Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
Why he made the statement is irrelevant, he said he had his facts wrong which he did.
It was relevant to a lot of people.

Constitutionally it does because they have a religious moral objection to doing so and the government cannot impose a moral code upon a religious institution that violates their religion. If Sandra has a problem with that she can go to a different institution. The Left needs to stop trying to impose their morals on everyone else. Paying for someone else’s contraceptives has nothing to do with workplace standards, it’s all about getting free stuff.


Should a Christian Scientist business owner be able to refuse to offer any health insurance, given they don't believe in doctors or medicine? Should a Scientologist business owner be able to refuse to cover psychiatric care, given that that goes against their beliefs?

Heath care isn't "free stuff". You pay for it. All employers have to offer it. And the government gets to decide what constitutes an acceptable level and kind of health insurance. The law does not apply to explicitly religious institutions, like a church. But it does apply to schools and hospitals.

Abortion is a human rights issue, not a reproductive rights issue (you’re no different than the slave owner who tried to claim slavery was a property rights issue rather than a human rights issue). However, even if it were, nice logical non-sequitur, someone having a right to do something does not mean they have a right to have it paid for by the tax payers. I have a right to own firearms, that doesn’t mean that therefore the Government must pay for them. Nice try at that sort of liberal slight-of-hand, it’s sad some people actually fall for it though.


The debate over the merits of abortion is irrelevant to the discussion. Women don't agree with this and aren't going to be persuaded.

Nope, actually it doesn’t matter whether the issues are related or not, me being wrong about one point has no weight as to whether I am wrong about a different point. That’s like saying because Florro correctly predicted the Packers game last week he is therefore right about next week’s prediction, that’s a complete logical non-sequitur.


You say correlation. I say causation. Either way, your analogy is poor. Making correct predictions historically does not mean all of Florio's predictions will come true, but it does mean he is more likely to be right that someone who's predictions rarely come true.