Hobby Lobby Appreciation Day

[anhnha]

I am reading the report: Hobby Lobby Day: A Fight for Religious Freedom
More:http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/J...gious-Freedom/
Tens of thousands of supporters were called on to shop online or at a store in support of Hobby Lobby Appreciation Day, Saturday.
Why the day is called "Hobby Lobby Appreciation Day"? What is the mean of "appreciation" here?
Thank you,

[SoothingDave]

They are showing their appreciation to this store for the store's owner's courageous stance. The store is refusing to abide by provisions of Obamacare that violate their religious principles, in the face of millions of dollars in penalties per day for violating the law.

[5jj]

They are showing their appreciation to this store for the store's owner's courageous stance. The store is refusing to abide by provisions of Obamacare that violate their religious principles, in the face of millions of dollars in penalties per day for violating the law.

I should perhaps add that the choice of the word 'courageous' here is subjective. Those who share the religious principles of the store's owners would use 'courageous'; those who don't, might use other words.

[emsr2d2]

I should perhaps add that the choice of the word 'courageous' here is subjective. Those who share the religious principles of the store's owners would use 'courageous'; those who don't, might use other words.

Or no adjective at all, simply the fact. Some people are supporting the store's stance.

[SoothingDave]

I should perhaps add that the choice of the word 'courageous' here is subjective. Those who share the religious principles of the store's owners would use 'corageous'; those who don't, might use other words.

Those showing appreciation find it courageous, that's for sure.

But one need not share another's religious principles in order to support freedom of conscience and the idea that government should tread carefully in this area. Where a gov't's policy goals can be achieved by alternate means, the decision to force others to violate their consciences is unnecessary and tyrannic.

[5jj]

But one need not share another's religious principles in order to support freedom of conscience and the idea that government should tread carefully in this area. Where a gov't's policy goals can be achieved by alternate means, the decision to force others to violate their consciences is unnecessary and tyrannic.

I think we are verging on the political here. I have immense respect for SD's views on language, though I don't always agree with his political views. I think that I (as a moderator) am going to have to be tyrannical here: We can discuss the language , but not the principles. This is a language forum, not a political forum.

[emsr2d2]

I agree. If the piece says nothing about a "courageous stance" then nor should anyone here. Even if it did, it would have to be pointed out that that was an entirely subjective view.

[SoothingDave]

I think we are verging on the political here. I have immense respect for SD's views on language, though I don't always agree with his political views. I think that I (as a moderator) am going to have to be tyrannical here: We can discuss the language , but not the principles. This is a language forum, not a political forum.

Fair enough.