The founding fathers never intended to give power to a legal fiction, the
corporation, the same rights as individuals, nor did they intend to give
corporations the power to impose the religious views of management on employees
who are hired to perform purely secular functions. You can get weepy all you
like about religious freedom, but the court took a major step in eroding that
religious freedom with this case. Institutional power to organized churches and
corporations to the detriment of individuals is not a step towards religious
freedom. Your thinking on this is backwards. Astounding.
Thomas Jefferson rightfully said, "...I have sworn upon the alter of God
eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man..."
When Independent minded Americans, meaning not the thoughtless Democrat or
Republican followers, stand with Thomas Jefferson, it is for a reason. They
will not bend because they know what the alternative means, enslavement of
conscience and obedience to the government is God crowd. We are happily engaged
in the sometimes difficult job of reminded others what liberty and freedom mean!
The anti-God crusade to eliminate Him, and liberty, from America is alive and
Esquire: By your reasoning then you have no right to tell someone driving your
car to not shoot up heroin, drink alcohol, and text at the same time. He would
be able to claim that you only have rights when you are driving it by yourself!
This silly claim by the left makes me laugh!
If Hobby Lobby wants to be treated as a person, it needs to give up
incorporation - and the affiliated tax breaks. They can't have it both
What is a corporation? It is a GROUP of people who invested THEIR money in an
idea that they hope will be profitable. A corporation is directed by people.
The people on the board make the rules for that corporation. The CEO is bound
to see that those rules are followed. In every case PEOPLE make all decisions
and PEOPLE enforce those decisions. The government gives
corporations the status of a person. Under the law, that "person" has
the same rights as any other person. Because it is impossible to put a
corporation in prison, penalties for breaking the law involve paying a fine.Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation, meaning that the general
public cannot purchase stock. Hobby Lobby decides who can hold stock. Those
who hold stock have every right to voice their opinion and to see that
government does not violate their 1st Amendment right to practice their religion
as they wish - without government interference.How many rights is
the Left willing to give up? Do they want Republicans to dictate to them how to
live, what to think, how to worship?
Corporations exist for a variety of reasons. One being separating the owners
from liability for their corporations actions. If the company goes bankrupt,
the owners' personal wealth is protected as separate from the company. If
an accident or negligence happens, while the company is liable, the owners are
not. This decision seems to blur that separation.As to the car
analogy, it doesn't fly simply because it's not Hobby Lobby's
car. It's a woman's body -- NOT Hobby Lobby's. It's more
like taking your paycheck, buying a car with it, and then your boss getting to
tell you where you're allowed to drive it. Once compensation -- money or
health care -- is given, it belongs to the recipient not the payee. It's
like your vegan boss telling you that you're not allowed to buy steak with
your paycheck. People were all enraged at the prospect of putting government
between you and your doctor. Now we've placed your boss there as well.Overall, the biggest problem I have with the decision is that it places
the "religious freedom" of the corporation over the religious freedom of
To Light and Liberty:Not sure I understand your logic. Are you seriously
comparing the dangerous acts of shooting up heroin while driving to the rights
of women to have their insurance policy cover birth control? How does my choice
of birth control detrimentally affect the company I work for?
"...our nation’s survival depends on a moral, religious and ethical
people."Many of the "religious" people I know are often
the least ethical and least moral people I know.
Maverick,You're mistaken. I've owned several businesses
and I am part of a corporation. Under the law, a corporation is a person. OUR
government made that decision. -----Stockholders are
shielded. They can lose their investment, but assets outside the corporation
cannot be attached. Everyone who uses trust has that same protection. Ask any
lawyer why you should have a trust instead of a will. Would you want your trust
to restricted from DOING YOUR WILL?Those who think that they should
bill their neighbors for their own contraceptives will complain. Those who
understand agency and accountability will not object.
Maverick has it right. SCOTUS has opened a huge can of worms using a loophole
the size of Texas to restrict, not enhance, religious freedom. CEOs will now be
seeing the light of "not paying" through religious means, and THEN
bosses with just regular "no pay" convictions will want their turn,
claiming that THEIR beliefs are as worthy of enshrinement as those affiliated
with churches. We'll be dealing with this a long time and may even have to
decide on NEW churches with nothing more holy than deregulation as an article of
faith. This has already started. It's the worst SCOTUS decision since
gutting the Voting Rights Act.
@ Light and Liberty, clearly you miss the point. The regulatory functions you
mention are governmental and are not based on religion (except, perhaps, in
Utah). We are talking about the threat of a private entity imposing the
religious views of its management on employees. What I have not seen is any
conservative response on this issue, like how will they respond if it is an
issue that detrimentally affects Mormons or other conservatives? Does your
reaction change? Is your glee over the religious power of the corporation going
to persist if you are the victim on another issue, or will you scream that there
is a war on your religious freedom. Again, conservatives are ignoring the
question. Is individual freedom good when it cuts your way, and bad when it
cuts another way?
This decision also places the courts in the position of deciding what
"firmly held religious belief" will get exemption from certain laws --
effectively placing the government in the role of deciding what religions get
privilege and which do not. Will Seventh Day Adventist companies get to deny
healthcare all together? And we're already seeing companies wanting out of
nondiscrimination laws concerning LGBTs. Each will go to court and a court will
decide which religious beliefs are worth having (financially) and which are not.
Corporations do not posses a conscience. Rights of religious freedom need to
accrue to beings with a conscience first, and those are people. And the sacred
thing about how that relates to the founding of America was how they were
granted to us all in terms of freedom before religion. Mr. Jefferson, build up
Do corporations have a conscience? I say that they do. The conscience is
reflective of the board of directors. They make the rules for a corporation.
What they "believe" is reflected in the rules that they make. The CEO
sees that the rules are implemented.If Hobby Lobby's owners had
no conscience, why did they object to paying for prescriptions that cause
abortions? We have this mess because of Obama. He has used
government to do HIS will. He wants free access to abortions in America. He
want some "rich guy" to pay for those abortions. He insisted that the
"rich guy" pay 100% of the cost for contraceptives, including those that
cause abortions.The Court told him to stop that nonsense. They told
him that people have a right to follow their conscience. They told him that a
closely held corporation reflects the CONSCIENCE of its stockholders. They told
him that he cannot force his "secular religion" on America.
According to conservatives here (and the Deseret News) when a group of
capitalists join to form a corporation to protect themselves - that is the
height of Americanism. But when workers try to band together, forming a labor
union to protect themselves - that is a conspiracy against trade.
@ marxist, point well taken. Interesting how conservatives claim they are
family friendly, but fight against things that will help families thrive.
RanchHandWell that's too bad for you. I always thought Huntsville
was a nice place. Guess I was wrong.All these "slippery
slope" type arguments. In a nutshell, the 1st Amendment is a neutrality
clause stating that Congress will make no laws either in favor of or against
religion. Basically if the 1st is applied as written, Congress shall stay out
of any religious argument all together. And besides, this particular decision
is about as narrow as it can get. Of some 20 birth control devices available,
only 4 were allowed to be restricted by Hobby Lobby. And in spite of another
whopper by Hillary ( "birth control is pretty expensive") these 4 are
easily accessable at the local pharmacy for a few dollars. Hillary is quickly
becoming the gift that keeps on giving. To Republicans that is. I'll bet
Biden is happy he is off the top spot of stupid statements.
Of course liberals would force others to live a compartmentalized ethic.
That’s what liberals do, and they will abide by no deviation from liberal
beliefsThe leftist MSM has consistently LIED about the case,
claiming Hobby Lobby did not want to provide contraceptives. Such is not the
case, HL did not want to provide abortificants. Just more compartmentalization
from the left.GZEAffiliated tax breaks?Are you
kidding? There are NO tax breaks with a C corp. Earnings are taxed at the
corporate level, then if the owners are paid dividends, those dividends are
taxed again.By what twisted logic do you claim double taxation is a
tax break?Koseighty,It’s a woman’s body. Fine.
Don’t give the employer a say over her body by making the employer buy her
abortificants. Because the employer is not buying her food is he keeping her
from eating?The twisted logic of the left never ceases to amaze
me.Maverick,Michele? Nice personal attack – I did not
think the DN allowed those. But I guess from liberals they are OK.All you saying corporations do not have conscience, look at the restrictions
in the majority decision.
@ lostHow is it a personal attack? I'm sure if you read all my
posts there would be spelling and grammatical errors. I'm sorry that my
iPad has autocorrect. I thought conservatives were supposed to be rugged and
have thick skin? Apparently not.@ HappyThe ACA was never
supposed to be used be corporations to shed the responsibility of providing
benefits to their workers. Just like the food stamps program was never supposed
to be used and abused by Walmart. Walmart is currently abusing this system as a
way to shed the cost of actually paying their workers decent salaries.Who pays for all of this? The taxpayer.Unless small
businesses (like mine) follow the corrupt example set by HL and Walmart, we will
have to close shop. I don't want to order all my stuff from china and I
really want to maintain our employee benefits. But corrupt activist conservative
judges are forcing my hand.Is that what you folks want? You're
doing a mighty fine job choking out small businesses.Perhaps this
ruling will fast track a single payer system? Is that what you want?
J Thompson says:"If Hobby Lobby's owners had no conscience,
why did they object to paying for prescriptions that cause abortions? "--- Mean spiritedness & greed.@SCfan;Actually, Huntsville is pretty nice.Besides certain individuals
that I personally know there are many others:* Shurtleff, Swallow,
Reyes, Lockhart, Herbert, et. al. Not only do they get a pass from The Angel at
the Gate (Gayle Ruzika) directly to the Celestial Kingdom, none of them have
been ex'd for their scandals or other non-Christian behaviors.*
The too numerous to name swindlers from your local wards. It is pretty much a
weekly news item these days: So-and-so swindled $n from his local ward
"...sincere religious beliefs...".5 unelected Republican
lawyers have determined that they or people like them will determine if your
religious beliefs are sincere.And Republicans are buying this
steaming hot pile of jurisprudence.Perfect.
On a different point, corporate attorneys are apparently terrified by this
ruling. The whole point of creating a corporations is to construct a legal
identity separate from that of the individual owners of the corporation. This
ruling says that the corporation itself has religious rights and that the morals
of the owners are indistinguishable from that of the corporation. This will
potentially leave corporate owners personally liable for the "immoral"
acts of their companies.
@Roland Kayser;One can hope.
Hobby Lobby is run by hard core Evangelicals that think my religion is a
"cult" I would not want their religious beliefs to hamper my religious
freedoms. It is a first step towards institutionalized discrimination. This is
all under the idea that a Corporation is a "person".
"How many rights is the Left willing to give up? Do they want Republicans to
dictate to them how to live, what to think, how to worship?"Seriously? This coming from a Utah Republican.
The religious freedom movement of the present has it that religion is above
everything else. Religious theory and precept have ultimate jurisdiction.
Hello middle ages. And what about when religions disagree?
re: Esquire (1st post).Agreed. "Religion is like a
pair of shoes.....Find one that fits for you, but don't make me wear your
shoes." - George Carlin"History, I believe, furnishes no
example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government" -
Thomas Jefferson Letter to Alexander von Humboldt
to RanchHand[Many of the "religious" people I know are often
the least ethical and least moral people I know.]Agreed. I have a
few examples of the greed & gold digging by what used to be friends of the
family and close relatives (who still are incredibly zealous members of this
states dominate sect) that would turn your stomach.What was it
Nietzche said? Oh yeah, "After coming into contact with a religious man I
always feel I must wash my hands."
Today is Independence Day. We celebrate our willingness to give up
"government promises" for liberty. Just as in 1776, there are MANY who
want government to be our nanny. One poster told us that Hobby
Lobby was "mean spirited" and that "greed" drove its decision to
oppose the destruction of live by paying for pills that are designed to kill
unborn babies. On this Independence Day, it might be good to re-read the
"Declaration of Indepenence" and to see what Obama is doing and what the
Left supports which is opposed by that document.The Declaration of
Indepence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."An unborn child is the most defenseless of all human beings. Hobby
Lobby told us that they could not kill those children by paying for medications
that were designed to destroy life.They upheld the principles that
America holds sacred.Some Liberals think otherwise.
Esquire stated: "Institutional power to organized churches and corporations
to the detriment of individuals is not a step towards religious freedom."
and "We are talking about the threat of a private entity imposing the
religious views of its management on employees."koseighty stated:
"Overall, the biggest problem I have with the decision is that it places the
"religious freedom" of the corporation over the religious freedom of the
individual." and "This decision also places the courts in the position
of deciding what "firmly held religious belief" will get exemption from
certain laws..."Mark B. stated "SCOTUS has opened a huge can of
worms using a loophole the size of Texas to restrict, not enhance, religious
freedom."If I understand your statements you oppose the US
government granting exemptions from regulations to business owners that request
the exemption for religious reasons. If that is the case, you are too late.
That practice is well established, in a number of ways, in our current
regulations and laws.
“James Madison, the most ardent supporter of the right of religious
conscience in our nation’s history and the primary author of the First
Amendment and the Bill of Rights, would generally be pleased.”. . . With the Hobby Lobby Case??!!What a pile of Baloney . . .What would make anyone believe that James Madison would want the
Separation of Church and State rendered irrelevant by our Right/Wrong-leaning
Supreme Court?This decision was no victory for religious freedom.It was a victory for religious oppression.And I feel ashamed
to have lived in a time when a degenerate America, led by a devolved Republican
Party, feels good about having damaged a defining American principle.We, as citizens, are all less free now because of this ridiculous Supreme
For people to have the freedom to exercise their conscience and their
religion,both as individual or in any they choose to organize and
associate themselves, churches, corporations, schools, unions, et al,What else could the founding fathers have had in mind?A king , or
federal government dictating to them how to live their lives publically?The left is wildly wrong on this one.ON this Independence
Day perhaps the left should read the Declaration of Independence, and
understand government should serve at and by the will of the people and not vice
The columnist misstates the holding when he says claims: "Burwell v. Hobby
Lobby Stores, Inc...upheld the right of religious conscience. The justices held
that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the Green family’s
sincere religious beliefs...."Unlike Citizen's United,
where SCOTUS held that the 1st Amend rights to speech of the individuals who
associate to own the entity flow-up through and imbue that corporation with
those same rights, Hobby Lobby was radically different.Here SCOTUS
held that corporations flat-out have the ability to "exercise religion"
with no required correlation or causation linked to the shareholders individual
beliefs. To state otherwise is either misinformed or deceitful. The
owners' aggregated religious rights are not what give this entity its own
rights under the 1st Amendment -- it is the corporation's own ability to
practice religion, that then makes any restriction to that under RFRA subject to
the scrutiny test that ACA failed.The holding is indefensibly
absurd, even if you agree with the policy outcome. Ex. SCOTUS
allows an LLC to become a devout adherent to the LDS faith by passing a 1-line
corporate resolution. Per SCOTUS, that faith is fully equivalent to any other
@Kayser: "...corporate attorneys are apparently terrified by this ruling.
The whole point of creating a corporations is to construct a legal identity
separate from that of the individual owners of the corporation."Citizens United is more likely to be used in this manner, which is why SCOTUS
choose the absurd route: that corporations practice religion.@Kayser
introduces the liability shield or "corporate veil" that protects an
owner's personal assets from judgments awarded against the corporate
entity. Defendants often ask the court to "pierce the veil" and one
basis for doing so is when an owner and a corporation are operated as
indistinguishable 'alter egos' with each other. Until
Citizens, that veil was a true wall, but the Citizens United reasoning changed
that to more of a membrane -- where corporate liabilities are blocked in one
direction, but owners' individual rights can pass-through in the other
direction, and asserted on the other side. Thus the alter-ego issue.Hobby Lobby did NOT reinforce the Citizen holding, which would have been at
least consistent, despite the perversion of corporate law.To avoid
that, SCOTUS profanely abused all religions, especially those so pleased with
the outcome. God is more than a gimmick.
Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UTOn a different
point, corporate attorneys are apparently terrified by this ruling. The whole
point of creating a corporations is to construct a legal identity separate from
that of the individual owners of the corporation. This ruling says that the
corporation itself has religious rights and that the morals of the owners are
indistinguishable from that of the corporation. This will potentially leave
corporate owners personally liable for the "immoral" acts of their
companies.6:55 p.m. July 3, 2014======== Great
post -- I hope with all my heart it is true.
Some don't like conscience at all because it is something they can't
control. it also teaches right and wrong, something those searching for
"social justice" are incapable of understanding.
"Some don't like conscience at all because it is something they
can't control."What a strange statement. "it also teaches right and wrong, something those searching for
"social justice" are incapable of understanding."Let's leave alone the nonsense of claiming that people interested in
social justice are incapable of understanding right and wrong, rather I'm
wondering if you are just parroting a certain fear mongering talk show host that
told people to be afraid of the term social justice, Glenn Beck I believe.
People working for social justice are acutely aware of "conscience" and
"right and wrong" and that mistreating others is an individual choice.
People working for social justice know that "I was only following
orders" is never an excuse to mistreat others, and it does not matter if the
orders are from military authority, from political leaders, or the supposed
words of their deity. "I'm treating you as less-than-human because I
was told to" is wrong and should burn the conscience of any human being.
Sadly and all-too-often we use religion and tradition as a reason to hurt people
around us. I will accept "the Bible says" from very Orthodox
Jews because they strive to live their lives in accord with all the rules found
in the Bible and don't push those rules on others. Modern
Christians? Not so much. They cherry pick the verses that support their
prejudice, especially when it applies against other groups, and then cause pain
and suffering because "God says..."
@mark@Stormwalker What utter nonsense. Christian are NOT out
to cause pain and suffering Ands certainly not any mare than any other person or
ideology. And I would contend that it is much less.And your attacks
against Christians seem to be from the dark ages. Often those
involved in "social justice" are following orders. Just look at the OWS
movement just a bunch of brainless dolts just following the orders of their
elitist masters.The left, the gays, and those in "social
justice" want enforce their views of right and wrong on to everyone as
much or more than modern Christian do.
to the truth"What utter nonsense. Christian are NOT out to cause
pain and suffering Ands certainly not any mare than any other person or
ideology. And I would contend that it is much less.And your attacks
against Christians seem to be from the dark ages."You do realize
how truly ironic these statements are?
@the truthIf somebody takes a gun they believe to be unloaded to use
as a threat to rob a convenience store, and they drop the gun and it is loaded
and fires, killing somebody, they are charged with premeditated murder in most
states. They were not "out to cause pain and suffering" but
that is what their actions caused. Christians may not intend to
cause harm, but their insistence that modern laws conform to bronze-age tribal
rules do cause harm to many people. The fact they carefully cherry-pick the
rules they say apply today while blithely ignoring other rules in the same
chapters of the same books adds insult to injury. The marching
orders that are given from pulpits and radical right radio stations and
publications are accepted as unquestioned truth and then blindly acted upon by
many Christians who take no time to research the information for themselves. And, by the way, the Christianity I describe is the Christianity I see
around me, denying modern science and denying rights to entire groups of people
because "God said..."
@Stormwalker They do not deny science.They deny the
pseudo-science, being pushed and forced on them. pseudo-science that is wholly
based on assumption, supposition and opinion that is being passed as fact.Marching orders from the "elistist" left from professors, and
school teachers, to civil leaders and radical group leaders, and from radio,
tv, publications and all other forms of media,... is the same. again OWS is a
perfect example.Everything you say about the right, the left does
as well, even to denying rights to those who have views and beliefs they
oppose.And the Christian right can not deny rights to people. that
can only be done by political action, i.e. making of laws or amendments, by the
rules set forth in our laws and constitution.Which they have always
followed to my knowledge.The same can't be said of the left.
which seems to trample the laws and the constitution to force their views on the
people, to deny rights to both individuals and to groups of people they oppose.
(IRS scandal, denying rights to religious and religions)The left in
my view has always been worse.
@the truth:As for OWS - they were calling the super-rich and
megacorporations on their crimes and unethical behavior. For those actions, in
cities across the country, they were brutalized by masked cops wearing full
military assault gear. You may not agree with anything OWS was
saying, but if you sanction the coordinated nationwide actions against peaceful
Americans in public spaces then you have no claim to valuing the Constitution or
the rule of law. Personally, I was ignoring OWS until I saw
government allowing militarized police to act as masked corporate thugs who were
"legally" shielded from their crimes. It motivated me to look at that
which the rich wanted hidden. The brutal treatment against OWS was
purposeful, to show what happens if you challenge those who have the money to
buy power in this country. As for science... Not when the religious
right is trying to have creationism taught in science classes.
I suppose this act also protects my religious belief, as a gay man, that God
created me and that He gives me just as much right to believe in marriage as
anyone else? Just who does this act protect, Mormons, Atheists, Baptist, gays?
When you talk about religious freedom, it should include everyone. So, who gets
to live their beliefs, the Mormon, who is against same sex marriage, or the gay
man who believes God would allow him to marry? I can just see people rolling
their eyes backwards. To many, religious freedom protects their beliefs and not
the beliefs of others! So, do people have a right to force their religious
beliefs on me? Should I be denied marriage because others don't believe in
it? No, logic tells me that I have a right to my belief in God as much as they
do. My belief in God also includes same sex marriage and who is somebody else to
deny me the right to live it? If you value your religious freedom, then value
the freedom of others. You know, many people around here won't even admit
that gay people may also believe in God!