This presents an easy workaround to the Employer Mandate. If everyone just
claims to be a Christian Scientist, you don't have to provide any coverage
This was great news!Liberals have long been disingenuous(at best) in
this and most discussions. No one is saying women can't get
birth control, as is the claim by the liberals. Their dishonesty makes the
political process as it is currently.We've just said if someone
wants to have sexual relations and wants to not get pregnant - you can pay for
your own birth control. Its not my responsibility to make sure you can do
these things on my money. Don't like it?Tough,
deal with it libs. The court has ruled!
Even if Hobby Lobby doesn't provide its employees with insurance, it is
still "facilitating" them acquiring the forbidden healthcare procedures
by providing them with a paycheck with which to purchase it. It's bizzare
that they think funding this one way is immoral, yet funding it another way is
fine.Are corporations people, entitled to the rights and liberties
to which human beings are endowed? "I'll believe corprations are
people as soon as Texas executes one."
So -- This Supreme Court has ruled that:Corporations are
PeopleCorporations have Free SpeechCorporations can openly, and
unlimted bribe Politicians, and now, Corporations have Religous
Freedom.I see a person without body parts or passions, Who is
everywhere, but nowhere, an enitity that can not die, be sick, or be
destroyed, a person protected by "rights", yet can not be punished
for it's "wrongs".the "Beast" 666, from
Revelations comes quickly to my mind...
Chris B,Change the medication and change the religion, and the
decision is still the same. The SCOTUS has ruled that if your employer is
(religion x) and you need (medication y) that your employer can refuse to cover
it because of their religious beliefs.
Their own ruling notes that it's not meant to be interpreted as carte
blanche for everything (vaccines, blood transfusions, or even necessarily all
birth control) which begs the question... how are we supposed to know where the
line is for what constitutes free exercise of religion by a company?What might help with that is they noted the exemption religious organizations
use could just be used for a company. However, there's separate cases
challenging that as well (remember the Little Sisters of the Poor suing because
they claimed that having to go through the exemption process was a burden and
that it merely shifts the payment from the business to the gov't so it
doesn't stop birth control coverage).
"In our opinion: Supreme Court right to protect free exercise of
religion"______________________________The Supreme Court
would be right to Protect free exercise of religion. That's not what the
Supreme Court did as this DN staffer hiding behind a cloak of anonymity very
FatherOfFourWEST VALLEY CITY, UTChris B,Change the
medication and change the religion, and the decision is still the same. The
SCOTUS has ruled that if your employer is (religion x) and you need (medication
y) that your employer can refuse to cover it because of their religious
beliefs.3:02 p.m. June 30, 2014========= Great call.Logic trumphs ignorance and parroting media sound bites
everytime.It's no different than asking if the LDS Church
[which I am an active member], which forbids the use of alcohol in the
Word of Wisdom, can ban any medication containing even a trace of
CnH2n+1OH [alcohol].Most of us all realize alcohol is in all sorts
of things, as is the primary bindering chemical in most modern
medications, Most Mormons are already breaking the Word of Wisdom if you
follow the letter of the law.BTW -- by the same token, If a
religion worships the God given use of His herbs of the earth for the express
healing the sick and afflicted, This should also legalize the use of medical
So if company owner A believes in his heart of hearts that pregnancy is the
result of original sin, he can deny maternity coverage to his employees. . . .
And company owner B, the Jehovah's Witness, can deny coverage for any
procedure that involves blood transfusions . . . And company owner C, the
Jain, can deny coverage that involves use of antibiotics because living microbes
are killed in the process . . . And company owner D, the orthodox Jew, can
deny coverage that pays for any treatments on the Sabbath . . . And away
we go . . .
It's a pretty narrow ruling by a split, activist court. It forbids a few
contraceptives not widely used. Unfortunately, for the Republicans this will
help the liberals continue to win the women vote as the GP exalts a minor
victory in their "war on women".
Religious freedom.How many women voted for this decision?Women should remember that when they enter the voting booth.No one
knows how you voted except you.Women have the FREEDOM to vote for
ANYONE they choose.Men should remember that last sentence.
The bottom line here is that some women who believe a medication is in their
best interest, may be even based on the advice of their physicians, will be
denied economical access (or denied access entirely) to that medication. Women
- you're still property.
Great decision by the Supreme Court! Just because one person has a right to
contraception doesn't mean they have the right to make someone else pay for
it against their religious conscience.
Here's quote from Justice Ginsburg's dissent:"Would
the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to
blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists);
medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and
pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and
vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by
today's decision.""Approving some religious claims while
deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring
one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's]
Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.""The court, I fear,
has ventured into a minefield."Anyone care to comment? Care to
comment, Deseret News?
LDS Liberal,Are you seriously correlating business/corporations with
the beast spoken of in the Book of Revelations in the New Testament?A corporation is an organization with purpose. That purpose can be to provide
a valuable service in exchange for an agreeable compensation (usually money).
The corporation can be good or bad, depending upon the intent and ways of the
people within the corporation, as well as the systems and policies set up by the
people of the corporation. Jacob teaches (in the Book of Mormon) to
think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free
with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you. But before ye seek
for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope
in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them, and ye will seek them for the
intent to do good--to clothe the naked and to feed the hungry, and to liberate
the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.A
corporation can be good or bad, depending upon the people. So yes, a
corporation can espouse principles of faith.
Liberals want it both ways. They don't want government to legislate what
happens in the bedroom. For example, homosexual or adulterous behavior cannot
be legislated. Liberals call for privacy. What happens in the bedroom is
nobodies business. But then liberals want to require everyone to pay for what
happens in the bedroom: condom distribution, abortion medications, etc.I have been cautioning that the pendulum has gone too far to the left
for several years and that it will begin to swing back to the middle. This will
continue through the elections of 2014.
One of the core values of the nation is that it owes no homage to your religion.
That's why any decision regarding health care needs to be removed from all
Leave it to a publication of the lds church to write this:"In
our opinion: Supreme Court right to protect free exercise of religion"The problem is that the Hobby Lobby folks are exercising their religion
on other people, which is a sin, in my view.The lds did something similar
in Prop 8.Plainly, women who take entry-level jobs in stores usually
do not get to pick and choose.If Hobby Lobby could somehow only hire
people with like religious beliefs legally, and there were jobs elsewhere for
the other people, it might be different.In the USA, people do not
have to follow the religious beliefs of their boss.
The worst part of this decision is the continuing expansion of a
corporation's personhood. First, the corporation had a right to free
speech, and now a religion. What is next? The right to vote and bear arms?The whole idea that a corporation had a right to do anything other than
conduct business began after the Civil War, and has been expanded gradually
through the years until the reign of King Roberts. Now, we see ever expanding
interpretations of law (aka judicial activism) and novel ways of Constitutional
interpretation (aka judicial activism) to pursue a set of goals by and for the
US Chamber of Commerce. King Roberts is doing what he was hired to do, along
with his cronies on the right.Way to go Republicans and
Corporatists. Your money got the best it could buy. What else do you have in
store for us?
Two dangers here libs.Both are slippery slope arguments which I
normally would poo poo, except the slide is being built and assembled in plain
site this time.One, this SCOTUS has clearly changed their motto from
"In God we trust", to "In capital we trust".Secondly
this decision is a wink and a nod to the evil of birth control that is
considered abortive. With personhood laws waiting in the wings.
I do not know how it has come that one may be exempt from law merely based on
one's arbitrary beliefs. That cannot be constitutional. Suppose I am an
atheist employer who does not want to pay for an employee's birth control.
Am I out of luck? Is that fair? What happens if I lie about my religious
beliefs? To whom must I prove my religious beliefs?
This decision takes away religious freedom. It establishes a religious test.
It gives the power to some to impose their religious views on others
(subordinates). It opens the door for all sorts of issues to be governed by the
religious views of a few. If anything violates the original intent of the
Founding Fathers, it is this decision. For those of you who love this decision,
including this newspaper, be forewarned. There could be ramifications that cut
against you on some issue in the future. Will you then complain, or will you
gladly submit because of your prior support for this decision? This decision is
another step towards giving the oligarchs more power and taking liberties away
from the people. It may serve the interests of institutions who seek to protect
their own interests, but it does not serve the rest of us. This newspaper has
utter forgotten the roots of Mormons and the principles that enabled the Church
to survive in perilous times. I guess now that the Church is powerful, the
tables have turned.
Isn't it ridiculous to read comments where liberals are telling us that the
court cannot override the will of the people while at the same time they tell us
that Judge Shelby can single-handedly overrule 66% of the voters of Utah? They
claim that the 14th Amendment, which was written to protect newly freed slaves
can be twisted to protect their personal feelings about same-sex sex, but that
the 1st Amendment, which specifically and clearly prohibits Congress
prohibiting the free exercise of religion is not binding.The only
complaint that we should have with the ruling is that all nine justices did not
protect our freedoms to live our religion without government interference.
Wait...I thought courts couldn't override the will of the majority.Or is that argument selective?
Don't freak out... they're not forcing their religion on you, and you
can still get any birth control you want. Employees may pay for
some types of birth control (types that cause an early term abortion). But
company will still pay for the kind that prevent conception. And that's
the best type (for your body).#1. People who say "they're
preventing people from getting birth control"... not true. They are just
not paying for it. Employees can still go out an BUY any type of birth control
they want. It's very inexpensive, and elective.#2. If people
must have someone else pay... some entrepreneur will step in and offer BC
Insurance (to pay for Birth Control). Pay small monthly premium and they will
buy it for you. Heck... maybe the government will even provide it! (IF they
are that concerned)===So bottom line... no rights have
been removed. Rights have been restored (or preserved). The right to live
according to the dictates of your conscience. Everybody can still get their BC.
You just can't force people to violate their conscience. SC
decided forcing people to violate their conscience is not the Government's
"Supreme Court upholds meaning and purpose to bipartisan law protecting free
exercise of religion"That's not really the best
summation.Here's a better one:Supreme Court
demolishes Separation of Church and State.
@ Mike Richards, what is the difference to the typical person out there if their
religious rights are infringed upon by the government or by a company? The
court decision effectively authorizes religious discrimination by those with
power, authority and money. Oppression is still oppression, regardless of
whether it is government or a company. And the hypocrisy of which you speak
cuts the other way, too. You complain that a court overturned a vote of the
people, and yet you support the same on the issue here. Consistency and freedom
is not the message you send. Instead, it is a message of imposing specific
views and using the Constitution and scriptures when convenient to back up those
I guess that to liberals, a failure to pay for something for someone else is
equivalent to denying them access.If I refuse to buy you a beer
because I don't like alcohol, then I am doing the same thing as trying to
pass prohibition, right? My failure to provide you something for free is the
same as telling you that you can't have it.Honest political
debate is one thing, blatent lies about what this ruling says is another. The
phony "war on women" is just leftist propaganda.
The contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act will likely have the effect
of reducing the U.S. abortion rate over the long term, but the Hobby Lobby
ruling likely will result in an increase in the abortion rate among Hobby Lobby
employees and among employees of for-profit companies that drop contraception
"....The decision is substantial in its own right, and delivers a rebuke to
the Obama administration’s conduct respecting people of faith. And it
accentuates this country’s long-standing commitment to religious
willing to bet that if the Federal government steps in and funds it, the
argument will change from freedom of religion to one of asking why taxpayers
should have to foot the bill. Can’t the Deseret News and other right wing
advocates find a more honest way to rage against the Affordable Care Act?
This whole argument boils down to the fact that the Supreme Court just handed
more rights to corporations and made sure that workers have less. Right, left,
conservative or liberal, that situation never ends well. Do any of you actually
believe that companies will not be using this to gain every advantage they can
over their workers? Doubt it? See Citizens United, that was supposed to be a
'narrow ruling' as well. Or you can keep crowing until they come
after a right that means something to you, and they will.
@GaryORe "Supreme Court demolishes Separation of Church and
State".That's one view of it. A very, very NARROW view of
it. But another view none the less.I don't see how birth
control, or the government not forcing someone to violate their own
conscience... is "demolishing the separation of church and State".How is this combining church and State?=============The Government is about more than Birth Control. And liberty is about
more than religion. Liberty needs to respect both rights. The right to get
birth control (IF you want it), AND the right to live according to your
religious beliefs.The court acknowledging that is NOT combining
Church and State. It is just respecting liberty (of ALL individuals).========There is no RIGHT to Contraception in the Constitution.There is no RIGHT to force somebody ELSE to PAY for your Contraception,
in the Constitution.I think the Supreme Court was just acknowledging
that.It does in now way combine Church... and State.=========Remember... you still have the RIGHT to any birth control
you want. You just don't have the RIGHT to force someone else to violate
their religious vows.A good decision
@esquire,The Court has always ruled that a corporation is a person.
As a person, it has the same rights as all other "persons", including
you and me. This is not the first time that the Court has explained the obvious
and this is not the first time that some people have told us that the Court is
wrong.You seem to think that others who have money are automatically
oppressors. Are you stating that if you have "money" enough to hire a
neighbor to mow your lawn, that you're oppressing that neighbor? You wrote that this ruling was a "religious test". Have you read the
Constitution recently? Article VI states: "but no religious Test shall ever
be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States."Has "Hobby Lobby" been elected to office? Does
it hold an office of public Trust? It seems to me that you're stating that
only those who have your religious views can hold office? Isn't that a
"religious test" administered by you?
Isn't it silly when some people are blaming God and his religion for all of
their woes. He gave them life and then they use that life to attack him.
That's gratitude for you. Should the government require us to
pay tithing so that the poor are cared for? It would be in the public good. It
is exactly what those who demand that others pay for their contraceptives would
want. They want others to be forced to pay their personal welfare bills.Nobody is being denied any kind of contraceptives. The only thing that
is being denied is that the government cannot make ME pay for YOUR
contraceptives. That seems fair - unless you agree to pay my tithing for me.
@ Mike Richards, the Court has NOT always provided that a corporation is a
"person" in the same way as an individual. The concept of a corporation
as a "person" is a legal fiction and was never meant to give the same
individual rights as we enjoy under the Bill of Rights. To do so is a
perversion of the Constitution. While I agree that the religious test issue was
written as you stated (but you misrepresented what I said), the decision does
create a religious test in other ways. You distort the argument in your last
sentence, again supporting my view that you use the Constitution to advance your
own views as convenient. So, as long as we are asking questions, please address
the question of "what is the difference to the typical person out there if
their religious rights are infringed upon by the government or by a
company?" Are you saying that a private organization should be able to
oppress, as long as it isn't the government? And what about the idea that
this decision might be used against you on another issue? Does that bother you
@Esquire,You are right... a Corporation is not a person. But just
because you own a business... does not mean you jettison your First Amendment
Rights. You can still live your religion... even IF you own a company! AND...
you still have the right to control what that corporation does (not the
Government).If we allow the Government to tell you how to run your
company... then there is no separation of Corporation and State. And the
separation of Corporation and State is just as important as the separation of
CHURCH and State.In America... we do not let the Government run our
Churches. And we do not let the Government run our Corporations.===========It blurs things when you combine the company and the
owner. So try to avoid that.The owner is an individual. The
Corporation isn't.The owner/individual directs the company. So
his decisions need to clear with his conscience (religious/moral/legal/etc)...
Government can't force him to make decisions that he finds
immoral/illegal... it just makes sense if you think of him as an individual.He doesn't lose his individual RIGHTS because he formed a
Re: "the 'Beast' 666, from Revelations comes quickly to my
mind..."Maybe we should pay some attention to this -- liberals
are, after all, much more familiar with this beast than real people.
@ordinary folks:"The whole idea that a corporation had a right to do
anything other than conduct business began after the Civil War, and has been
expanded gradually through the years until the reign of King Roberts."Actually I think it started before the Civil War when they began to
enact laws that said corporations could not employ children in coal mines. The
law was requiring corporations to follow certain standards of moral behavior.It really expanded however during the Progressive Era when they had the
Pure Food and Drug Act that prevented corporations from throwing rat tails and
what not in sausage machines and which said that corporations had to respect
worker safety, i.e. corporations have to obey societal moral standards.So, you think that requiring/allowing corporations to follow morals is
backwards? Wow, I think that the polarity of American politics has
flip-flopped. The 'conservatives' in this page are now bleeding heart
liberals and the 'liberals' have moved to the right of big time
Republican political donors, Karl Rove, Koch Brothers, etc.
Esquire,"Despite not being human beings, corporations, as far as
the law is concerned, are legal persons, and have many of the same rights and
responsibilities as natural people do. " - WikipediaThe LAW sees
a corporation as a person.
I still don't understand why no one is lobbying congress to change the tax
deduction law to allow individuals to purchase their own insurance and receive a
tax deduction instead of employers. This is down right silly and has lead us
down this idiotic path. Owners of business have a right to conduct their
business how they like, so why have we pitted owners and employees against each
other this way? As we have found out types of insurance coverage carry with them
values, and with national values growing wider, it makes no sense to constantly
bring this problem to the workplace.
"....just because you own a business... does not mean you jettison your
First Amendment Rights. You can still live your religion... even IF you own a
not what’s at issue. What’s at issue is an employer’s
obligations to his employees under the law. That’s the line over which an
employer’s religious views cannot encroach on the rights of his employees.
That’s where the employer’s religious views are a bogus issue in the
@ 2 bits, so where do you draw the line on religious freedom? "If you want
to work for my company, you have to follow my religious views." You say: "...the separation of Corporation and State is just as important
as the separation of CHURCH and State." Does this mean you support
oppression as long as it is not the government? Does this mean that the
employee must surrender his/her religious freedom when accepting a job offer?You say: The corporation owner "doesn't lose his individual
RIGHTS because he formed a corporation." What about the individual rights
of the employee? And doesn't the government have an interest and duty to
ensure that the individual rights of all are protected?And I still
come back to my original question: Will supporters of the decision cry foul if
the decision is used as the basis for action that goes contrary to your views?
It cuts both ways.The decision actually erodes our freedoms as
Hey 2 bits -"How is this combining church and State?"Well, the court has decreed that religious beliefs can control the
law.Obviously, the church and the state are no long separate.This nation is much closer now to the Taliban ideal of religion and
government merged as one entity.Way to go . . .
"Conservatives."And no, I don't think our freedoms
should be deliberately and continually whittled away by Right Wing oppressors.
Another swing and a miss for Barack and the progressives. Home run for freedom
of religion and the Constitution!!
Craig Clark,Evidently the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you on
"employer’s obligations to his employees under the law". Although
I think you have mis-framed their decision. But no amount of explaining it is
going to work evidently, so I give up.================@Esquire,Re: "If you want to work for my company, you have to follow
my religious views"....Nice attempt to put words nobody said
into somebody else's mouth. We know that's not what they are
saying.You can still be any religion you want, you can use any birth
control you want.The employer isn't preventing it... he's just
not paying for it.The decision was... that the government can't
force you to make decisions that are contrary to your religious beliefs (like
pay for abortions, etc).===========@GaryORe:
"the court has decreed that religious beliefs can control the law"...No... they have ruled that the government can not force a business owner
to do something that VIOLATES his religious beliefs.The Company
didn't change the law. The Supreme Court did. They decided the law
overstepped in this area (and violated a Constitutional Right).Last
post I think...
Reading the liberals rant about this decisions makes we want to take them back a
few months to the ruling on Obamacare. When that ruling was issued, liberals
told conservatives to sit down and shut up becuase Obamacare was the law of the
land.Now, there is a ruling against one of their pet projects. I
don't see any of them doing what they told conservatives to do. Which way
is it liberals, if the SCOTUS rules on something is it ok to rally against it or
not?To the liberals out there. This isn't a case of making
corporations equal to people. This is a matter of allowing people to run their
own businesses. This ruling only applies to companies that are privately held.
That means that companies like Google cannot make the same decision that Hobby
Lobby did.This is a victory for individuals that own businesses.
Hey two bits -"No... they have ruled that the government can not
force a business owner to do something that VIOLATES his religious
beliefs."" . . . the government can not force a business
owner to do something that VIOLATES his religious beliefs??!!Really?!So if a businessman's religion mandates human
sacrifice, it's OK for him to just kill somebody?And the
govenment cannot force him to NOT make a human sacrifice?Huh . . .
I had no idea. Things are worse than I thought.But I
imagine a lot of folks in Utah will be relieved . . . No more enforced monogamy
. . . Polygamy is OK now.. . . and of course marrying one's
10-year-old sister is cool now too . . . Right?. . .You know, if
it's consistent with one's religious beliefs.
The Church of the Almighty Dollar, formed by corporations in the early part of
21st century, set about to write a set of religious tenets that give advantage
to Corporations over their employees.The great problem of having
corporate citizens is that they aren't like the rest of us. As Baron
Thurlow in England is supposed to have said, "They have no soul to save, and
they have no body to incarcerate."Corporations were given the
rights of immortal persons. But then special kinds of persons, persons who had
no moral conscience. These are a special kind of persons, which are designed by
law, to be concerned only for their stockholders. And not, say, what are
sometimes called their stakeholders, like the community or the work force or
Oh yeah Hobby Lobby invests in the same pharm. company that makes the birth
control they object to allowing their employees to purchase. Seems odd that
their morals align with profit, more that actual human morals.
Happy Valley Heretic,"....Hobby Lobby invests in the same pharm.
company that makes the birth control they object to allowing their employees to
purchase...."______________________________I read about
that in Forbes. It’s amazing how having mutual funds in your portfolio can
put matters in a whole other light. Why, even a family-owned company based on
Bible principles is able to look on the bright side of contraception.
Here's what's wrong with conservatives today."Isn't it
ridiculous to read comments where liberals are telling us that the court cannot
override the will of the people while at the same time they tell us that Judge
Shelby can single-handedly overrule 66% of the voters of Utah?"Go back and read the comments previous to this comment and nowhere does anyone
mention the court overriding the will of the people. Mr. Richards just makes
this up (that's the kind way of putting it).Secondly, nowhere
have I read a lib calling this an overreach by activist judges, the common
mantra of the right. So the right just makes stuff up (there is a
definition for this), then when something doesn't go their way it's
activist judges. When the judges make up a ruling out of thin air it's in
the spirit of the constitution.
Don't complain when there is a time when the court is in favor of
another's religious freedom, such as Muslim's beliefs! I wonder if
that would be a different story? What do you think? There are so many
hypocrites! That is our problem! There are so many people who worry only about
what they believe and with their mouths they may say religious freedom, but they
don't really believe it belongs to everyone, do they? They wonder why
religion is declining in the United States? Maybe these religions need to stop
pointing their fingers at all the wicked people they see out there and look in
the mirror! God is not hate, but all we hear from Christian religions is fear,
condemnation, and judgment, while they pat themselves on the back because they
feel that somehow, they are more righteous! There are some sins that really have
no names, but I think they can do more damage than anyone imagines. As a gay
person, I have come to know what it feels like to be put down by the very people
that should care about me! It does damage! Real damage! It isn't right!
5-4 split.5 male vs. 3 female and 1 other male justice.The Conservatives can dance and cheer they've won another battle, buttime will prove they have will loose yet another war.This
will push even more women away from the GOP.
What turns nornmally decent people into people who resort to personal attacks
rather than admitting that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled and
upheld a bilateral act submitted by the very liberal Ted Kennedy and the
moderate Orrin Hatch? The court did not rule on whether the government can
overrule religion, instead, it ruled that closely held corrporations have the
right to reflect the religious attitudes of those who own that corporation.
There are even those who reject the legal principle that a corporation is
considered to be a person UNDER THE LAW. Those are facts that even a third
grader can research, but grown people stomp their feet and tell us that they and
they alone have the right to tell the Court how to rule. What arrogance!We live in a country that is governed by a Constitution that
specifically tell us that the President cannot legislate. That Constitution
also specifically tell us that Congress cannot prohibit our right to live our
religion without interference.No Republican caused this ruling. It
was guaranteed by the Constitution. What do liberals have against the
The Hobby Lobby opinion makes for absurd theology.Citizens United
held that the government could not infringe upon the free speech rights of
corporations because a corporation is an association of individual real people,
and the 1st Amend rights of those people flow up through and are protected when
expressed in the corporate form. SCOTUS did NOT apply Citizens
United's constitutional analysis to find that the Green's individual
rights to practice their religion, as owners, flowed up through Hobby Lobby
corporation to imbue that entity with their religious faith and accompanying
rights.Where is the fun in that, when SCOTUS can conjure vast
numbers of soul-less immortal parishioners to fill America's churches?First, SCOTUS isolated the word "person" from the RFRA phrase
"a person's free exercise of religion" and applied the Dictionary
Act to apply a default definition of "person" that includes
corporations. Ok, fine.Then, without making any causal link to the
owners' constitutional rights, SCOTUS merely asserts the fantastical
theological position that non-human, fictional entities can and do practice
religion! Who knew?Zany hijinks follow!Sinful to merge
two Mormon LLCs? Last rites prior to dissolving a Catholic corporation? Have fun kids!
The corporation called "New York Times" prints a newspaper. They have
freedom of speech.At one time, if one professed to be liberal, it
was only natural that one assumed that corporations would be socially
responsible -- they would try to do what was moral, not just what was legal.In the 1990's some clever Enron lawyers, traders, etc found out
ways to mess with the California energy market to jack up the price of
electricity and make a huge profit. What they did was legal. But not moral.In the 1970's the Robbins corporation developed an IUD device which
had a design flaw which would cause 'toxic shock syndrome'. The FDA
banned their product. So they sold it to the third world. It was legal. But
not moral.Suddenly, we have a ruling that protects the Christian
owners of a company from violating their religious beliefs and all of the
'liberals' are up in arms. They seem to have made a massive,
coordinated swing to the far right, like a flock of lemmings.
Sorry the SCOTUS got it wrong in this case. The next thing Hobby Lobby will
insist on is that they be allowed to refuse services to gay people because
homosexuality is against their religious beliefs. If you think that sounds
far-fetched then think again . . .
@Tekakaromatagi 9:40 a.m. July 2, 2014The corporation called
"New York Times" prints a newspaper. They have freedom of speech.-------------------You are referencing the right amendment
to the US Constitution (First Amendment) but the wrong provision in it. The
First Amendment says (with emphasis added0:Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM or speech, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.The New York Times is a press organization. Its
rights come from the First amendment freedom of the press clause, not the
freedom of speech clause.
What is truly frightening is how many people in this country have no problem
forcing a business owner to violate the business owner's beliefs to get
something they want. It is not as if the business owner is locking the doors to
Planned Parenthood or every other drug store in town that will sell you a
month's worth of contraception for $10-$20. This is the problem with
having any employer mandate in the first place. If you want something - act
like an adult and pay for it yourself. While those on the left are
apoplectic about this decision, what happens when an employee from Africa wants
to do female circumcision on his daughter. Do you want to be paying for
that?Freedom of religion is a farce if the government can simply
step in and require you to do something that you believe is morally wrong.
Perhaps we should eliminate conscientious objector status if there is ever
another draft. Who cares if you are a Quaker or Amish - you really do not have
the right to practice your religion. Welcome to Socialism.