*shaking head*

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

First, not doing something is an action. ... Nonsense reasoning; semantics that lawyers succesfully [sic] play to confuse reality. ... Not doing something is an action.

First, not doing something is a choice, that choice is called inaction. There can be dozens of valid reasons for individuals to choose inaction and you don't get to sit in judgment of any of them. But then the English language isn't your forte is it? You're well known for making up your own definitions for words.

Originally Posted by tw

Second, the employer is imposing his religion on others.

Second, the employer is imposing its will on its insurance company. The insurance company is limiting benefits to the employees and the insurance company is free to distribute those benefits as long as it's no cost to the employer.

Originally Posted by tw

A conscentious [sic] objector does not impose his religion on anyone else.

Conscientious objectors continuously impose their religion on others as others have to accommodate them.

Originally Posted by tw

Only so called 'evil' people (ie [sic] [Fundamentalist terrorists) impose their religion on anyone else. This is not about imposing his religion on himself. This is only and completely about imposing his religion on others.

Only un-American subversives would deprive employers of their freedom of religion by forcing them to act in a manner unconscionable to them. This is only and completely about freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court agrees with me 'cause I'm right and you're wrong ... get over it.