Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

That bit of live-and-let-live wisdom, usually attributed — some say misattributed — to Oliver Wendell Holmes, provides a useful framework for considering a high-profile case argued before the Supreme Court last week. The Affordable Care Act requires businesses, if they provide health insurance for their employees, to include contraceptive care in that coverage.

Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts and crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet maker, say doing so would require them to violate their religious beliefs. Both argue — erroneously, according to medical experts — that drugs and devices sanctioned by the FDA for contraception actually induce abortions.

This is only the latest of a series of incidents in recent years in which it has been argued that religious conscience ought to give people and businesses exemption from providing ordinary and customary services to the general public.

In 2005, pharmacists in a number of states refused to fill prescriptions for women seeking contraception. Some specifically declined to serve unmarried women; some confiscated the prescriptions and would not give them back. They cited religious conscience.

In 2007, Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis-St. Paul fought for the right to reject passengers carrying alcohol or being assisted by seeing-eye dogs. They cited religious conscience.

This year, legislators in Arizona, Kansas and other states tried or are trying to pass laws allowing businesses to refuse service to gay men and lesbians. They cite religious conscience.

Now there is this. And the crazy part? The companies do not even have to offer their employees medical insurance. Under the ACA, they could opt out and allow workers to buy their own insurance from an exchange. Instead, they have gone before the top court, arguing religious conscience.

And court watchers say the justices — or at least the conservative wing — gave that argument a sympathetic hearing in last week’s session. That is an ominous sign.

There is nothing wrong with religious conscience, with saying there are things that, as a matter of faith, you will not do. If a cabbie does not wish to drink alcohol or own a dog, that’s his business. If some state legislator does not wish to be involved in a same-sex relationship, that’s her prerogative. If a Hobby Lobby executive has no interest in contraceptive care, good for her.

But they do not get to make those decisions for everybody else.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 230

61 responses to “Hobby Lobby Case Is A Slippery Slope”

  1. Dominick Vila says:

    If our Democratic strategists have any sense they would highlight this latest example of Republican policies that are inconsistent with what most Americans want and need. Their proposal, which includes a loss of privacy never seen to date, should be at the forefront of our campaign strategy.

    • Lovefacts says:

      They would also start a campaign about how this violated the First Amendment. Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization. Their employees aren’t all Christians, and those who are aren’t all the same religion. No, Hobby Lobby’s fighting this law for one reason only, their bottom line. It’s the same reason they’re fighting against increasing the minimum wage and most of their employees work less than 30 hours/week, and want to abolish SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Oh, yeah, they really live their religion. If I remember correctly, Jesus preached people had an obligation to take care of the poor, the widows, and the orphans.

  2. ram1020 says:

    Hobby Lobby is not restricting the availability of these “abortion drugs” to their employees. They, as self insured, have a moral objection to paying for them. Rather than creating a state “religion” that eliminates descent, the law should accommodate Muslim cab drivers, Christian employers, Kosher meat processors, etc. The push-back laws that you mention have been too broad, and the Arizona law was actually vetoed by a Republican. On the other hand, Westboro Baptist Church should not be able to demand that a gay owned printing company print their “God hates Fags” posters (even if they believe God hates cigarettes) just because the printer is incorporated, any more than gays should demand that evangelical florists accommodate their wedding. Somehow there needs to be some sense of mutual respect.

    • Grannysmovin says:

      You are right there should be mutual respect, I don’t force my religious beliefs on you and you don’t force your religious beliefs on me. If they have such a strong belief, than they should have opened a “Religious Craft Store” and obtain a tax exempt status.

      • ps0rjl says:

        I heartily agree with you Granny. My mother practiced her Catholic faith every week right up to her death and yet she never preached it to anyone else. In fact on the issue of abortion she was diametrically opposed to the Church’s position.

      • ram1020 says:

        … and the Kosher meat processors should also be NFP, and the Muslim cab driver, or anyone who doesn’t follow “state” religion?

        • Grannysmovin says:

          If they are going to force their religious beliefs onto their employees or consumers.

        • gmccpa says:

          “State” religion? There is no state religion being created. You’ve done that twice here. Not adhering to any particular religion does not automatically create another so called religion..state or otherwise.

          As for ‘paying for something you do not believe in’…we ALL pay for things we do not believe in. Its part of being in a society. None of us gets to opt our tax payments out. And Hobby Lobby may be self insured. But, like every other company, they deduct those insurance payments on their tax return.

          All your arguments sound pretty good on the face. Mainly because you’ve used simple identifiable issues, that have little actual consequence. But if you take your position further, a company like Hobby Lobby, would have the right to accompany you to a doctor…just to be sure their not paying for something against their beliefs. What if it were a blood transfusion for your dying child. Do we have to consider their beliefs? If a female employee becomes pregnant…must she prove the child was conceived in marriage. What if she were married…does she need to prove her husband is the father before they will cover the costs, lest they’d be paying for an adulterous act. Bottom line, its none of their business. What next…earmarking employee wages for only those items acceptable to them?

          Its all totally ridiculous…and actually amazing the SC is even considering it.

          • ram1020 says:

            What is ridiculous is what some people think the ruling would allow. Hobby Lobby has not said that they would forbid their employees access to “day after” pills and devices, they just won’t cover them. Company insurance is not the only way to get these things. The extrapolations that you state make no sense from either a Christian or business standpoint. The owners should be free to practice their religion, and can do that without requiring others to follow it.
            If the state mandates can override individual morality, then it is acting as a “religion”, even if it is forcing people to act in a way that is “less moral” in their minds.

          • gmccpa says:

            The owners are free to practice their religion. They need not act ‘less moral’. Just dont force your morals on others. And by deciding what they will .. and will not.. cover, thats what they are doing. The only reason your argument has any legs is because bc is usually relatively inexpensive. If we apply the ‘religious belief’ concept to an unaffordable, or life saving procedure…I wonder if it would be entertained the same way. In any case…employers should not get to decide which medical treatment anyone should receive, based on their own beliefs.

          • ram1020 says:

            They are not saying that the employees can’t do what they want, they just have a moral problem with paying for it, as cheap as it might be. It never was a cost issue. It seems that you are wanting to force your morals on everyone else. How is that more fair than letting people have their own values?

          • JJB1310 says:

            I’ll keep saying this until it sinks in with people like you. The owners of Hobby Lobby have a choice. They don’t have to carry insurance if this bothers them so much. They can just pay the tax…or become a religious non-profiit. But paying for contraception they dislike really doesn’t bother their conscience, because 90%+ of their profits come from a nation that enforces its one child policy with abortion. There is no religious requirement for them to make a profit. They are greedy, controlling theocrats with no moral legs to stand.

          • ram1020 says:

            Sure I get it. “People like you” feel that if someone doesn’t agree with them, they should be fined … or let’s call it a tax. We do that with a lot of things to control behavior, why not do it for thought! Of course the line has to be drawn somewhere, but only when it affects you, not when it’s just people you disdain. Unfortunately, by the time it affects you, there will be fewer people to back you up.

          • JJB1310 says:

            No. You clearly don’t get it. Hobby Lobby profits from a “favored nation” trade relationship between our nation and China; a relationship that provided an escape route for dozens of American manufacturers to continue operating using cheap, slave-type labor while displacing hundreds of thousands of American workers. Those manufacturers blamed the pension and health care costs of their American employees for outsourcing those jobs. In doing so, we heard the typical right wing rhetoric that this was all caused by the unions. So, in essence, American manufacturers undermined the principles of a democratic nation – a nation that made it possible for them to profit and flourish with an educated labor force – and chose to do business with a nation that sees capitalism as convenient tool to enrich their government and our Constitution as little more than toilet paper.

            You need to get this CLEAR in your head. Hobby Lobby WILLINGLY chooses to profit from a nation that enforces its one child policy with abortion and whose human’s rights abuses would never be tolerated in this country. GET THAT IN YOUR HEAD.

            Maybe then, you’ll grow the hell up, start connecting the dots and realize that the owners of Hobby Lobby are Christian fascists whose only purpose is in filing this suit was to help other right wing organizations they fund to undermine the ACA.

          • ram1020 says:

            All World Trade Organization member countries give Favored Nation Status to each other, so we are a Favored nation to China, too. It’s just that China gets away with calling GM and Chrysler government “subsidized”. Because of that, there is a 12.9% tariff on American GM made cars sold in China (vs. 2.9% for Mercedes and BMW). They have also accused the US of dumping SUVs, so the $28,000 US Jeep Cherokee costs $85,000 in China. As a result, GM is building more cars overseas than in the US. It is not Hobby Lobby’s fault that we can’t negotiate a fair trade agreement with China that would keep more good Auto Industry jobs in the US. You correctly mention their pollution, but the US sells them coal for energy use, something we are banning here. Is that Hobby Lobby’s fault that the US allows that unfair energy cost advantage? Correct those things, and China can keep the keep the fake flower and craft bead market. Then you accuse Hobby Lobby of being “Christian Fascists” trying to undermine ACA. Are morning after pills and devices the cornerstone of ACA? There is a lot more that ACA accomplishes. The purpose of ACA is not denying practice of religious conviction. ACA can and will work just fine without forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for morning after pills and devices.

          • JJB1310 says:

            You dodged the two main political arguments that undercut their opposition to abortion. If 90%+ of their profits come from an arrangement with a government that enforces its one child policy with abortion, they are not arguing in defense of their beliefs but against the “free” people that work for them.

          • ram1020 says:

            1st.- 90%? Have you been in a Hobby Lobby? You may be right about most if it being from overseas, but a lot of the stuff (I would call it something else, but my wife would take exception) is not complex enough for China to bother with. A lot of the “stuff” comes from countries that changed their names since I last took geography. 2nd – Shouldn’t Christians just practice their faith, and not force it on others? That’s what most of the posters are saying. Practicing their faith means they don’t buy the “abortion” pills and devices directly through their self insurance, but they don’t prevent their employees, customers, or vendors from doing it. 3rd – Aren’t we all guilty of promoting those horrible things by buying anything Chinese, or paying interest on the US bonds they hold? Why is Hobby Lobby more hateful?

          • Sand_Cat says:

            Once again, you are immune to the facts. People have health insurance because they can’t afford to pay for care out of pocket, so denying coverage is denying access.
            Hobby Lobby is a corporation. It protects the bigots who own it from losing their personal funds, even if the corporation does horrible things. You obviously have no problem with that. Corporations do not have religions. Anyone who can’t bear to fulfill the obligations of running a business because he/she’s a holier-than thou little hypocrite or for any other reason has no business forming one.

          • ram1020 says:

            IUDs and Morning after pills are unaffordable? The FDA had considered offering the morning after pills over the counter. Denying coverage for surgery may be denying access, but for a pill? The name calling doesn’t strengthen your argument.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            The description was accurate, but of course you can’t handle that without whining about “name-calling.”

        • Allan Richardson says:

          Kosher meat processors sell Kosher meat to anyone who wants it; many gentiles prefer it for health reasons. And Muslims shop for Kosher food if they do not have convenient access to Halal meat, since the regulations are quite similar. I do not know of any Jewish food business that would refuse service to non-Jews (that even goes against the derogatory stereotype of Jews).

    • ps0rjl says:

      Let’s not confuse Hobby Lobby and the owners. Hobby Lobby is a separate business entity. Personally the owners can do anything that is legal that they want to. The corporation is a business and as such has no religious beliefs. If the Court sides with Hobby Lobby in this case then I will hate to see what else people bring before the court under religious freedom. Religion should be personal not public. Isn’t there some admonition is the Bible where Jesus tells his followers to not pray in public but rather do into a closet to pray? Seems to me the owners of Hobby Lobby have forgotten that little tidbit.

      • ram1020 says:

        The bible verse is about pride, not limiting the practice of their faith. If people’s behavior is not allowed to be driven by their ethical code, we would all be in trouble. According to your statement about corporations, gays who incorporate their printing company should be forced to print Westboro Baptist placards or be charged with discrimination. I sure hope that’s not true.

        • ps0rjl says:

          Businesses have always had the right to refuse service to anyone. However your faith should not dictate how your employees are treated. Your ethical code should not be driven your faith but rather by your character. You don’t have to have faith to have ethical behavior. Atheists and agnostics can have an ethical code they live by. As for your religion, practice it on yourself and leave everyone else alone. Just as your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, so does your religion.

        • Lovefacts says:

          The courts, including SCOTUS, had already ruled on this issue, when the decreed communities, even those which were primarily Jewish, had to allow the Nazis the right to hold rallies and/or parades in their towns.

          As for anyone being forced to do business with someone they don’t like or approve of, I suggest they follow the Japanese business model when requested to submit a bid by a person they don’t like or approve of: Quote an outrageous price and/or have caveats to the contract that the individual will reject.

        • johninPCFL says:

          Anti-discrimination statutes that I’ve looked at are targetted to hiring, promotion, and housing. Restaurants routinely discriminate who they serve as there is no anti-discrimination statute that protects the shirtless or shoeless.
          If the printing shop posts (or advertises) the fees for services, changing them for any particular customer opens them to investigation for “price fixing” or “price gouging” if those statutes exist in the area.

          • ram1020 says:

            Yet it’s called discrimination when an Evangelical florist does not supply flower for a gay wedding. The shoeless and shirtless “discrimination” has to do with health codes.

          • johninPCFL says:

            I’m suspicious of the “shirtless” connection with health codes simply because local restaurants here are spotty in their “no shoes, no shirt, no service” positions. The health codes may be brighter or more enlightened here, but I doubt it. I think it has more to do with the clientelle that the restaurant is trying to attract, and there really is no “shoeless civil rights” group out there making noise about it.
            Yes, that is discrimination, but it may not be illegal. The CRA1965 does not list sexual orientation in it’s list, but there may be townships that have a more enlightened view and have enacted more encompassing legislation. Libertarianism allows discrimination of any sort (Coke versus Pepsi is no different than black versus hispanic, for example) as Rand Paul has pointed out, but more civil societies typically limit our incivility to one another (noise ordinances, for example.)

          • Allan Richardson says:

            Banning the shirtless or shoeless is based upon the customer’s BEHAVIOR on the premises, not on their IDENTITY. It has been illegal to refuse to serve people because of their race, visible signs of their religion (e.g. turbans), or other protected categories of identity, since 1965 (young folks, it’s in your history books; my generation remembers it, at least those who were sober enough to remember the 1960s).

            Also, being shirtless or shoeless in public and around other people’s food can be considered a public health problem; being gay cannot, unless a gay couple (or a straight couple) want to commune together in a public place, for which there are other laws.

          • johninPCFL says:

            I also believed that but didn’t find it in my earlier search. I had to look explicitly to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 to see it in print.
            I don’t know whether CRA1965 applies to the case described by ram1020 because the refusal of service would not be due to the petitioner being a white Baptist minister, but because of the hate-filled content of the message. Your A1 right to speak keeps the government from stifling you (ala GWB’s “free speech zones”?) but I don’t see language requiring a business to serve you.

          • johninPCFL says:

            I suppose that an A14 case could be made in connection with CRA1965 for another class discriminated against.

        • Sand_Cat says:

          If people aren’t willing to do what a business requires, then they have no right to set one up. Vegetarians can’t expect to be employed as waiters in a non-vegetarian restaurant if they won’t seve or take orders for meat. If pharmacists can’t in good conscience dispense contraceptives, then they have no business being pharmacists. And I love the “holier than thou” attitude that would allow someone to steal another’s prescription and refuse to give it back; typical of those who have “religious objections” these days.

    • Allan Richardson says:

      In theory, anyone who has the cash can purchase whatever medical services he or she wants. In practice, however, women who are not independently wealthy (if they were, would they be working a Hobby Lobby?) cannot “access” any medical procedure unless their medical insurance covers it, especially if the procedure must be performed within a limited time, not allowing time for borrowing, saving, or putting jars with slotted lids in convenience stores asking for donations (or the modern cyber equivalent). So in essence, not to cover any medical procedure with insurance is not to allow it for most people. If it is done in an emergency room anyway, which might be the case for a blood transfusion for someone whose Jehovah’s Witness employer did not allow it to be included in their health plan, the patient (and family) are burdened with a huge out of pocket debt, which may end up being paid by taxpayers.

      For this reason, the ACA mandates coverage of contraceptive service, which includes non-contraceptive related preventive screening for cancer, and the use of birth control medicines for regulating periods even for women who are celibate. The insurance carrier actually spends LESS by covering contraception because cancers are caught earlier, and pregnancies are avoided, with the accompanying medical treatment and claims.

  3. Grannysmovin says:

    Hobby Lobby owners sought protection from Incorporating their business because they wanted separation of their personal finances and assets from that of the business. Now they want to say that their personal religious beliefs are one and the same as the business. Typical – want their cake and eat it too. What happens if their single employees are sexual active and along the way they contract a sexually transmitted disease, can Hobby Lobby and it’s owners refuse to cover treatment for that because pre-marital sex violates their religious beliefs.

  4. terry b says:

    Its a sad day when ones religious beliefs can make some people look incredibly stupid. Hopefully Kennedy will not be accused of being brain dead like 4 of his brethren. Should Hobby Lobby win than the current Supreme Court will double their part in legal stupidity that was Citizens United. No logic or common sense or sense of decency would be found should stupidity reign over the highest court in the land.

    • jointerjohn says:

      I would say it’s just about everyday that religious beliefs make some people look incredibly stupid. There are those who believe that abortion in the case of rape is murder. They argue that although the conception resulted from a heinous violent crime, their god still makes all the babies. Does that mean that a police officer who interrupts the rape in progress is dispensing contraception? Does that scenario not turn their god into a rapist? Religion and looking stupid collide into each other constantly, repeatedly and unapologetically. All the more reason to keep religion out of public policy. Some people tend to forget that September 11, 2001 was indeed a “faith-based initiative”.

      • terry b says:

        Not used to intelligent responses out here. Your the 2nd in a row. A new record! Remember Rick Santorum? He always reminded me of the Mullah’s from Iran. Religion was behind everything he said and stood for. Another person whose thinking has been terribly corrupted by his religious beliefs. Personally I think he wants to change our country’s name from the USA to the United States of Iran. This is why I voted for him in the republican primary because he was/is totally unelectable. At least that’s what Pennsylvanians said and proved.

      • Allan Richardson says:

        I hadn’t thought about that: if the policeman did not believe in contraception, would he refuse to interrupt a rape in progress (but still arrest the rapist afterward, of course)?

        It is worth noting that Luke’s story of the Annunciation has Mary verbally ASSENTING to the angel; presumably, then, had she refused, God would have found another woman who was willing, but not punished her. Yet these “Christians” say that a woman should be forced to carry and give birth to a rapist’s child, AND allow him to claim parental rights and visitation. If it bothers them so much that she has an abortion VERY early, when it is only a few cells, then let them fund the research to find a way of safely transplanting the embryo into a woman who WANTS to adopt the baby that may result.

    • Charlotte Sines says:

      I read once that religion turns people’s minds into mush. I’m beginning to believe that. Religion can be a great source of comfort for people but that still does not give those people the right to dictate to everyone else.

      • Anne says:

        Not to mention that it’s about high time people mind their own business. After all, employers are trying to turn their employees into slaves when they expect them not to engage in birth control. BTW, employees pay for the insurance. It’s not as if employers were some sort of sugar daddies who give their employees birth control pills.

  5. latebloomingrandma says:

    The Bill of Rights were put in the Constitution to protect individual people rather than corporations or larger powers. I thought each one of the amendments themselves had equal gravitas, so to speak. While an individual can “own” their religious beliefs, what gives them the right to impose it on another? What about the right to privacy concerning your person, inherent in the 4th amendment? Is the 2nd amendment the only one that is sacrosanct?
    We certainly do a poor job with number VIII “cruel and unusual punishment”, another subject altogether.

    • Allan Richardson says:

      Not to mention that we have demolished the “just compensation” clause of the Fifth Amendment with “civil forfeiture” laws, that allow governments to confiscate your property if you are ACCUSED of a crime, BEFORE you are convicted, and even if you are ACQUITTED, or even if someone ELSE, WITH OR WITHOUT your knowledge, is ACCUSED of committing a crime with your property. The SCOTUS should invalidate ALL CIVIL FORFEITURE laws; we convicted enough criminals before they were enacted. I know the original reason was to deprive wealthy defendants, who MAY have become wealthy by committing the crimes of which they were accused, of using that wealth to hire defense attorneys. But the result could have been achieved by simply capping the amount defendants could SPEND on legal defense. And if acquitted despite spending less, their property would be safe; if convicted, there would be a constitutional basis to seize their property.

  6. ococoob says:

    Religion is the cause of all wars and conflict.

    • ps0rjl says:

      I would add patriotism/nationalism along with religion. Nothing riles the people up like waving the flag. Of course that means sending someone else’s kid off to fight, But that is for another discussion.

    • whodatbob says:

      Some not all!

      • ococoob says:

        ALL of them!! Secular is the way to go!

        • whodatbob says:

          The fact that my god is better your god, religion is not the reason I went to war to take your women and property. It was strictly Secular!

          • ococoob says:

            So, by your saying, “my god is better than your god….” is the type of attitude that there’s conflict in world. Personal spirituality is fine, but keep it to yourselves, ok?

          • whodatbob says:

            No! I am inferring those are not the reason many wars are fought. it is secular reasons, one’s want of his neighbor’s property, women and wealth are reasons for wars. You are the one for religious reasons. that is your hangup!

          • ococoob says:

            You need to brush up on your world history. Have you ever heard of the Crusades? Caliph? Salem Witch trials? etc.? The destruction and bloody wars they wrought over the centuries?

          • whodatbob says:

            You are allowing your anti religion prejudice cloud your thought process. As I first stated most but not all wars.
            You forgot the Inquisition in your list.

          • Allan Richardson says:

            But religion gave a more plausible EXCUSE than overt expressions of selfishness. Even the Nazis and Soviet Communists used their ideologies as, in effect, “religious” beliefs, to stir up support among their populations.

          • JJB1310 says:

            So many Americans don’t realize that Stalin established the Russian Orthodox church as the official church of the Soviet Union while he was in power. Atheism was the official policy of the government and – yes – those that remained faithful Orthodox Christians voluntarily committed themselves to second class status with no voice in government and subject to persecution. Not a great choice by any stretch, but a choice, nonetheless. The Jews, on the other hand….

  7. Lovefacts says:

    We don’t need terrorist or communists or Muslims or any of the others the rightwing attacks as being responsible for the demise of the US. The far right and their “Christian” allies will take care of that. IMO, should SCOTUS support either Hobby Lobby or the Mennonites, the US will be well on its way to Balkanizing the country along religious lines.

    I worry whether the conservative members of SCOTUS even remember the reason behind the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Because I’m confident that these so-called “religious” individuals don’t. They also refuse to recognize that their “freedom of religion” must extend to everyone not just those of their group. I’m so sick of hearing the majority religion crying out that they’re suffering from discrimination.

    Newsflash, the US Constitution wasn’t written to protect the majority anything, but rather the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If this continues, I foresee years of court cased dealing with religious, an onslaught of “anti” laws legalizing bigotry based upon religious affiliation–God help you if you aren’t a Christian and depending upon the location, the right kind of Christian–and a new Dark Ages. Oh, that’s right. The new Dark Ages has already started. Witness the attacks on science.

  8. Gerald Morey says:

    I say, as horrible as it is, let us slide down the slope. Let’s give corporations the full rights… and responsibilities of a human. Every stock holder, board member, and officer be completely criminally liable, too. If the corporations want religious rights, then rip down that corporate veil and make all owners responsible. If the corporations can have spiritual ideals, then the FULL corporation should have legal responsibilities and every owner, stock holder on up, be as liable for every criminal or immoral action a corporation may take. They either have to stop expecting the rights and freedoms of a human, if they won’t accept the laws and punishments a human may face. I think they should either go back to before Citizens United or become a full human like entity. Either be a corporation or be a human like entity. Stop giving them the best of both worlds.

  9. ExRadioGuy15 says:

    I wrote about this last week. The Fascist and Feckless Five Con majority of the Court has been put in a terrible bind: rule incorrectly, in favor of Hobby Lobby, and they confirm the fact that they’re Fascist bastards. Rule correctly, against Hobby Lobby, and the Fascist Christian Theocrats of the GOP will pitch a conniption fit like spoiled children.
    What I also wrote last week is that most everyone is missing the point about the case. The point is that religious beliefs DO NOT equal “free exercise thereof”. The First Amendment allows you to have whatever religious beliefs you want. However, when you use those religious beliefs to discriminate against or oppress people, THAT is a First Amendment violation .To say that one can use their religious beliefs to discriminate or oppress is a logical fallacy. It’s also Fascism, as one of the 14 defining characteristics of Fascism is the intertwining of religion and government. Fascist regimes like the GOP use religion to justify their Fascist beliefs and activity. Never mind that their actions don’t square with the religion they hijacked…ssmdh
    There’s a website called “Fantasy SCOTUS”, which works a little like sports fantasy leagues. For the Hobby Lobby case, I went with 5-4 against Hobby Lobby, with Anthony Kennedy, the usual swing vote in cases like this, going against Fascist principles. Hopefully, he’ll prove me correct…

  10. bob shipp says:

    I’m not so sure a ruling in HL’s favor would be all bad.
    A recent Daily Kos article about the ramifications of recognizing HL’s corporate consciousness, concluded that carried to it’s end, a finding in HL’s favor would ultimately redefine the limits of corporate liability. According to the author corporate officers and other decision makers would no longer be protected from liability judgements against the corporation and their personal wealth would be at risk. (What if the CEO and Pres. etc of BP could find themselves personally liable for the Glf spill?) The author cites this as the primary reason for the lack of a flood of amicus briefs from other corporate entities supporting HL’s position. Any thoughts on this?

  11. tdm3624 says:

    We have individual rights of religious freedom. A company however should not be seen as an individual. It shouldn’t matter if the owner of Hobby Lobby agrees with the laws or not, he is not Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby is its own non-person entity.

    • Zoey Kay says:

      That’s what is so tacky about them. They scream about their religious freedom, completely ignoring the fact freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion. They have no right pushing their religious beliefs onto their employees.

      Even more ironic is that those who are screaming the most today about the whole religious freedom concept are most likely the same ones who scream about the “threat” of Sharia Law.

  12. Bill says:

    What good is a Supreme Court that is brain DEAD ?

  13. David says:

    so what makes contraceptives so “holy” to those who oppose Hobby Lobby? Are you as upset about other medications that insurance won’t pay for, or that they cover generics at a different rate than brand sometimes. Or is it just political bullshit posturing because a Christian dares to ask for something. Gay rights groups have a fit and get action, Muslim groups have a fit and a tv show gets canceled, race whores have a fit and get action but a private company owned by Christians say that don’t want to pay for SOME contraceptives and gasp, diapers are wet across the country, it’s bigotry, it’s evil, it’s terrible! Hypocritical lying cretins. There are people who can’t get access to medicines that would save their lives and/or improve the quality of their lives, or keep them from harming themselves or others because they are incredibly expensive. Are any of you fighting for them? I doubt it. Slippery slope? totally, another slide down towards total gov’t control of people’s lives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.