fbpx

Type to search

A ‘Narrow’ Decision From The Narrow-Minded

Memo Pad Politics

A ‘Narrow’ Decision From The Narrow-Minded

Share

Relax. This is not a slippery slope.

So Justices Samuel Alito writing for the majority and Anthony Kennedy writing in concurrence, take pains to assure us in the wake of the Supreme Court’s latest disastrous decision. The same august tribunal that gutted the Voting Rights Act and opened the doors for unlimited money from unknown sources to flood the political arena now strikes its latest blow against reason and individual rights.

By the 5-4 margin that has become an all-too-familiar hallmark of a sharply divided court in sharply divided times, justices ruled Monday that “closely held” corporations (i.e., those more than half owned by five people or fewer) may refuse, out of “sincerely held” religious beliefs, to provide certain contraceptive options to female employees as part of their health-care package. The lead plaintiff was Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts and crafts stores based in Oklahoma and owned by the Green family, whose Christian faith compels them to pay employees well above minimum wage, play religious music in their stores, close on Sundays and donate a portion of their profits to charity.

Unfortunately for their employees’ reproductive options, that faith also compels them to object to four contraceptive measures (two IUDs, two “morning-after” pills) that they equate with abortion. Most gynecologists will tell you that’s a false equation, but Alito said that wasn’t the point.

Rather, the point was whether Hobby Lobby was sincere in its mistaken belief. That it was, the court decided, meant that the Affordable Care Act provision requiring Hobby Lobby to provide the disputed contraceptive measures violated the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevents government from doing anything that “burdens” the free exercise of religion.

Apparently we now have greater solicitude for the feelings of corporate “persons” than for the health of actual persons. This ruling places women’s reproductive options at the discretion of their employers, which is awful enough. But it has troubling implications beyond that.

Not to worry, writes Alito, this ruling is “very specific.” Not to fret, concurs Kennedy, this is not a ruling of “breadth and sweep.” Let no one be mollified by these assurances.

Under the court’s logic, after all, it’s difficult to see why a corporation owned by a family of devout Jehovah’s Witnesses can’t deny blood transfusions to its workers. Or why one owned by conservative Muslims can’t deny employment to women. Or why one owned by evangelical Christians can’t deny service to gay men and lesbians.

This is not just hypothetical. In the last decade, we’ve seen Christian pharmacists claim faith as a reason for refusing to fill — and in some cases, confiscating — contraceptive prescriptions. We’ve seen Muslim cabbies use the same “logic” in declining to serve passengers carrying alcohol.

What is the difference between that outrageous behavior and Hobby Lobby’s? By what reasoning is the one protected, but the others are not? It is telling that Alito and Kennedy are virtually silent on this question.

Apparently, it’s a narrow ruling because they say it’s a narrow ruling. Apparently, we are simply to trust them on that. But even if you could take them at their word, this would be a frightening decision, the imposition of religion masquerading as freedom of religion. And the thing is: You can’t take them at their word.

So here we stand: a corporate “person” celebrating a dubious victory as millions of actual persons wonder if they’ll have birth control tomorrow. Or be denied a prescription, a job, a wedding cake.

Not a slippery slope? They’re right. This is a San Francisco sidewalk coated with ice, slicked with oil and littered with banana peels. God help us.

And look out below.

(Leonard Pitts is a columnist for The Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132. Readers may contact him via email at lpitts@miamiherald.com.)

Photo: Matt H. Wade via Wikimedia Commons

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Tags:
Leonard Pitts Jr.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a nationally syndicated commentator, journalist, and novelist. Pitts' column for the Miami Herald deals with the intersection between race, politics, and culture, and has won him multiple awards including a Pulitzer Prize in 2004.

The highly regarded novel, Freeman (2009), is his most recent book.

  • 1

177 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila July 2, 2014

    The Supreme Court’s decision on the mandate to ensure birth control needs are included in corporate healthcare plans has absolutely nothing to do with religious freedom. Instead, it is all about imposing religious beliefs or conclusions on everyone else, regardless of whether they like them or not, and regardless of how much harm they do to our society.
    The requirement to include birth control benefits in corporate healthcare plans did not prevent those who refuse to use birth control methods from opting out. Everyone was free to do what was best for them, and what satisfied their conscience and spiritual beliefs. The not so “Supreme” Court solution accomplishes the opposite. Those who want to use birth control for a variety of reasons, including avoiding the need for an abortion, are now denied affordable access to an option they consider beneficial, because there are some among us who find such an option offensive to their religious beliefs. Who needs a Spanish Inquisition style apparatus, Sharia Law, and other expressions of religious extremism when we have so many “conservatives” in the Supreme Court willing to tow the line for the alleged victims of religious attacks? Let’s not forget that the so-called attacks on religion in the USA involve a plurality of Americans doing things a minority of our population opposes. This is DEMOCRACY GOP style!

    Reply
    1. sigrid28 July 2, 2014

      As you say, Dominick, before: “Everyone was free to do what was best for them, and what satisfied their conscience and spiritual beliefs.” After: Only CORPORATIONS are “free to do what was best for them, and what satisfied their conscience and spiritual beliefs.” This sentence of yours solidified in my mind a nameless anxiety that possessed me as I contemplated this result. By giving corporate owners rights it takes away from employees, the growing divide between the haves and the have nots is codified–and by the Supreme Court. One of the problems within Europe that drove many to the New World was the inequality that derives from a two status society: the aristocracy and everyone else. Another problem was the lack of religious freedom for every individual. In one decision, our Supreme Court manages to take the US back to the bad old days that drove pilgrims to our shores.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila July 2, 2014

        Not surprisingly, the right wing is already presenting arguments related to the scope of the decision, which they claim does not include all corporations. Obviously, companies that don’t have a problem including contraceptives in their health insurance package are free to continue to do so. They also claim that it only applies to certain contraceptives. That is patently false. What was said, in some of the legal arguments associated with this decision, is that companies may not win if they try to apply a similar argument to things like vaccinations, blood transfusions, etc.
        Last but not least, is the eternal argument that when a majority of Americans do something that the religious right finds offensive, it constitutes an attack against freedom of religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody forced Hobby Lobby employees who do not want to use contraceptives to do so. The ACA mandate simply obligated employers to include contraceptives in their health insurance plans, for those who use them routinely as part of family planning, financial concerns, or to reduce the incidence of abortion.
        This is what the SCOTUS decision is all about:The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that business owners can object
        on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama’s
        healthcare law that requires closely held private companies to provide
        health insurance that covers birth control.
        Why does the GOP oppose something that most Americans support? Because they have to satisfy the wishes of one of their most influential members: the Evangelicals.

        Reply
      2. mike July 2, 2014

        Employees still have their original choices for contraceptives that they had before Obamacare. Know the facts instead using these specious arguments.

        Reply
        1. sigrid28 July 2, 2014

          But because SCOTUS sided with HL, their employees have to pay out of pocket for four types of contraceptive of which HL disapproves. As in the Citizens United decision, SCOTUS sides with corporations–the US equivalent of the aristocracy. Your first sentence was correct, but your second was just a Republican talking point.

          Reply
          1. mike July 2, 2014

            The four other drugs are used to destroy a fertilized egg. They do not have to pay out of pocket, There are ample govt. programs and private to handle their needs if they wish.

            SCOTUS sided with the laws of the land not some whim.

            Reply
          2. JPHALL July 2, 2014

            So now you are saying that the government should pay for contraception? You, who were mad that Obama allowed people to receive welfare without the work provision during a recession.

            Reply
          3. mike July 2, 2014

            I see you need a little tutorial. Right now nonprofits and religious groups already have a program in place where the insurers pay, not the organizations. Long run we will all pay because in Obamacare if the insurance companies lose money govt.(taxpayers) will make up the difference.
            Obama used a directive to circumvent congress on welfare.
            Obama sure got his ass kicked on “recess appointment” 9-0, even his appointees voted against him. He also, took a beating on the 1st/4th amendments. Bad week for your buddy.

            Reply
          4. JPHALL July 3, 2014

            You still have not said anything but the same Right wing lies from 2010. As to recess appointments, his people got appointed anyway so no lost. He is not my buddy but the twice elected president of the USA. As to a bad week so what. He is still president. Get over it.
            Subject: Re: New comment posted on A ‘ Narrow’ Decision From The Narrow-Minded

            Reply
          5. mike July 3, 2014

            What the hell are you talking about with his appointments, they were unconstitutional and invalid appointments therefore the board is made up of only 5 appointed and lacking a quorum, so none of decisions made are enforceable. They don’t know what the hell they are doing yet.

            Still president and still doing a lousy job. Quinnipiac poll showing worst president ever.

            Reply
          6. JPHALL July 3, 2014

            Once again you need to read this and update your knowledge about things: http://www.industryweek.com/blog/supreme-courts-ruling-puts-heavy-load-nlrb
            Subject: Re: New comment posted on A ‘ Narrow’ Decision From The Narrow-Minded

            Reply
          7. mike July 3, 2014

            Read the article and at this point as I said earlier “they don’t know what they are doing yet”. In the article Pearce issued a statement ‘acknowledging that this agency may have to revisit past decisions”. They don’t know what they are doing at this point. They are still in limbo. You don’t think the decisions made are not going to be challenged in court. What your pea brain doesn’t understand the business men in these 400 decisions do not know what the future holds so therefore their business decisions are also put on hold. Enforcement may years away. Ergo, less growth or no growth.

            Reply
          8. JPHALL July 4, 2014

            You are so sad. Stuck in an ideological trap. You cannot admit a positive for Obama or his policies. No matter the news you have to deny it till your masters admit the truth. So sad.
            Subject: Re: New comment posted on A ‘ Narrow’ Decision From The Narrow-Minded

            Reply
          9. mike July 4, 2014

            No ideological trap just facing realty. So for two months we have seen an uptick in employment numbers good for those finding jobs, but all indicators still show a very snail like growth after 6 years. Historically, recessions recover in a two year period with robust growth, this time a trickle at 6 years. What you and your ilk don’t understand is his policies are holding hiring back.
            Save your sadness for Obama, he is a poor leader, and left you all hanging. One of these days you will get tired of trying to defend him and his poor decisions.

            Reply
          10. JPHALL July 4, 2014

            It is obvious that you are stuck in an ideological trap and hate Obama. So I will waste no more time answwering you. /go back to your right Since it has become obvious that you are a troll stuck in your ideology I will no longer reply to your posts. Go back to your right wing websites were no one Googles or reads other sites for info.
            Subject: Re: New comment posted on A ‘ Narrow’ Decision From The Narrow-Minded

            Reply
          11. mike July 4, 2014

            LOL!!!
            It is you that has been stuck for 6 years trying to defend a passive, detached, president that has lost all credibility with the American people. You know the poll, 57% no longer feel he can lead the country.

            I know it has been a long journey waiting for him to find his way, so enjoy the 2 months of better employment numbers, remember Obamacare premiums continue to rise and we will see in the next two months how much premiums will increase for the large corporations healthcare costs.
            No, I am going no where.
            ta-ta

            Reply
          12. Russell Byrd July 5, 2014

            Then stay and suffer truth to counter the lies you spew. BECAUSE we are damn well not going anywhere.

            The problem with really chronic liars is they tend to believe only their own lies. In other words, their next opinion is based only on the fictions they have already created. That liar be you, mike.

            For example. “It is you that has been stuck for 6 years . . .” Only because evil liars would rather destroy this Nation, in order to blame that black President you so despise. You fear you will no longer be able to dictate to the world, be guaranteed a lion’s share of anything, and you are truly warped with racism and hate.

            “. . . trying to defend. . .” Only necessary because he is under attack by anti-American racists and traitors.

            ” . . .a passive,detached president that has lost all credibility with the American people.” Ludicrous distortion and outright lie that everyone except a Tearumpbugger knows is a lie. Damn, you are not even good at lying, even after all the practice.

            “You know the poll, 57% no longer feel he can lead the country.” One poll, amongst many that say very much the OPPOSITE. The proof of your racism, anti-American feeling, and just plain lies, is the number of times you have to keep beating this dead horse of a poll. WE have all kinds of true information. So again, too bad, so sad. . . .

            Reply
          13. mike July 14, 2014

            You have bragged about the great employment numbers for June, 288k and couldn’t understand why I wasn’t jumping for joy.
            Go read todays WSJ, Zuckerman, U.S. News and World Report. “Full-time scandal of part-time America”. What you and your ilk think were great numbers were part-time. Full time employment PLUNGED 523,000(BLS). Part-time soared by 800,000.
            24 million working-age Americans remain jobless, working part-time involuntarily or having left the workforce.
            Those are the facts. One clear reason is for this soaring of part-time is OBAMACARE.

            Reply
          14. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            Only necessary because the Rumpbuggercons REFUSED to do their lawful elected jobs and abused the filibuster.

            Reply
          15. Allan Richardson July 8, 2014

            I wonder how that survey was taken? Cards attached to the label of a bottle of Grey Poupon? Customer lists for BMW and Mercedes?

            Reply
          16. mike July 8, 2014

            i see you continue to live in fantasyland. Check out realclearpolitics. Not just one poll but all major polls.

            Then look at the poll below. Better yet, open the one below, click on poll, and actually read the very straight forward questions.

            http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-obama-worst-president-since-wwii-108507.html

            Conclusion: his numbers are in free fall, because the American people find him lacking as a leader.

            A perfect example of this is the thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country, even though he said the border was secure.

            Reply
          17. Joyce July 3, 2014

            the drug don’t destroy fertilized eggs, they don’t allow implantation; this happens naturally in many cases
            Know the facts instead using these specious arguments.

            Reply
          18. mike July 3, 2014

            Look up definition of Abortifacients. Fed. Govt. describes abortifacients as inducing abortion. Also, the law suits were based on HL religious objection to these abortifacients.

            Reply
          19. Sand_Cat July 8, 2014

            Kiss off. Why should we indulge your ignorance?

            Reply
          20. mike July 8, 2014

            Ignorance is all yours. Go play in the kitty litter little putty tat.

            Reply
          21. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            If he did, he would be admitting the obvious. That he has no evidence, no rationale, and absolutely no reason to troll this board.

            Reply
          22. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            My God, what LIES you can tell. Whew!

            Reply
          23. Sand_Cat July 8, 2014

            Thanks for showing your ignorance, to go with your crudeness.

            Reply
          24. mike July 8, 2014

            Sadly, it is your ignorance or your denial of facts that shows who has ones head up his a_ _. It seems you couldn’t respond to the post that spelled out the govt definition of abortifacients, as inducing abortions, which was the bases for the case.

            Reply
          25. Sand_Cat July 9, 2014

            The items in question are not abortifacients, moron.
            I don’t care what your definition, or that of the government is for things that don’t apply.

            Reply
          26. mike July 9, 2014

            Hey jerk, that is how the govt. defined the four contraceptives. LOL!!!

            Reply
          27. porter July 15, 2014

            hey mike question are you so weak that the thought of a women making her own choice about her health make you think that you’er not needed as a man anymore don’t worry you was always thougth of that way also if you don’t want women to have health coverage for their their reproductive system why should you

            Reply
          28. mike July 15, 2014

            Thanks for the good laugh. Women aren’t being denied their contraceptives. Hobby Lobby covers 16 of the 20. The other four are furnished by other programs by the govt.
            Looks like you’re behind by just about 2 weeks with your comments.

            Reply
        2. itsfun July 2, 2014

          The health care plan for Hobby Lobby pays for 16 forms of birth control for their employees. They didn’t want to pay for abortion drugs.

          Reply
          1. JPHALL July 2, 2014

            So now you are agreeing with SCOTUS that the government should pay for contraception?

            Reply
          2. mike July 2, 2014

            Yes, they have paid and covered before Obamacare 16 of 20 now mandated under Obamacare. The other four they feel are Abortifacients, and are being forced on them against their religious liberty rights.

            Reply
        3. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

          DO THEY?

          Reply
      3. TZToronto July 2, 2014

        The SC was in a tough position. If they ruled against Hobby Lobby, they’d be, in part, invalidating their Citizens United decision. In other words, if they said that Hobby Lobby couldn’t, as a corporation (corporate person) with religious beliefs, deny birth control coverage to their female employees, then, the whole idea of corporate person-hood is called into question. So to protect the flawed Citizens United decision, they had to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby corporate religious beliefs–which is ridiculous.

        Reply
        1. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

          You have a point that I had not considered, but using disgustingly un-Amercan “law” to protect another of the same ilk, is the reason they must be reined in soon.

          I hope Ginsberg lives to 110!

          Reply
    2. mike July 2, 2014

      SCOTUS decision said the govt. can’t force “some” business owners to provide coverage of drugs that will terminate a fertilized egg.
      Hobby Lobby provides and pays for coverage for 16 of 20 forms of contraceptives. The federal govt.(Obamacare is a govt. program) has ample alternative means to make available these other 4 drugs free of cost if wanted. Even Hiliary got it wrong yesterday and basically told an untruth.

      Bottom Line: Violating peoples religious liberty rights is off the table.

      I see Nationa Memo doesn’t even want to go near the devastating week this president had from SCOTUS on his over reaching on 1st, 4th amendment rights, recess appointments, trying to unionizing home care. Hell, Johnathon Turley said it was the worst 10 days of any presidency when came to SCOTUS rejections. Also, in the last 5 years SCOTUS has rejected the govt. arguments 9-0 decisions 20 times. As a constitutional scholar Obama continues to look lacking.

      Reply
      1. sigrid28 July 2, 2014

        These decisions reflect the fact that we have an activist court stacked with individuals who side with the Republican base (as in this decision on HL) or the Republican elite (as in the decision on Citizens United). Members of the Supreme Court put their pants on one leg at a time, or both at once, just like the rest of us. They are appointed by presidents and approved by the Senate, and they may hold beliefs like anyone else. Now their beliefs are influencing their decisions: that is what is meant by “an activist court.”

        Poll after poll has shown that the majority of Americans hold views to the center and left of the five members of the court appointed by Republicans. Women alone have the numbers to keep Democrats in the White House and Senate, and even take over the House if we had the will to do so–without taking into account minorities and others who bristle at these SCOTUS decisions that favor the elite over those with fewer resources. With our numbers, the majority of Americans will have eleven more years to challenge these decisions in the lower courts and replace one or more members of the Supreme Court itself with judges chosen by Democratic a Democratic president and approved by a Democratic Senate. Think about that for a second–or just go ahead listening to the stylings of Jonathan Turley.

        Reply
        1. mike July 2, 2014

          Looks like you are off base again. An “activist court” is one that is based on personal VIEWS or political considerations rather than existing laws, like the Constitution.

          Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning. As such, activism does not mean the mere act of striking down a law.

          Isn’t interesting the 4 decisions that went against overreaching by Obama were all based on the LAW. FYI: the four included the 1st, 4th amendments, recess appointments(9-0), unionizing home care providers even it they were the parents.

          At the rate the Obama admin is imploding your scenario just might be way off. People will vote pocket book first and right now it sure doesn’t look good for dems now or in 16. Zero growth, 19 million unemployed, underemployed, quit looking for work. Do you really think the American people find this acceptable or want more of this. I don’t think so.

          Interesting that NYT thinks this is the least active in 60 years.
          http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/sunday-review/how-activist-is-the-supreme-court.html?pagewanted=all

          Reply
          1. sigrid28 July 2, 2014

            “Least active” means having made the fewest decisions, like the worst Congress ever, thanks to Republicans. Judges on an activist court making decisions in line with their own beliefs, as this one has in the opinion of many.

            Reply
          2. mike July 2, 2014

            I guess the definition of Activism is your hang up.
            Go read the true definition of Judicial Activism in paragraph 2.

            http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/judicial_activism

            Reply
          3. mike July 2, 2014

            And yet, the U6 number stayed the same for May. GDP revised to -2.9.

            Any way you cut it, it is still the slowest recovery, income down,

            http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/16/news/economy/imf-us-forecast/

            Reply
          4. JPHALL July 3, 2014

            But despite that, the jobs keep coming. Compare that to the last year of the Bush administration when Congress was helping not fight against the president
            Subject: Re: New comment posted on A ‘ Narrow’ Decision From The Narrow-Minded

            Reply
          5. mike July 3, 2014

            Bush is gone, it’s Obama’s economy. Still the slowest, still 19 million under U6. Still no growth, no income increases, still slow hiring, still deeper in debt, still a lack of leadership for the country. It goes on, on on.

            Reply
          6. JPHALL July 3, 2014

            And still you refuse to read the truth. You keep insisting on using old or outdated information. New reports dispute your contentions.
            Subject: Re: New comment posted on A ‘ Narrow’ Decision From The Narrow-Minded

            Reply
          7. mike July 4, 2014

            Still the slowest recovery, fact

            http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/25/at-42-months-and-counting-current-job-recovery-is-slowest-since-truman-was-president/

            No real change in U6 in may and june.

            This big number of new hires( includes part time/ full time) was led by low paying jobs, some higher paying in construction/manufacturing..

            Even with 3% growth(some predict) in second quarter, growth is still about zero. To get back on our feet we need a consistent 4% growth with hires well into the 400k.

            Incomes still lagging,”moldy”

            Yes, hiring up but new unemployment claims still over 300k. After six years it is about time.

            57% of people view Obama as incapable of running the country.

            Reply
          8. JPHALL July 4, 2014

            As I said before, you are so sad.

            Subject: Re: New comment posted on A ‘ Narrow’ Decision From The Narrow-Minded

            Reply
          9. mike July 4, 2014

            Save your sadness for this great country and the people who are struggling so badly they have quit looking for work in this Obama Economy. April, 800,000 quit looking.

            PS: there is not one fact you can prove wrong in the post above.

            Have a happy 4th. I am!!!!

            Reply
          10. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            No use and trying to dispose of your LIES, you just churn them out non-stop.

            The real problem is a nutshell is, as long as we have a system that works only to fatten up the filthy rich and is continuing to reduce OUR buying capacity, then the economy will never recover. In fact, it is a miracle it has done so well.

            And we do not even have to go into the already too rich’s schemes of evading the paltry taxes they do pay. To dispose of the obvious LIE you might use in advance, the only reason the rich might actually pay the majority of taxes now, is they have ALL the money. The rest of America is living hand to mouth, or worse.

            If you are really have such a hard-on over entitlements and social programs, then loosen up the money, disenfranchise the non-earners (the rich), and get the jobs rolling in. Then we will not need those programs except for the most destitute. WIN-WIN. But, like all Rumpbuggercons, you want to dump the impoverished and homeless in the street FIRST, and then stuff even more in your (THEIR) pockets. Let the system work “naturally,” which has ALWAYS been a failure. Of course, sociopaths like you, don’t care. . . .

            Reply
          11. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            So if Bush drags the economy into the sewer, and you support Bush of course, Obama is a bastard because he only gets it half-way back to where it belongs. And Obama is doing that in the face of the worst Congressional and “rape the land” rich opposition since Teddy Roosevelt.

            I think Obama has done a stellar job!

            And you wonder why we might ever call you racist.

            Reply
          12. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            Mike is a troll that has been around here spewing that corrupted U6 shit for some time. I think his avatar used to be Milton Friedman. He asked me if I knew who that picture was of, I immediately answered Friedman. He asked the question three more times, and when he finally got the message, he just dropped the conversation. Like the commensurate troll that he is.

            I can’t stand that moron Friedman anyway, and I do know that knowing who he was, never enhanced the conversation at all. Yet, mike hasn’t got a clue when it comes to economics, whether theoretical or practical. he is just another ‘cut-n-paste” PhD.

            The only thing about mike’s PhD, is it is even stronger than his LsD.

            Reply
          13. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            YADA. . .

            Not worth the effort for two more yadas.

            Reply
          14. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            This is not a criticism, as at one time I vetted everything I said, and all I got was a lot of work to prove what the trolls were just going to ignore. Do you think after you have done the leg work, mike will even bother to read them. Now I just use common knowledge, common sense, and known facts and often don’t worry about backing it up.

            I once linked to a small computer parts supplier that had a “techie” sounding name. He quipped that their figures were “skewed.” So much for his judgement and his honesty.

            Reply
          15. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            An apology and an explanation of my accompanying post. My post is of the facts as I see them, but I would never really tell someone to not back up their views, if that is what they desire.

            BUT, my real motivation was to hope that mike would scan the posts you, he, I, etc. make, and get riled up. The guy, like most trolls, is a broken record of disposable lies. No one would miss them if they disappeared, and I mean that in the broadest possible sense.

            Reply
          16. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            Actually, only a very little of what you say is true. Like “citizens united.” It was based on a law passed by Congress, and was interpreted in the most favorable corporate manner possible, in spite of the bill writer’s purposes and intentions being totally different. In short, they twisted a law and IGNORED the Constitution.

            In the current, Hobby Folly decision, they decided to only respect the right of religious bigots, i.e. those our Founders wished to restrict, and ignore the rights of the rest of the citizenry. Even creating a class in the population for specific curtailments of their rights (women), while letting a few other citizens (rich, white, male bigots) exercise their rights at the expense of that class. As a test, Hobby Folly holds shares in companies supplying birth control, and long have. As well, Hobby Folly said NOT ONE WORD, until a black president and the ACA came on the scene. Of course, I do not practice law, but any moron can see a number of obvious conflicts that should have caused this malfunction to never be heard at all. Of course, when you have four and one-half Rumpbuggercon politicians dedicated to passing new draconian laws, instead of the impartial judges required of the Court, this IS what you are going to get.

            The cool part is, those decisions will likely be revisited in the first session we finally get a lawful SCOTUS. Sadly, we must have patience. BUT, it really won’t be long. As is said, paybacks are Hell. The winger’s will suffer all the worse for their crazy evilness.

            Reply
        2. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

          Isn’t it sad that our SCOTUS and Congress are two steps to the right of Mussolini, while the American people are about two steps to the left of center. The Fascists “call” themselves conservatives, which IF true, would make our population raving Communists. That is not true, but I think you already understand where I am going with this.

          And the Fascists do the things they do without fear, only because the vast majority of Americans will not do their duty and eject them from power. History has shown time and again that only by the use of force can such a mob hold the majority at bay . . ., but in America, they do it because we are indolent and apathetic.

          Our one biggest advantage is, the Fascists are not smart enough to realize that they are despised. They only listen to themselves and bask in their own self-love. Of course, even that might really be hate.

          Reply
      2. Susan Dean July 2, 2014

        Do you realize that the “ample alternative means” to make the banned contraceptives available are actually your tax dollars? A corporation screws the public yet again by finding a way to make the taxpayers cover something that is their responsibility.

        Reply
        1. mike July 2, 2014

          It’s already being done for nonprofits and religious organizations. What you seem to forget is the accommodations are already in place that the cost and coverage required by the govt. will be covered by the insurers at no cost to the company. Isn’t Obamacare a govt program that was ill conceived and a disaster when implemented. None of those employees that feel offended have to stay.

          Here’s a good article which at least is honest on the facts.
          http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/30/3453902/hobby-lobby-means-for-your-health-care/

          Typical liberal response that it is the responsibility of a company or the Federal Government to take care of each and everyone of us.

          Reply
      3. Sand_Cat July 2, 2014

        No, they said the government can’t force business owners to cover drugs/treatments they WRONGLY BELIEVE will terminate a fertilized egg. Learn the facts before making these specious arguments, even though Republicans – including the majority on the court, and, apparently, you – consider facts that contradict their wishes as irrelevant or nefarious plots against them.

        Reply
        1. mike July 2, 2014

          You might think it is wrong but in their view it is not. They have not denied them access to 16 contraceptives just the 4 that can effect a fertilized egg.

          To the rest of the post, Blah Blah Blah

          Take care my anti-religious liberty rights person.

          Reply
          1. Sand_Cat July 2, 2014

            Sorry my post was too complicated for dimwits.Their “belief” that the items in question destroy fertilized eggs is “wrong” because it is NOT factual, not because I think it’s wrong. I don’t think quite the way you do. Of course, the facts mean nothing to religious fanatics and Republicans. Thanks for also confirming that to you, “religious liberty” means the right to jam your idiotic beliefs down everyone else’s throat using the law of the land. But I guess I’ve exceeded your attention span and mental capacity, so this is all just “blah, blah, blah to you.

            Reply
          2. mike July 2, 2014

            Look up Abortifacients douche bag! That was the groups religious objection to the 4 drugs.
            And yes, another one of your Blah Blah post from the kitty litter maven.

            Reply
      4. JPHALL July 2, 2014

        You right wingers are so sad. So now you are saying that the government should pay for contraception? I thought most of you were against contraception and Obamacare for any reason. This week is the closest you side has gotten to all it wanted. Saying a company can determine my religious belief or practices is just crazy.

        Reply
      5. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

        But, the First Amendment containerizes their beliefs so that they cannot, should not, affect others that think differently.

        If Hobby Folly were a true family, and only family business, then they have that right. Of course, the question becomes moot, and their is no case or need for one. BUT, when they opened their doors as a profit seeking company, they tacitly agreed, as citizens of this land, to not practice their religion on their fellow citizens.

        Mike, I am sure an evil, raving ass like you is not even religious at all. In any case, you are NOT, regardless of what you say. So, the only reason to push this so hard are the same obvious ones.

        What we have, and is why the right-wing must be eventually and forever marginalised, is a group of near thug Rumpbuggercons that had already made their decision, but only needed an excuse as a formality to explain, NO excuse, their decision. That is why the majoritys incredibly lame decision paled even more when compared to Ginsburg’s brilliant opposition opinion. For Rumpbuggercons this is SOP as we always used to say. Get what you want, pat your ass at the outraged later.

        Reply
    3. Blueberry Hill July 2, 2014

      You are so correct! We have a Freedom FROM religion also, and that should have come into play. No one is forced to use contraceptive or have an abortion, it is strictly an individual’s personal decision. The government has no right to mandate what we do with our bodies. Our bodies are NOT Government property. They belong to us and us alone, men and women. I suppose they’ll get around to mandate men’s bodies too, then watch the sparks fly. Nothing in the Constitution gives them the right to mandate what we do with our own bodies, yes, I read the Constitution.
      VOTE THESE LUNATICS OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT, AND MAYBE WE CAN GET SANE PEOPLE ON THE ONCE SUPREME COURT.

      ..

      Reply
      1. itsfun July 3, 2014

        Where in the Constitution does it say we have freedom FROM religion?

        Reply
        1. Joyce July 3, 2014

          it’s called separation of church and state. I shouldn’t have to listen to your preaching

          Reply
  2. Eleanore Whitaker July 2, 2014

    The five Republican appointed Supreme Court ultra conservative judges who voted for this unwittingly opened the door to every Islamic corporation in the US to now impose their religious values on their employees.

    I hope the dumbbells of the GOP are happy. They’ve now bullied themselves into a corner with no way out. All of those profit happy corporations will now hit the bottom of the well for no reason other than their desperation to impose their religious values on employees.

    The very fact that these corporations all receive women’s federal tax dollars equal to that of men proves this is the most flawed ruling of the SC yet.

    Hobby Lobby buys its goods from China, a country where female fetuses are aborted by government mandate.

    How is it that erectile dysfunction, penile implants and Viagra are not also denied coverage?

    No matter what any man in this country says, women will see this no other way but as a direct hit at gender bias.

    Reply
    1. itsfun July 2, 2014

      Of course companies are profit happy, that is why they are in business. No one is forcing people to work for Hobby Lobby or any other company. Aren’t male fetuses also aborted in China?

      Reply
      1. latebloomingrandma July 2, 2014

        So why is this religious company buying products from China then?

        Reply
        1. Blueberry Hill July 2, 2014

          Because religion is just an excuse for this lousy company to try to crumble our right to health care. Religion should have no bearing on anything in this country. That is why we had a Separation of Church and State. Enforce that, you blubberbellies on the SC.
          Nothing should be decided on the basis of religion, any religion.

          ..

          Reply
          1. itsfun July 2, 2014

            Separation of church and state is a good thing. However making an organization of catholic nuns provide birth control or abortion inducing drugs would seem to be a violation of church and state separation.

            Reply
          2. Blueberry Hill July 2, 2014

            These are provided for in the insurance policy. No one has to provide them. It is a benefit in the insurance provided. In fact, birth control pills are provided free by the insurance companies as part of the ACA. It is all strictly between the patient and the insurance carrier, no one else need be involved.

            ..

            Reply
          3. Allan Richardson July 2, 2014

            Exactly. Just as a Christian working for a Jewish or Muslim owned company can take his paycheck and use it to buy all the bacon he wants (so far).

            Reply
          4. itsfun July 2, 2014

            it is a benefit of the insurance policy. Nuns don’t want to pay insurance premiums for abortion drugs.

            Reply
          5. Blueberry Hill July 2, 2014

            Exactly, but I’m wondering what the nuns have to do with this story? Did I miss something?

            ..

            Reply
          6. itsfun July 2, 2014

            They also had the same problem and were probably going to shut down the religious business they have. Not sure what the business is, just know something to do with their religion. It may even be a charity of some kind. My whole first post was just saying the right hated one decision of the SC and the left hated a different decision. People’s feelings can depend on whose ox is getting gored. Kinda a damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

            Reply
          7. Blueberry Hill July 2, 2014

            The nuns would not be paying for anything but their own policy, and they choose what coverage they want; as does everyone else. There are several choices and people choose what coverage they want and pay for their own insurance policies. No one is paying for abortions, say, unless they take out a policy that covers that service; and they pay their own insurance. Nuns are not paying for that coverage for anyone else. I watched all the debate, votes, etc., of the entire HCA from the very beginning in the Senate, every day and I know pretty much what is in the Bill. The Dems started with a 60 vote margin, but 2 months into it Senator Kennedy, and Senator Byrd became ill, Kennedy with cancer of the brain. There went the filibuster-proof majority. It was a battle every step of the way and NO Republican took part, except to water down coverage and prevent the Single Payer option right at the beginning, after 2 Dems were taken ill. To get the rest of the Bill the 2 Senators from Maine joined the Dems to give them the 60 votes they needed to get every single thing to pass to break the R filibusters. It really is a good Bill; and when it came up for final passage vote, Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd were rolled into the Senate Chamber in wheelchairs because they so much wanted to vote themselves for the final passage. They were greeted with tears and a standing ovation. It was quite a heartwarming scene.

            ..

            Reply
          8. itsfun July 3, 2014

            Are you saying that a company with more than 50 employees doesn’t have to provide insurance for their employees? I also watched the healthcare tax debates. I watched as Harry Reid did not allow any Republican plans out of committee. I watched as Obama bribed Senators to vote for his new tax. I watch as Harry Reid used special rules that had always been used to resolve financial disagreements to pass the new tax. I watch as Harry Reid absolutely changed a House bill to a revenue bill and get away with it.

            Reply
          9. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            Isn’t it odd that “good Christians” seem not to care what business they are in when they make money, but when they have the least little bit of anger, they parade that charade of religious belief and outrage to destroy anything they do not agree with.

            In a nutshell, THAT was exactly why our Founders wrote the First Amendment to begin with. We have to respect their religion, but they CAN never rule over us with that religion.

            Reply
          10. Blueberry Hill July 4, 2014

            Hogwash! There were no tax debates. It is clear that you did NOT watch the HCA debates. The Rs never read it. They had their copies stacked on a desk to make people think it was all one Bill. It was deceit all the way, what they were showing was their own copies that they refused to read all in a stack. The rest of your comment isn’t true either so I won’t go point by point, it is all false. The only tax is to people who can afford to take out the healthcare and don’t, and have no other insurance. There was no debating that either. It was already in the Bill and agreed on by the House and Senate.

            ..

            Reply
          11. Sand_Cat July 8, 2014

            He(she?)’s just following the GOP party line after Roberts proclaimed the ACA legal as a tax. Lots of original thought there.

            Reply
          12. JPHALL July 2, 2014

            The ACA already covered that situation. The problem is that some do not want to sign a statement saying why the should be exempt.

            Reply
          13. Joyce July 3, 2014

            they’re not catholic nuns….jeez will you get over yourself???

            Reply
          14. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            My, my. This is apparently not the most popular topic, but you are racking up the upvotes left and right.

            Well, NOT. I think you got ONE. BUT, you out posted everyone here, and that, with absolutely NOTHING of value to say!

            S-I-C-K. You are a perversion that is just dying for attention. Better get a stronger dose of potassium cyanide from your family doctor Mengele.

            Reply
          15. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            Bwhahahahaahahahahahhahahhahahahhahahahha
            ahahahahahahahhaahhahaahhahahahahahahaaha

            Catholic nuns on birth control? Pregnancies have always happened. I lived a few doors away for the Archdiocese’s “home” for pregnant nuns. Of course, it was all hush-hush. But, can you even understand how evil, bigoted, and down-right DUMB you sound Troll?

            Reply
          16. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            A-M-E-N, and not intended offensively. 🙂

            Reply
          17. porter July 15, 2014

            if I may be so bold I hole MY GOD TO BE THE END ALL. so in his wisdom he gave us all free will and I know this will come as a shock to itsfun women as well as men why would hobby lobby try to take that God given right away hmmm could it be that their religious see there a divide between those who are religious and those of us who are faithful see religion will send you to hell because they want to proclaim that they know what GOD meant to say not what he said instead of taking God and his son at his word.but hey they know what right and if you don’t agree then your bound for hell fire

            Reply
          18. Blueberry Hill July 15, 2014

            The whole point is that any religion has NO right to force others to live by their beliefs. We all have our own beliefs and that is what should be counting here. We have a right to do what we want with our bodies, have babies when WE want, not when forced into having them or an abortion. HL can be as religious as they are, and I don’t think they are, or they would give us the right to our own beliefs instead of forcing theirs on us. Birth control pills do not cause abortions, they PREVENT pregnancy. What next? Will we need Burkas? The government doesn’t own our bodies, we do. They have no right to make decisions for us. We are not government property, and we certainly do not belong to Hobby Lobby. Hope they go broke soon. All women should be boycotting them. I’ll never set a foot in any of their stores again.

            ..

            Reply
      2. porter July 2, 2014

        tell you what itsfun when some comp tells you that you cant go to work unless you go to church every sunday wed. and fri because it their sinerely held beliefs that if you don’t then their on their to hell I got news for you they all ready are the say the want less govt but now they want to tell women about their sex life that pill maybe the only thing that’s keeping that women alive and what about the women that,s been raped oh I get it she should get just get over it and tell me something all this is about the women right so how come we not talking about our role in it by that I mean the man last time i look it took both to make a bady so if you don;t want a women to have choice then.have the men fixed you know snip snip that solve the problem and by the way me I,m a completely hetro male I love women but see I,m not afaire of them

        Reply
        1. itsfun July 2, 2014

          I personally think a woman should have that right. This is a hard subject to just look at in black and white. You can have a situation where the man wants to keep the baby and the woman doesn’t. What happens then? The courts have sided with the woman in those types of cases. Rape and incest are 2 more areas.
          I just read a article on how the health care plan of Hobby Lobby pays for 16 different types of birth control for its employees. They just didn’t want to pay for abortion causing pills. Especially if those folks are of the Catholic faith, you can understand their thinking about abortion.

          Reply
          1. Joyce July 3, 2014

            but they pay for vasectomies

            Reply
          2. Sand_Cat July 8, 2014

            They pay for Viagra, and any other medicine or surgical procedure serving men’s sexual needs.

            Reply
          3. Sand_Cat July 8, 2014

            But the science says the things they “believe” are “abortion-causing” aren’t. Religious beliefs are protected, but how does that give them the right to force their false non-religious beliefs on others?

            Reply
          4. porter July 15, 2014

            no I cant because its not their business nor is it hard a subject it about allowing a person make their choice about their life I may don’t like it but I don’t have the right to tell you or anyone how to live their life . and you still didn’t answer fully the guys rolls in this why is that .could it be that you as a great many men and women look at it as the guy is just sowing wild oats and the women is a whore no offence to anyone

            Reply
          5. itsfun July 15, 2014

            Assuming we are talking about abortion causing drugs, it is the business of many. Causing a abortion is not a decision of creating life or not. It is a decision to end life. You say no one has the right to tell someone how to live their lives, I agree. In the case of abortion we are not talking about living a life, but ending one. The guys role is being a loving caring father assuming the baby was created in the usual way. I would hope both the man and woman know how babies are made and would make any decisions jointly.

            Reply
        2. Allan Richardson July 2, 2014

          Or what if a Muslim owned company required every employee in their home office to purchase a Muslim prayer rug and join in group prayer at the appointed times during the work shift, and refused to hire women because the Muslim teaching (as THEY interpret it) requires women to stay at home?

          Reply
        3. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

          Porter, that was really good. An old point, but one that everyone seems to overlook.

          It is a shame that such good reasoning is lost on a dim-wit troll like itsfun. Well, it isn’t fun.

          Reply
      3. Eleanore Whitaker July 2, 2014

        Companies who are only profit happy off MY federal tax dollars are not in business for THAT kind of profit. You like to make businessmen look so innocent don’t you? Ask any woman in the US how fair any man in the US plays in business. Not a single one of you can put your hand on a Bible and swear you’ve never pulled a skanky on female employees.

        Businessmen who own businesses need to keep their syrupy mitts off government revenue. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes us pawns of Big Business to be used and abused. When they hire and create jobs, they are “entitled” to tax subsidies.

        As for Hobby Lobby..Let’s hear you explain why their religious views don’t conflict with their business transactions with China, the one country of the world that demands women abort female fetuses.

        So which is it? Hobby Lobby is holier than thou or you just think business men can dominate the country with their religion all while they kiss up to countries demand female fetuses be aborted? Make sense or stop posting lunacy.

        Reply
        1. itsfun July 2, 2014

          If these folks are Catholic, then you should understand why they don’t want to pay for abortion drugs. There are still 16 types of birth control their health care plan pays for.

          Reply
          1. Independent1 July 3, 2014

            The Hobby Lobby’s hypocrisy is astounding. In addition to buying products made in China where abortion is not only legal but required of couples who are informed that the woman is pregnant with a female fetus if it’s their 1st child, and male or female fetus if she mistakenly gets pregnant more than once, Hobby Lobby also offers mutual funds to its employees as part of its suite of 401K options which not only invest companies which make the contraceptive pills that Hobby Lobby is objecting to covering for their employees, but which also invest in the company which makes a drug actually used to induce abortions.

            See this: Like many companies, Hobby Lobby offers its employees a 401(k) plan. Over 13,000 past and present employees have taken advantage of that plan, according to the latest documents filed with the Department of Labor.

            Employees have the option to put their retirement dollars — and the money that Hobby Lobby contributes on their behalf — into over a dozen different mutual funds.

            At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE), according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions.

            Reply
          2. Eleanore Whitaker July 3, 2014

            To which I respond, If these folks are Muslims? If they are Orthodox Jews? Practicing Wiccans?

            The point is not that Hobby Lobby is specifically targeting female employees. It’s that Hobby Lobby has NO right to make decision, religious or otherwise when it comes to any American’s health.

            The minefield here is that Hobby Lobby is pushing its religious agenda on female and NOT male employees. It’s just as much a sin for a man to get a penile implant or erectile dysfunction surgery when he is long past the age when he should be impregnating women. That’s the Warren Jeffs Old Pig syndrome.

            It’s also a huge sin for Hobby Lobby to blatantly purchase goods from a country like China where female fetuses are aborted by government demand.

            Sorry but when you demand your female employee takes 26% less in salary than your male employees and then to add salt to that wound demand they contribute to the HMO plan the employer, not the employees choose, by taking weekly payroll deductions that add up to 35% of employees’ incomes annually, you don’t get to tell that what kind of contraceptives they can or can’t be prescribed.

            Where does Hobby Lobby Bulls get off coming between women and their doctors?

            The SC Soprano 5 Bulls screwed up and will rue the day they allowed this kiss up to Big Business yet again. The next thing that will occur is what all employers have been salivating for…to be the last voice on which surgeries employees will be covered for.

            Reply
          3. itsfun July 3, 2014

            They are targeting abortion, not women per say. China aborts both male and female.

            Reply
          4. Joyce July 3, 2014

            you said it, itsfun china aborts both male and female yet hobby lobby still does business with them. I thought abortion was against their religious beliefs. can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-I-s-y?

            Reply
          5. itsfun July 3, 2014

            You took my post wrong. I replied to a post that just pointed out females being aborted. I just wanted the poster to know China is a equal opportunity killer.

            Reply
          6. Eleanore Whitaker July 3, 2014

            They cannot “target” abortion. Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land. It’s Constitutional. As a woman, it’s abundantly clear that some US males are so stupid they actually think women won’t dump Hobby Lobby..and turn it into a Testosterone Factory where only men work, men buy and men rule.

            As for China aborting males. You obviously missed the PBS special back in 2012 that clearly indicated that due to the Chinese government aborting female fetuses only, the number of women of marriage age has so decreased that men are now the majority. That should make the US bully Joi Bois get some pretty neat ideas, right? A male only society that keeps only a harem for their needs is right up your alley isn’t it?

            Reply
      4. Sand_Cat July 2, 2014

        Yes, no one is “forcing” anyone to do anything; death by starvation or suicide is always an “option,” so of course we’re all “free.” Once again you defend [allegedly] religion-based discrimination, after whining here about how your kids suffer terribly because their school preserves “Muslim customs,” which of course you decline to identify, no doubt to avoid making yourself look even more petty and foolish than you already do.
        You like and defend religion-based discrimination against those who don’t adhere to yours; as usual, your massive hypocrisy is on display.

        Reply
        1. Allan Richardson July 2, 2014

          Exactly! As a French philosopher once said, kings and paupers are “equally free” to sleep under bridges.

          Reply
      5. awakenaustin July 2, 2014

        Myself, I think I will just boycott Hobby Lobby and encourage everyone I know to do so. Business owners can become enormously liberal when their bottom line is in danger.
        We could test the proposition of whether there are enough “deeply” religious hobbyists in the nation to support their business.
        You know, if it really is all about their religion beliefs then they won’t mind the principled demolition of their business. God’s will and all that. We could test another proposition of whether they believe no sacrifice is too great in the service of their religious beliefs.

        Religion – just like the human appendix, possibly a desirable thing during human evolution, but now, by all appearances, a useless and sometimes painful and deadly “vestigial” hangover.

        Reply
        1. itsfun July 2, 2014

          If these folks are catholic, there is no way they would feel right about paying for drugs that enduce abortion.

          Reply
          1. Allan Richardson July 2, 2014

            If the failure of a zygote to implant is an abortion, then God is the biggest abortionist, because a very large proportion of zygotes do fail to implant, and the women never knew it. And medically, pregnancy is DEFINED to begin at implantation, because hormone secretion does not begin until then.

            Other than Catholic churches themselves, and their administrative adjuncts such as diocesan business offices, a business owned by Catholics in a SECULAR legal system is NOT entitled to become a Catholic “government” over its employees. Ditto for any other religious tradition, and for made-up “personal religious philosophies” of business owners.

            Reply
          2. itsfun July 2, 2014

            I don’t think the ruling says any church is entitled to become a government. My point was it will be hard for a catholic to provide or pay for abortion pills. That’s all I said. We probably don’t have the right to tell people that practice a religion, they don’t have the right to practice that religion as they see fit.

            Reply
          3. Joyce July 3, 2014

            I get it now, itsfun….you’re a minion of Hobby Lobby. right?

            Reply
          4. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            It is the simplest and stupidest rationale of all. They must always disagree with anything that the Democrats, or that black President Obama, or anything that might make life better for the downtrodden, or even life better for everyone, etc.

            In short, I think itsfun and our other trolls in particular, and the right-wackos, especially the “Tea” slurpers, in general, are ALL minions of evil and servants of that master.

            Reply
          5. itsfun July 4, 2014

            nope never been there, have never seen a hobby lobby.

            Reply
          6. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            Minion of evil then. . . .

            Reply
          7. Sand_Cat July 8, 2014

            When that religion invades the rights of others, they DON’T have the right to practice it. I believe Justice Scalia – an ardent supporter of this decision, of course – wrote in an earlier religious freedom case that the law overrides religious freedom (of course,not when it’s HIS religion).

            Reply
          8. Sand_Cat July 8, 2014

            Forget abortionist; if the books of Exodus, Joshua, etc., can be believed, not to mention Genesis, “God” is the greatest murderer of all time.

            Reply
          9. Allan Richardson July 8, 2014

            Yes, but I was pulling my punches. But digressing from this specific issue, the YHWH portrayed in some parts of the Bible is not much different from the Allah “worshiped” by some Islamic terrorists.

            Reply
          10. Blueberry Hill July 3, 2014

            No, these folks are not Catholic. They are Episcopalians.

            ..

            Reply
          11. itsfun July 3, 2014

            I didn’t know what religion they are. I wasn’t talking about them specifically. My thought is how hard it would be for anyone of the Catholic faith to pay for abortion pills for someone. I don’t know how the Episcopalians feel about abortion.

            Reply
          12. awakenaustin July 3, 2014

            You seem to keep missing the point. Despite what the owners of Hobby-Lobby say they believe or how they “choose” to characterize the issue. The contraceptives they oppose are not abortion pills and they do not induce abortions.
            But hey you don’t care about that. You will continue to distort the truth because it serves your opinions and goals.

            Reply
          13. itsfun July 4, 2014

            no I am not. The health care plan they provide for employees has 16 birth control avenues. The plan had 20 avenues, but only 4 were against what they believe in and they only asked not to be forced to provide those 4 to people.

            Reply
          14. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            Consider the raw truth for once:

            By the very charter of this blog, you do NOT belong here, but it is a free country. There is NEVER anything you agree with, so why are you here?

            NOW, look at your posting record. You have doggedly outposted every poster here, by far. We are unable to freely exercise our FIRST Amendment right because you are engaged in the very behavior that our Founders wished to prohibit.

            NOW, with the facts in and summed, why should we treat you like anything, but the piece of rotten shit you are? Hmm? Show us an answer that actually answers that question while using the FACTS as parameters.

            I am not holding my breath. If you do, it will be a first.

            Reply
          15. Sand_Cat July 8, 2014

            Hey, I don’t like his views, either, but he does seem to be trying to make a reasonable argument in this case.

            Reply
          16. Russell Byrd July 8, 2014

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/02/1311238/-You-know-that-Hobby-Lobby-covers-16-forms-of-birth-control#

            “itsfun” is another troll that has never contributed anything of value to these blogs. The ISSUE is not about what Hobby Folly does or does not offer. shitfun is doing what it always does, even when it is caught red handed, it just confuses the issue with off-topic bullshit.

            The cowardice of dumb sons of bitches like you is why this place is such misery. Instead of bashing people that come here to literally drive people away, AND BOY, I HAVE SEEN HUNDREDS LEAVE, you want to placate.

            Read the article, while this charter member finally, for the very last time, goes to somewhere a little less hypocritical. You know, Teafuckers laugh at us. WE are EASY, according to them, and they are so, so, so right.

            I have been offered a job working for a local campaign, I do not even need to be here.

            Good bye, and good fucking riddance.

            Reply
          17. Sand_Cat July 8, 2014

            Speaking of Driving people away…
            I’m well aware of “itsfun” and his history here, and if you bothered to check, you’d find quite a few rather unpleasant replies to him that I’ve posted. A lot of us are angry at the control the lunatics exercise in our “democracy,” but most of us try to avoid turning on one another.
            So good bye to you.

            Reply
          18. Russell Byrd July 8, 2014

            Yeah YOU DID FUCKHEAD. You are the useless shit these trolls sit back and laugh about. So keep your useless prattle out of my inbox, and I will not be bothering you again.

            The average lame service gets 10 times the traffic that Memo does, and I would not be surprised they are gone in a couple of years with shit-for-brains posters like you.

            YOU ARE THE BIG DICKHEAD THAT DID THE TURNING. I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE IT FROM A BACK-BITING PRICK LIKE YOU.

            Reply
          19. Russell Byrd July 8, 2014

            If you had one iota of decency and one iota of sense you would have let this go. You got what you wanted.

            Bet you are all brave when lana, and angel, and mike, bikejedi show up and your little chickenshit ass runs away. AS ALWAYS.

            Did you really think there would not be consequences?

            Reply
          20. Russell Byrd July 8, 2014

            The tragedy is, not long ago I read an article that stated plainly that the major drawback to Memo gaining more traction with the news services and going “big time” is the large number of low quality posts. Imagine that, in a blog where the educational attainment and IQ are incredibly higher that the freaks at Breitbart for instance.

            You sick cowards do not take a stand even when these assholes commit very real crimes. You just whine, just like they joke about.

            Reply
          21. Sand_Cat July 8, 2014

            Wow, have you ever gone of the deep end. Don’t recall posts from any of the trolls that beat you.

            Reply
          22. Russell Byrd July 8, 2014

            You are the one that TURNED. You are the one that went off the deep end.

            DO YOU REALLY WANT TO MATCH ME POST FOR POST. I had your buddy James Dumbowen on the hook for four months, and I was willing to go ten years.

            In any case, you ARE THE ONE OUT OF LINE. So, I have will have no remorse in making your life Hell.

            One more post of your harassment and I will repay it a hundred fold. GO AHEAD, I have always, always told the truth. I only troll trolls. Want to be one, well, itsfun can celebrate with all his new found freedom as I will make you my special project.

            Reply
          23. porter July 15, 2014

            are the employees also paying for this plan though payroll deduction if so how can hobby lobby or any company tell its employee what they can spend their monies on

            Reply
          24. itsfun July 15, 2014

            Doesn’t Obamacare make employers give employees healthcare?

            Reply
          25. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            The law of the land, is the law of the land. The Constitution was the best guess design to protect everyone from the inroads on their lives that zealots desired to effect.

            Reply
          26. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            And you still demonstrate extreme mental and emotional stability.

            Better get that prescription strengthened so WE can have some peace.

            Reply
          27. itsfun July 4, 2014

            You are typical. You have no argument, so you just follow the path and call everyone a racist or stupid. You blame everyone for your failures. You have become a waste of human life.

            Reply
          28. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            I have my argument in other posts, if you could but read without your troll selectivity.

            As for your posts in general, few actually deserve a reply.

            As for this post, I am just running your inane stupidity, lies, propensity for bullying, and all around troll behavior, into the ground. Which, as an after thought, is where it belongs. Buried. AND having enormous satisfactions. In fact, itsfun!!!!!

            You trolls just do not have a sense of humor. You take yourselves far too seriously at the expense of everyone else.

            Reply
          29. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            A waste of life that seems to have the ability to tie you up in knots. Remarkable, don’t you think? Oops, you don’t. No matter, for from where I sit, “itsfun”!

            Reply
          30. Sand_Cat July 8, 2014

            I thought they are Baptists. Doesn’t really matter.

            Reply
          31. Allan Richardson July 8, 2014

            In the early 1960s, the writings of several Anglican priests on “situational ethics” condemned the fact that it rejected birth control at the level of the Crown and Canterbury. Today is a different matter; the joke goes that American Episcopalians consider almost nothing a sin.

            I have also noticed that, in the US, the rivalry between Catholics and even some of the most anti-Catholic Protestants (who, in the late 19th century, passed state laws against funding private schools, because guess who was building the largest number of private schools?) has been set aside on the abortion issue, and Protestants who had previously opposed abortion but accepted birth control have now, possibly as a result of working together with Catholics, rejected even the latter.

            Reply
          32. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

            Possibly true, but the reality is more 60-40 against.

            Yet, the crux of the argument is that is NOT the point. It is what the Amendment intended to do that matters. A discussion as to why the Catholics are entitled to their opinions, and are entitled to live as they see fit, would conclude that they do not have the right to foist that belief off on the unwilling.

            Reply
          33. Sand_Cat July 8, 2014

            Why? The church owns stock in companies that produce those drugs, and we coulds also talk about the church’s collaboration with the Nazis and continued promotion of vicious “anti-Judaism” at the height of the mass murders, or the ferocious defense of the church’s [non] actions to prevent murder of BORN people by modern-day Catholic partisans, i.e., the type likely to whine about how they can’t bear to “condone abortion” by signing a request for a waiver of the requirement. And you’re ignoring the fact that THEY are the ones saying those drugs induce abortion; the scientists apparently say no.

            Reply
        2. Blueberry Hill July 2, 2014

          I’m already boycotting them since they took this thing to the SC. I will not darken their doorway again. I hope they go bankrupt. I know of several others who quit shopping there too. They have no right to dictate my choices. I don’t care what their religion is, it has nothing to do with MY choices.

          ..

          Reply
        3. Russell Byrd July 4, 2014

          Yes, I do not shop at Wally World at all. I will continue to boycott Target. I check my list of known Koch products. (Sorry, that actually sounds disgusting.) And I do not buy them. I will not eat at Chik-full-of-it and I do not eat Papa Potty’s pizza. I am unlikely to ever buy anything from any of them, ever again. And I certainly will not buy anything from Hobby Folly, if for no other reason than bringing this racist anti-Obama, anti-ACA, anti-woman piece of malarkey to that malfunction of a court run by five Rumpbuggercon bullies. Hobby Folly’s only motivation is to show their bigoted corporate ass, er, displeasure, and shove their bigotry down the majority’s throat.

          Reply
  3. dana becker July 2, 2014

    Right. Just like Citizens United was limited too.

    Reply
  4. dana becker July 2, 2014

    What Alito, and the rest of the majority ignored, because they had to know that these products were covered by these same companies BEFORE the ACA was passed, and that they, HL, also invest their 401K money, 73 milliion of it, in the very companies that made these now objectionable products. And that they willingly put their religious beliefs aside by investing in a country that forces abortions on their women. Alito used the words “sincerely held religious beliefs”. Ain’t nothing sincere about it.

    Reply
    1. Sand_Cat July 2, 2014

      Even if they were, their belief is WRONG (I refer to their “belief” about the drugs rather than their alleged belief in imaginary inhabitants of the “sky”)

      Reply
  5. itsfun July 2, 2014

    The right hated the supreme court when obamacare was declared constitutional as a tax. The left hates the supreme court because of this religious belief decision.
    Just goes to show, its more about “whose ox is getting gored” when it comes to decisions.

    Reply
    1. ps0rjl July 2, 2014

      No you got that wrong. It’s not about whose side won today. It’s about religious people/corporations being able to impose their religious positions on their workers. And believe me this is just the tip of the iceberg. Religious right wingers are already sharpening their crosses. Either to climb up on them to claim religious persecution if they don’t get their way next time or to use them to bash the rest of us over the head in their quest to make this a Christian nation.

      Reply
      1. itsfun July 2, 2014

        Many would argue this is already a Christian nation.

        Reply
        1. johninPCFL July 2, 2014

          But it wasn’t founded that way:

          “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” ― George Washington

          “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it” John Adams

          “Religions are all alike — founded upon fables and mythologies” Thomas Jefferson

          “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man” Thomas Jefferson

          “The authors of the gospels were unlettered and ignorant men and the teachings of Jesus have come to us mutilated, misstated and unintelligible” Thomas Jefferson

          “The Christian God is a being of terrific character – cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust” Thomas Jefferson

          ” If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed,they will fall at the hands of the clergy” Marquis de Lafayette.

          Reply
        2. Allan Richardson July 2, 2014

          There is a big difference between a secular nation which happens to have a Christian majority population and a “Christian” country (such as Ireland, where abortion is illegal even to save the woman’s life).

          Just as there is a big difference between a secular nation with a majority Muslim population, such as Turkey, and a “Muslim” country such as Iran.

          Reply
        3. Sand_Cat July 2, 2014

          Yeah, that’s because we all happily share with the needy (including making sure everyone gets the medical care he/she needs), love one another, and turn the other cheek.
          If this is a Christian Nation, Yeshua must be spinning in his grave. (or whereever he is, for those of you who buy the sky-god thing).

          Reply
    2. Sand_Cat July 2, 2014

      Tell us some more about your hypocrisy.

      Reply
  6. phanya2012 July 2, 2014

    A simple solution has been proposed: make these four contraceptive methods over-the-counter == the FDA need simply change their status. Then Hobby Lobby will have to stop paying cash in salaries because their customers would thus be enabled to buy them, right?

    Reply
    1. Allan Richardson July 2, 2014

      I’m sure there are some Muslim business owners who would like the authority to fire any employee whom they discover to have purchased pork products or alcohol with their paychecks, even if they were never brought into the workplace. The “reasoning” in the Hobby Lobby decision might empower them to do it.

      Reply
  7. latebloomingrandma July 2, 2014

    Since each Supreme Court decision sets a precedent ,more bad decisions will come. Citizen’s United opened the Pandora’s box to corporations as people. And the money came flooding through. Remember Alito smugly mouthing “Not true” when Obama predicted just that in his State of the Union message? You would think Alito would have have learned some lesson here.

    Reply
    1. Sand_Cat July 2, 2014

      Alito? Learn lesson?
      Aren’t you asking a bit too much?
      Actually, believing he didn’t think the other decisions and ill effects would follow is a bit of a stretch, isn’t it?

      Reply
  8. charles king July 2, 2014

    Where? has the People’s Democracy gone. Why? can not our Supreme Court people solve something like this in a democratic way, all they have to do is some Critical Thinking instead of going on hear say. Do not our Constitution spell out What? these lawyers suppose to do to hold the country together. I went to war for my country back in 1950 thinking I was fighting for Democracy and i know that my other seven brothers throught the same but now after all these years I find out that the state of Pennsylvania is about Plutocracy and I am shock and do not seem there is anything one can do about it. I call on “You the People” to become aware of this word Plutocracts because they are stealing your public Assets (Taxes) and privatizing your property under the pretense of management. Your vote is still supreme so use it wisely. Thank You are the magic words with me. I Love Ya All. Mr. C. E. KING

    Reply
  9. CPAinNewYork July 2, 2014

    Hey everyone! Man-hating Eleanor Whitaker is back and meaner than ever.

    Welcome back, Ellie! I really missed you.

    Reply
    1. sigrid28 July 2, 2014

      What kind of anti-Semitism are you going to broadcast today? Or haven’t you yet run out of misogynism yet? You are our go-to guy for xenophobia in the NM comment threads.

      Reply
  10. RCM July 2, 2014

    if you don’t like the system move or re-elect Obama, he doesn’t follow the Constitution either.

    Reply
    1. Sand_Cat July 2, 2014

      Thanks for letting us know you’re a delusional cretin. We can use that info to evaluate your future posts and the “facts” they rely upon, assuming you even attempt to present evidence and facts.

      Reply
  11. ORAXX July 2, 2014

    The Reagan and Bush gifts to America that just keep on taking. Look for a dramatic expansion of the list of health care procedures and products corporations take moral exception to.

    Reply
  12. Sand_Cat July 2, 2014

    The facts are never the point in GOP speech and actions.

    Reply
  13. ExRadioGuy15 July 2, 2014

    As I wrote on Monday, the decision intentionally misses the true point of the matter, which is why I call the Court’s majority “cowards”: companies/corporations are not “people” and don’t deserve religious rights.

    Reply
  14. 1standlastword July 2, 2014

    To all who feel victimized and inclined to complain STOP patronage of Hobby Lobby. And…yes this is much bigger than patronage but we voters have to make a stand against the violators in such a way that for them our disgust becomes a felt reality.

    If it where up to me alone the lights would go out at Hobby Lobby!

    Reply
  15. ralphkr July 2, 2014

    Hmm, how long before a business owner realize that if they joined the Church of Christ, Scientist that they shall be relieved of having to pay for ANY health insurance because it is against their belief in faith healing? Yes, the current ruling is theoretically limited to businesses 50% or more owned by 5 people but it shall only be a matter of time before a major business goes to court because they are being discriminated against and at a competitive disadvantage since they have to pay for health insurance just because they aren’t a closely held corporation? After all, since businesses are now people it is certainly discriminatory to not treat big people the same as little people.

    Reply
    1. johninPCFL July 2, 2014

      Over 90% of the corporations in the country fit the “closely held” definition.

      Reply
  16. Daniel Jones July 2, 2014

    It’s not a slope.. it’s a fucking cliff.

    Reply
  17. Stuart July 2, 2014

    Any doubts about how this court would have ruled on, say, Amistad, Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson?

    Reply
  18. pszymeczek July 5, 2014

    It’s not a slippery slope – it’s a ski jump slathered in Astroglide.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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.