/pharmacy from the fund. Since HL gets to treat BOTH salary $$ and insurance $$ as "compensation" for tax purposes (a business expense), HL should accept its lack of control over both.