« Back to Home Page

Sign up for the 3p daily dispatch:

Hobby Lobby Attempts to Claim Corporate Religion

Michael Kourabas
| Monday June 23rd, 2014 | 415 Comments

13139453903_d53e3532db_zCan a corporation pray?  Can it attend religious services?  Is it free to don religious garb?  In other words, can a corporation exercise religion?  All of those are questions raised by the Hobby Lobby case (Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and the related case, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius), likely to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming days.  More specifically, the issue facing the Court is whether a for-profit corporation be exempt from the Affordable Care Act (also called ACA or Obamacare) requirement that all companies cover certain FDA-approved birth control methods and devices as part of the health insurance packages offered to their workers.

This essential question has been percolating in the federal appeals courts for some time and has resulted in what is referred to as a circuit split — three circuit courts have struck down the contraception coverage rule, while two others have upheld it.  This means the federal appeals courts (the highest in the land below the Supreme Court) don’t really know what to do with this aspect of the ACA and the Supreme Court should step in and clarify.

The featured challenger in this case, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., is a chain of arts and crafts stores owned by the Green family (devout Southern Baptists, apparently), the members of which have committed to run the company according to Christian religious principles.  Hobby Lobby doesn’t have a problem offering its employees insurance that covers most forms of birth control, it only objects to the coverage of drugs and/or devices that “end human life after conception.”  (More on the other challenger, Conestoga Wood Specialties, here.)

Hobby Lobby’s legal argument is that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) — a 1993 federal law that states, in pertinent part, that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” — provides it with an exemption to the contraceptive rule.  If Hobby Lobby is right, then the government can only override the exemption if it can demonstrate a compelling public interest for doing so.  As Pew helpfully explains, prior to the RFRA the government only had to demonstrate that a law that supposedly burdened one’s religious practices advanced a “legitimate” government interest.  This “legitimate interest” standard was articulated by the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith, which backed away from the “compelling interest” standard that had previously been the law of the land.  Religious groups were up in arms after Smith, prompting Congress to step in and, via the RFRA, change the standard back to the more exacting “compelling interest.”

Crucially, the RFRA applies explicitly to persons and is silent on its application to for-profit corporations, such as Hobby Lobby.  So, in order for Hobby Lobby to invoke the RFRA in the first place, it must succeed in convincing the Court that it is covered by the RFRA, which is tantamount to arguing that a corporation can “exercise” religion.  One would be forgiven for scoffing at the suggestion, but according to recent Supreme Court precedent, the argument isn’t so far-fetched.  In its infamous Citizens United decision in 2010, for instance, the Court held that corporations and individuals shared the same First Amendment rights to political speech — i.e., the right to make unlimited political donations.  The very same First Amendment also protects an individual’s right to freely exercise his or her religion (under the so-called “Free Exercise” clause), so it’s not that much of a stretch to imagine the Court extending this aspect of the First Amendment to for-profit corporations, too.

Yet, even if the Court were to apply the RFRA to Hobby Lobby, the company would still need to show that the ACA’s contraceptive provision is a “substantial burden” on its religious freedom.  To accept that Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom is substantially burdened simply because it is required to provide its employees with health insurance plans that will cover certain forms of birth control, however, would appear to test the bounds of reason.  After all, Hobby Lobby is not forced to hand out IUDs and Plan B pills in its employees’ orientation packets.

The ostensible burden on Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom, rather, is really just a potentiality — the prospect that it may have to pay for something in which it does not believe.  In other words, it is entirely possible that no Hobby Lobby employee will ever seek coverage for the types of birth control with which the company takes issue, in which case the burden would remain theoretical.  Unless, of course, we’re really just talking about the philosophical burden on Hobby Lobby — the company is burdened simply by being subject to this particular provision of the ACA, which conflicts with its politics — in which case the Court’s response ought to be: too bad.  Hobby Lobby’s view on the morality of certain forms of birth control may ultimately prevail in the marketplace of ideas and be legislated as such, but for now, it hasn’t, and the company simply has to deal with it.

During oral argument in the Hobby Lobby case, the questioning eventually came to focus on the supposed abortive effects of the birth controls at issue.  Justice Kennedy closed his questioning by asking whether, in Solicitor General Donald Verilli’s view, a for-profit corporation could be compelled to pay for abortions.  Roberts clarified by asking: “Isn’t that what we are talking about in terms of their religious beliefs? That [Hobby Lobby and Conestoga] have to pay for these four methods of contraception that they believe provide abortions?”

The lead attorney for the challengers, Paul Clement, confirmed Chief Justice Roberts’ view that the case is, in fact, really about abortion.  Yet, if that is indeed true, then we ought to consider whether these specific methods of birth control really are so-called “abortifacients.”  According to the amicus brief filed by a number of medical groups led by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, “there is a scientific distinction between a contraceptive and an abortifacient and the scientific record demonstrates that none of the FDA-approved contraceptives covered by the [challenged] Mandate are abortifacients.”

What if Hobby Lobby wins anyway (a distinct possibility)?  Hobby Lobby’s political opponents warn that, if a for-profit can use religion to escape this particular federal law, it would open theflood gates to corporations claiming that they are not bound by others.  At oral argument, Justice Kagan gave voice to these concerns, recognizing that, were Hobby Lobby to prevail, private employers would then be allowed assert religious objections to gender discrimination laws, minimum wage laws, and family leave and child labor laws, all of which would be subject to what Kagan described as the “unbelievably high . . . compelling interest standard.”

A decision in Hobby Lobby is expected before the Court breaks for the summer (June 30), so be on the lookout.  As always, SCOTUSBlog is a great resource, as are anything by Jeffrey ToobinDahlia Lithwick, and Adam Liptak.  Stay tuned.

Image credit: Flickr/fanofretail


▼▼▼      415 Comments     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup
  • Silvia Dupont

    A corporation can`t be religious.Is has no ability to choose a religion.

    • Independence_R_US

      Not so. Sadly you’re misinformed. There are a ton of private corporations that are religious & have rules governing their employees. The employees have the right to decline a job offer if they feel the rules are not to their liking. The same can be said for any business. It wasn’t until Oblamo came into office & forced this HC fiasco on the country that the draconian rules are to be forced on everyone. Even if they don’t want them. But I digress.

      • Chris Sievert

        Hobby Lobby’s biggest problem is they have no problem paying for Forced/Mandatory Late Term Abortions. Since over 80% of the stock they sell comes from China they are in FACT PAYING FOR ABORTIONS and have been since the day they opened their doors.

        • Independence_R_US

          OH PLEASE. OBama doesn’t have an issue with promoting 1000’s of abortions here in the US. If I remember right, Oblamo went to china as part of his world apology tour. Instead of talking to the Chinese about human rights, he gave them more of the country & begged forgiveness for the US. But I digress.

          He & his morons running the show have made ruining this country his only real focus. I’m sure that you buy product from China, Pakistan, etc. Of course being a hypocrite you blame other for doing exactly the same thing. All major retail organizations buy from 3rd world nations. So why don’t you take a trip to each of their HQ’s & relay your stupidity to them. I’m sure they could use the laugh.

          You folks have the market cornered on stupidity.

        • ATragicRomantic

          Why do you think you deserve to be taken seriously when you resort to name calling?

        • ender098

          Because, he, like many of us are sick of trying to use logic and reason with people too ignorant to understand 1.) you cannot get something for nothing 2.) You can not tax a nation into prosperity 3.) Anything the Government GIVES YOU, it has to take from someone else …and 4.) You cannot regulate a business into healthier economic practices. If you can’t make people understand basic concepts that have been around for ages and worked while millions of liberal ideas have failed, you kinda lose your mind and temper…it’s simple…if you don’t get it, you’re dumb. You can’t make it sound any nicer!

        • Greg McGowan

          Apparently spell checker helped you spell ‘logic’ but I’m quite sure you do not understand the definition. How them corporate tax breaks doing for the US economy. Buy more Apple products, they just added another 100,000 employees to their payroll. ALL foreign workers.

        • Poet of the Light

          missed the logic did you? common core school huh?

        • ksting

          Actually all liberals believe in common core schooling. You know the schooling that says 1+1=3. Since it could have meant 1.3+1.4=2.7 and round that up it =3. Yes that is liberal type of thinking.

        • Poet of the Light

          LOL, if that wasn’t so funny my head would hurt from almost solving the problem in that fashion.
          What liberals fail comprehend is failing to solve a problem but claiming you did only compounds it, and it is really lying to guise underestimating the problem by overestimating their logic.

          Their”core problem” stems from adjusting the education to fit the limits of a student and again, call it successful as record number of Phd’s are handed out and no one knowing what to do with them. But hey they look good on the wall, don’t they?

        • 101fitness

          Get Obama to give G.M. more money. They open manufacturing plants in foreign countries. Don’t you just love that what you complain about a Company doing is being done by a Company that you help bail out? That is if you work and pay Taxes.

        • David Smith

          Quite well according to Obama. Didn’t you know everything’s supposedly fine? Now if only we didn’t have the highest corporate tax rate in the world to begin with.

        • Marty

          Hobby Lobby is not nor can it be religious. The persons that own it can and may be, but the corporation is a for profit corporation. I own a business that is for profit, If I claim to be religious and don’t believe in doctors or any medical interference and don’t want to provide any insurance does that mean I don’t have to obey any part of the law? Whether hobby Lobby buys from China or Louisiana makes no difference. They are a corporation with stocks that can be sold and new owners at any time.

        • Dom

          so what you are saying is – any business that says it is LGBT Friendly – that needs to stop – a corporation can not have sex and lgbt is only about sex – and corporations should not push their sexual preferences on helpless employees – got it – Thanks

        • Marty

          I guess I don’t quite get your point. LGBT is not only about sex first of all, It is also about equality. But no, a corporation can not have sex because it has no genitals. It may have owners that have sex, the business may be about sex, but the corporation can not have sex.

        • Dom

          what do the letters L G B T stand for – besides – variations of sexuality? if its about “equality” = why do 2 72 year old men who marry each other get a tax break just for paying a clerk $50? Are they going to start a family? Why are you against 3 lesbians getting the same tax break? why should either of those get tax breaks when my sister can not get one for helping take care of my mother ? in other words – Do i get to define what “equality” is or just you? its special rights till you ZERO OUT all the perks of paying a clerk $50. So – can a corporation tell its employees to be pro lgbt – even its muslim employees?

        • Marty

          I don’t define what equality means. but as far as the tax situation you describe you are talking about whole lots of things that are not related. When two men marry and get a tax break, that is the tax law. Are a man and a woman that are in there 20s that do not want kids and get married entitled to the same tax break? The tax law may allow for tax breaks for your sister, you need to see an accountant, but not for being married. your sister is not married to your mother. As far as a corporation telling its employees to do anything, they should not be involved in their personal lives including marriage, abortion, or sexual preference. That is why Hobby Lobby is wrong.

        • Dom

          Hobby Lobby hands out 16 of 20 kinds of Obamacare birth control – Hobby Lobby has no interest in your sex life – they dont care if your
          gene pool is wiped out by abortions – they can not stop anyone from
          getting the morning after pill – any 12 year old girl can get it. So if the law says my sister and mom can not marry to get the tax break – you are OK with THAT inequality. I bet you are OK with standing in the way of the happiness of 2 1st cousins who want to marry! Are those laws not unjust and needs to be changed – IF YOU CARE ABOUT EQUALITY – but you dont – you want more special stuff for only certain groups. come on – try harder – how is hobby lobby not paying for a couple of things while providing 16 kinds of birth control — “telling” people what to do with their hobby lobby paychecks

        • Dom

          So if there is a law that discriminates -gives a couple of 70 year old gays who get married so they pay less than a single hetero – you are OK with THAT Inequality. You DO NOT want to change that law so every one has EQUALITY? i agree – corporations should not be allowed to preach the Humanist religion and promote lgbt policies.

        • Silvia Dupont

          You could not be more wrong LGBT is not about having sex it is about what gender you are attracted to or even who you are as a person.

        • Dom

          sooooo — all the cries for SAME SEX marriage – sex will never be involved? who you are “attracted to” – you mean – sexually attracted to? why isnt it LGBTH – for hetero? you saying heteros are not “persons” ? thats extreme and hateful

        • David Smith

          Yes. At least, that’s what it SHOULD mean. It’s your property. If you don’t want to provide something that you disagree with, you shouldn’t have to. Let’s not forget this isn’t medicine we’re talking about. Nobody ever died from keeping their pants on.

        • robertallen1

          Since when are abortion and contraception not medicine? And suppose the owners of a for-profit company disagree with blood transfusions or invasive surgery, are the employees of this company required to do without or they to be deprived of the same rights and protections as the employees of other for-profit companies? You are truly despicable.

        • Dom

          try to stick with the facts – Hobby Lobby is not refusing transfusions – Hobby Lobby won in the 1oth Circuit as there was no showing of material harm to employees – thats the law as of now.

        • robertallen1

          Hey, moron, this case involves more than just Hobby Lobby.

          Hey, moron, SCOTUS’ decision overrides everything.

        • Dom

          - the Supreme Court said blacks were personal property – is that the kind of thing you are cheering for? Isnt this just about you being too cheap to buy your own condoms because the sheep wont….Once you are done there – can the Supremes use hobby lobby to say what ever they want about anything or is their decision limited to the matters in the writ of cert? your mom says hi.

        • robertallen1

          And just what does the issue of human slavery have to do with Hobby Lobby. Don’t try deflection, You’re too stupid and far too ignorant to bring it off.

          And by the way, a writ of certiorari is simply an order from a higher court directing an inferior court or other inferior body to send the record of a proceeding for review. Nothing to do with Hobby Lobby.

          And speaking of your ignorance, I repeat and I will keep repeating, if I knew who you were and where you
          were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities.

        • Dom

          wow – you really need to change your meds =- are the Surpemes always the final word on a topic – like when they said blacks were personal property? Ever work on writs of cert to the Supremes? I have. Ever have them take a case on cert? I have. yeah yeah – i get – you have a mental disease or defect that has you repeating stupid stuff. if i knew where you live – i’d have you locked up as you clearly you think you are a lawyer and keep making threats. lol — i know – you will keep saying it – makes you feel so tingly to type those words – woa – am i glad you are with the other side – you make tea party people look like members of Mensa.

        • robertallen1

          A non-response if ever there was one–and yes, I’ve worked on writs of certiorari to the Supremes, you f*g phony. You haven’t been able to refute one thing I’ve posted. So who are you to talk about mental derangement or are you a phony psychiatrist as well as a phony lawyer?
          I repeat and I will keep repeating, if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities.

        • Dom

          lol – so you SHOULD know – they can only touch on issues identified for review – they can’t free lance it. I’ve pretty much refuted EVERYTHING you say – you are just too wacked out to realize it. And – i do have a degree in psychology – anyone who keeps doing the same thing – expecting a different result – textbook crazy. I told you – someone once tried to do what you are threatening to do – and the law got after THEM – so have at it Gladys. Please keep your car and house clean – i dont want your cooties on them when the court gives them to me.

        • robertallen1

          As the article has demonstrated, the relevant issues have been identified for review, moron.

          And by the way, a degree in psychology does not qualify you as an m.d. and a diagnosis based only on blogs shows that you clearly don’t. So this is just something else that you’ve lied about.

          The facts show that you haven’t refuted anything I have posted and when you have to claim yourself the winner, you’re really the loser. So once again, I repeat and I will keep repeating, if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities

        • Dom

          lol – one who repeats the same and expects different results – wacko. so g’dhead – who would you report what to? you dont know? pretty stupid. thank goodness for people like you making it possible for control of the Senate – and then the White House to change.

        • robertallen1

          The state bar for starters, lying motherfucker.

        • Dom

          come on with a child like you of course your mom would run to a straight thinking guy like me for loving. Ohhh you are jealous

          you say its just geography – so what would you “report” where is your proof? what do you back up your allegations with? Oh thats right – Dems make things up – you will say your evidence was on Lois Lerners hard drive. its sad – i do feel for your mother.

        • robertallen1

          ” . . . people pay me large sums of money to explain legal concepts – send me your master card and credit history and i will get back to you.” This is clearly enough to begin an investigation.

        • Dom

          of what? Speaking of – your bill is getting pretty high so when will i be getting your master card ?

        • robertallen1

          I repeat and I will keep repeating, if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities and this post puts another nail in your coffin.

        • Dom

          .. lol – again — you will report what – that people get paid for giving advice? the longer i can have you obsessing on this – the fewer other people you can pester – just doing my part

        • robertallen1

          I repeat and I will keep repeating that if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities. So it would be better for you if you, a non-attorney, were lying about being paid to give legal advice, for if you’re telling the truth (not that I believe that you are), you are practicing law without a license.

        • Dom

          where are you licensed to put forward to the public opinions on legal issues? how do you know i am or am not – yet like 50 times you spout off you.quite a man crush you have bobbie.

        • robertallen1

          Once again, if you were an attorney, you would have said so before now and furthermore, it’s obvious from your posts that you don’t know the first thing about the law, just as it’s obvious that no one would pay you for your legal opinions. .
          And my name is Robert, you cocksucking, lying, son of a bitch.

        • Dom

          i asked where you were licensed to provide legal interpretations of laws and court cases – you said it was bad if i was doing that – what special places says its ok for YOU to do it.So lets hear it? Are you one of those Special Rights people? Thing is – my legal interpretations have been good enough for the Supremes – so why would i care what a sad boy thinks? I;m pretty sure you are the one who does the sucking – when you can find the $10 to pay the paperboy.

        • robertallen1

          As you are the one who has admitted to taking money for his legal “opinions,” (not that I believe you) which constitutes the practice of law, the burden is on you to provide information concerning your licensure.

          And by the way, with the exception of someone acting in pro per, in which case he is not paid for his legal opinions, attorneys are the only ones allowed to provide legal interpretations to the Supremes and as you’re not one, you’ve lied again, you dishonest motherfucker. .

          So once again, I repeat and I will continue to repeat, if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities for practicing law without a license.

        • Dom

          i have done various kinds of work for pay – worked in a cpa firm – cpas interpret tax law all the time including in tax court. so princess roberta .. I keep asking where you are licensed – what basis do YOU have for telling people what the laws mean? Have you given disclaimers that you are just a sad little girl and no one should take what you say- or are you creating an impression that you know what you are talking about? so you say NON lawyers can provide interpretations to the Circuit Court of Appeals? District Courts? Just admit it – you want people to think you know something when you dont. sad – we will pray for you.

        • robertallen1

          So are you now claiming to be a CPA–and just what are “interpretations” to circuit courts of appeal or district courts as if judges require the legal opinions of non-attorneys. Sorry, a*sh*le, once again, you’re not fooling anyone.
          And my name is Robert, c*ks*r.

        • Dom

          lol – no – your boyfriend does that. where did i say that? so – give us YOUR qualfications. how would YOU know what judges ask for? you are so so jealous roberta

        • robertallen1

          I’m not the one claiming that I am paid for my legal opinions or interpretations.
          And once again, ass-brain, my name is Robert.

        • Dom

          so you admit – you HAVE no basis for any comments you make on legal topics. no reason anyone should find you credible.at least i have brains – and get your panties bunched.

        • robertallen1

          I haven’t admitted anything, you lying m*rf*r and when you feel the need to claim you have brains, you have none.
          Once again, I repeat, I repeat and will continue to repeat, if I knew who you were and where you are, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities for practicing law without a license.

        • Dom

          yah – its a hoot – clearly you are broken – So i am correct – no one should take anything you say as accurate – no qualifications – no licenses – no accomplishments … sad bobbie sad

        • robertallen1

          Once again, I’m not the one claiming that I am paid for my legal opinions or interpretations..
          Once again, I repeat and will continue to repeat that if I knew who you were and where you are, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities for practicing law without a license.

          And once again, f*k-head, my name is Robert.

        • Dom

          lol its so so funny – you have no idea whether i am or am not – but you are just so worked up to report to someone that MAYBE i am not – How does that complaint go – While i was holding my member and acting like i knew the law – someone told me i didnt and i want him investigated. Lol — yes – yes you are a Democrat

        • robertallen1

          Once again, I repeat and will continue to repeat that if I knew who you were and where you are, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities for practicing law without a license. In that way as an affirmative defense (look that up if you don’t know what it is), you would have to produce your license and if you couldn’t – – –
          And no, moron, I’m not a Democrat. .

        • Dom

          no – no i would not have to “produce” a license – they are public record – only a Moooo Ron would not know that – so anyone who “reports” something that can be looked up on the internet – would prove they know nothing about the law but also that they are making the claim with knowing falsity about a licensed professional -slander libel per se — So – how many miles does your car have om it? Have you paid the taxes on your house – just seeing what it will take when i take everything you own

        • robertallen1

          You are not a licensed professional. You are not a licensed attorney and yet you claim you take money for your legal “interpretations.” Well, put this money where your month is and sue me, motherfucker.
          Once again, I repeat and will continue to repeat that if I knew who you were and where you are, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities for practicing law without a license–and, by the way, such reporting does not constitute slander/libel per se, fucking ignoramus.

        • ksting

          Wow, I thought Dom was supposed to have been a lawyer having prepared certs for the Supreme Court, and now he is a psychologist, which is it. By the way psychology does not have much to do with law so we are supposed to take this guys words as factual law. Sorry in cases before the Supreme Court I would listen to lawyers, historians, political scientists and judges before I would a psychologist.

        • ksting

          You have question on slavery and how the Supreme Court ruled on slavery. Until the Civil War the Supreme Court ruled for slavery because it was okay by the Constitution, If you do not realize it, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the SCOTUS rules things constitutional based on the Constitution. After the Civil War an amendment to the Constitution was created that outlawed slavery. After that the Supreme Court ruled against slavery. However, it had to be changed in the Constitution for the Supreme Court to rule against slavery. The same with religion. Before the SCOTUS can rule against religion the Constitution will have to be changed. Sorry most people are religious and that will not happen.

        • Dom

          you TOTALLY missed the point – the Supremes screw up – they make bad rulings – EVERY court does. Are you saying that – before the Supremes could rule FOR abortion or SSM – the constitution has to be changed?

        • ksting

          If you are trying to use the Supreme Courts ruling on slavery as incorrect rulings then you are wrong. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on laws pertaining to the Constitution. At that time slavery was completely legal and written that way in the Constitution. The Supreme Court had no other choice than to rule pro-slavery. They cannot rule opposite the Constitution regardless of how much they want to. So this is a bad example to use as a bad ruling. Was it morally right no, was it legally correct at the time? Yes.

        • ksting

          By the way the Supreme Courts ruling was based on a fictional part of the Constitution and yes it should have been changed by amendment. However, that fictional part of the Constitution might be what is used to overturn Roe v. Wade someday. That fictional part is the right to privacy. There is no clause in the Constitution for the right to privacy. Look it up. As for SSM there are ways they judges could get around it by what is in the Constitution however, there are ways they can rule against SSM by what is in the Constitution.

        • Dom

          you still miss the point – courts screw up or make up what ever logic they want to reach a point – the right to privacy is in what the call the “penubra” of rights thats where they found the right to abortion in 73

        • ksting

          No you missed the point, you brought up the point of slavery, Tell me how according to the Constitution as it was in the 1850s and 60s that the Supreme Courts ruling was incorrect. Now also tell me where this penubra of rights is in the constitution. It is not it was just a way for the Chief Justice to justify the liberal courts ruling. Once again tell me where “in the constitution” it says that we have the right to privacy. It does not. Now I have never said that SCOTUS is 100% correct and gave one example where they were not. However, they are supposed to rule on laws according to the Constitution. That is why they declare laws as Constitutional or Unconstitutional. I can point out another great mistake they made. When Roberts declared the mandate to be a tax. The legislature in passing the law called it a penalty and right out said it was not a tax. The President called it a penalty and said it was not a tax. Then when it came under fire the lawyers called it a tax. So if the people who created and passed the law said it was not a tax then why did the Supreme court say it was?

        • Dom

          you still just like to hear yourself talk – i brought up the point of the Supreme Court making bad decisions – using slavery as an example. i told you where the right to privacy was “found” The ACA as a tax thing – there is a concept they use where they can use anything that makes a law work – so they twisted it. I am not saying i agree with it – I am saying that is how the game is played. Aside from that — a LOT of the ACA is in the tax code.

        • ksting

          I also told you that the slavery ruling was not a bad ruling. It was totally correct by the constitution at the time. It was correct not bad. So what is your point.

        • Dom

          my point is – you like to hear yourself talk and lecture people. i dont care about what YOU think about the Constitution – i will count you among those remembering when were property and it was OK to lock people up for being Japanese

        • ksting

          No I am completely against slavery and I hate that it ever happened. The fact is you tried to make a point that was completely incorrect. The Supreme Court did not make a bad ruling back then but a correct one. Did I like the fact that they had to rule that way? No. The Internment camps of the Japanese is another bad point in History. I don’t think it should have happened. However, people were scared and let points of the law be temporarily be forgotten. I wished it had never happened but it did. However, if you are trying to make a point use good examples instead of examples that disprove everything you say. I mean that is just plain stupid.

        • Dom

          wow – parsing “bad” vs “correct” who gives a crud if its “correct” if its “bad” Its correct vs incorrect and good vs bad. I am saying a decision concluding blacks are personal property is BAD and you feel some NEED to say it was correct – WHO CARES – its still bad – RIGHT? I live in the REAL world and deal with REAL cases and controversies and deal with REAL laws and REAL judges. people i help don’t say – wow – i just lost my life savings but yipee that was one “correct” decision – I say OJ getting away with murder was BAD – you way – it was CORRECT – and you’d enjoy telling that to the Goldman family. anything more you say – is just you loving to act smart – get it yet?

        • ksting

          No I am not acting smart but because you are intellectually inferior it might seem that way. When I used the word bad that was a moral judgement. The Supreme Court made a judicially correct ruling. You just won’t accept you used a bad example. Now you go to O.J. wow you really like to jump around. Okay i’ll play. Were you on the jury did you hear all the facts. NO you were not I don’t really know if the jury was correct or not I don’t have all the facts. To them it was not proven that he was guilty. Are you going to say we now have to get rid of our entire law system?

        • ksting

          This penubra you talk about I am sorry I have not heard of it. However, it is not in the constitution it was not put in by the founders. No where they said the right of privacy came from the 4th saying that this leads to the belief that they meant for privacy to be a right, but it does not say that.

        • Dom

          Just telling what my con law professor said. not agreeing – just thats where the Supremes came up with it. its like people in Detroit not paying their bills saying they have a right to water. lots of “rights” – few admit to “responsibilities” in their part.

        • ksting

          No because a in the religious view point an employee getting a transfusion would be sinning but the employer would not be. However, providing the means for an abortion would make you an accomplice of murder, a sin, you do not have the right to make someone in their view point sin.

        • ksting

          Yes it could be sold and the new owners would have the right to change its insurance. However, these owners are religious and do not believe in abortion and should not have to provide over their religious beliefs the abortion pill.

        • ksting

          The fact that only 5 people own stock in hobby lobby and all 5 are from the same family makes it a tightly held business. Their beliefs are intertwined with the business. Notice they are not open on Sundays. Now as for your dumb claim of a religious point. You obeying the law does not make you break of your beliefs. If you don’t believe in medicine then providing it for your employees is not sinning they might be sinning but you are not. However, providing the means for an abortion (the abortion pill) is being an accomplice in murder and that is a sin. In their view providing the abortion pills is a sin. You do not have the right to tell them to sin, regardless of whether you believe it is a sin or not, does not matter, it is what they believe that matters.

        • Marty

          It is called a “closely held” corporation. Your argument makes no sense.

        • ksting

          I guess you are wrong since the Supreme Court, which knows better, agrees with me.

        • ksting

          No it is your argument that makes no sense, if you can call it an argument. So what if it is a closely held corporation, and yes that is what it is called, the supreme court ruled that the owners beliefs are part of the business. You might not like it but like you liberals like to say it is the law of the land.

        • Jay Maddox

          you win the internet, sir.

        • Independence_R_US

          What makes you think I care whether you take me seriously?

          What makes you think that anyone really cares?

          It’s obvious that like the settled science of climate change, you folks don’t care to hear anything other than what you want to hear. Isn’t that the typical responses for liberals. Don’t tell me anything I don’t want to hear because I might have to think or reason. You folks don’t want there to be another out come other than what you want. Regardless of truth.

          Can you say Obamacare, the economy, the job market, the border issues, the IRS debacle, the Benghazi debacle, etc. The list is endless for you folks. You don’t want truth. You want to have your agenda pushed at all costs. You’re leader has already stated the the ends justify the means. Lies, deceit, misinformation are all the tools of you folks.

          The really sad part is that you feel the rest of America is a gullibly ignorant & stupid as you folks. But I digress.

        • cementmanandred

          You have nerve citing Obama for “lies, deceit,misimformation.” What the hell do you call what Bush/Cheney did to get us into that war? You know the one with the country that had ALL those chemical wheapons?
          While the ACA may not be the perfect answer. While Obama may surely have his short comings. You can’t honestly sit there and damn him to hell after what his predecessor did to this country, our economy, our deficit, unemployment as well as the thousands of dead young men and women they are responsible for?
          And not once, has the Republi-nazi’s offered an alternative to the ACA. No, it’s so much easier for them to just keep screaming the same insidious rhetoric, over and over, than to stop and actually offer up anything positive or constructive.
          But I digress.

        • Independence_R_US

          Again you assume that I was for the war or am a republican. Also, you assume that becasue someone else did something wrong that it’s OK for Obama to do something worse. That ludicrous at best & intentionally stupid.

          I gather you’ve conveniently forgotten all the wonders from Oblunder. All the debacles that continue to crop up. I assure you that this is just the tip of the iceberg with Oblamo. But I digress.

          Sadly liberal are more about warm & fuzzy than reality & truth. That’s truly sad. You feel that it’s OK to not take responsibility for your actions, that it’s OK to be bad becasue others have done so, that there are free lunches, that you’re entitled, etc. Then wonder why things are falling apart around you.

          I’ve made many suggestions as to things that would be better. So has the GOP. But they fall on deaf dumb ears. All becasue of the liberals in the senate who will not comprimies even when they know it’s for the betterment of the country.

          You are sadly blinded by liberal media & lack of any real facts or truth. Or maybe you’re just too ignorantly gullible. Either way it’s sad that there are so many like minded ignorant folks like yourself. The repercussions for your ignorance & gullibility are coming to fruition. And if the current responses continue you folk swill continue to blame other for your actions.

        • ksting

          If you believe that Bush/Cheney lied then you also believe Bill Clinton lied. He believed they had WMDs and about went to war with Iraq because of them but was scared of by a movie called Wagging the Dog. Look it up. He was afraid at that time of being accused of Wagging the Dog. They had WMDs, whether they got rid of them, hid them really well or used them all we might never know. The fact is that they did have them and had used them. Now did they lie to us? No. They were just wrong. They believed he had them which at one point he did. That is knot lying that is just being wrong.

        • Marty

          You always digress. The other thing you always do is blame liberals for the problems in this country. You have a laundry list of problems that you blame on the president, What about the other branches of government? How about a house of representatives that voted over 50 times to eliminate or defund or get rid of the ACA? That is a wise use of time and money. If we stopped paying these congress people we would be better off by far. Why do these people get a pension ofter two terms? How many people in the private sector get a fully funded pension after working just a few years? Why are we paying these people to be in Washington about half time and paying them for fundraising the rest of the time? Out of your whole list, how many of those can the president do without congress? Or do you want him to invoke executive orders for all of them and then complain?

        • Independence_R_US

          Well Marty it’s like this. Has the GOV created a ton of problems. YES. Yet when you have a certain group that cause most of the problems or makes the existing ones worse, then you have to point the blame to them. What’s sad is that you cant see or wont see that the current regime is making bad situations a lot worse. That you folks continue to use the lame excuse that others did bad so it’s OK for you to do bad. Maybe you should ponder this statement. TWO WRONGS DON’T MAKE A RIGHT. Also the past faults of some presidents are amateurish to the current president’s issues. Or are you trying to say that the current debacles from this president are to be blamed on Bush, the Tea Party, Cruz, the GOP, etc? If so then you’re a major part of the problem.

          The fact that the house wanted to gut Oblundercare should get them a parade. Unless you’re another of those that can’t understand facts. That can’t see that Oblundercare is killing HC. It’s nothing as promised & is costing folks a ton. Is that you stand that Oblundercare is a reasonable & did what was promised? If so your argument is moot as your too blind to offer any real comments.

          Sadly & as usual you misunderstand the reality of crony capitalism or corporatism. Maybe you should do some real research into the topics I mentioned instead of blaming me for your ignorance of reality.

        • Marty

          I very much disagree with your premise that I misunderstand anything. It appears to me that you are the one that can not understand facts. The United States is the only industrialized country in the world that does not provide health care to it’s citizens. The observation that wasting taxpayers money on over 50 votes deserves a parade shows you have no more concern over tax payers money than Cruz and the TEA party when they shut down the government. As fas as our president killing HC as you put it, FAR from the truth. GET the facts. Just because you want to believe something does not make it so. The ACA may need some adjustments, but as long as all of the conservative just want to stall and do nothing, that is what is going to be done. NOTHING.

        • Chris Sievert

          I’m a retired Goldsmith and actually the last thing I bought from China was my 5 year old cell phone. The computer I’m posting on may have individual Components that were made in China but the Mother Board case and Hard Drive and Memory were all from Ireland, Japan, and Korea and were assembled in an American Plant. No I don’t buy crap from China if I can at all avoid it and spend more money paying for Quality Products, my work tools came from Switzerland. The metals I use are NOT from china neither are the gemstones.
          We weren’t talking about buying products from Pakistan etc. Just the Products from China and Hobby Lobby saying they are Against SUPPORTING ABORTION because of their Faith PROVE they worship the DOLLAR more than Jesus or they wouldn’t BUY ANYTHING from a Country that has a MANDATORY FORCED ABORTION LAW.
          Funny how you assume I’m a Democrat, I’m not, I just don’t think anyone should get to determine what laws they follow using bogus arguments about what they are Against due to some book. Maybe you haven’t Heard but the Satanic Temple has decided to sue the Government over Abortion RESTRICTIONS using the Hobby Lobby Precedent. How are those Religious Exemptions looking now? Hobby Lobby because of Jesus gets out of Birth Control and The Temple gets to REMOVE all Restrictions on Abortion Clinics for Satan. Almost sounds like a fair trade stupid for even STUPIDER. But you guys had to open the gate.

        • Independence_R_US

          You’ve proven one thing for sure. While you claim not to be a liberal you walk, talk & act like one. Your gullible ignorance is astounding. I could spend hours trying to educate the unthinking closet liberals like yourself. But that would be a waste of time. I could point out the huge holes in your illogic. But in the end your “I can’t see the forest for the trees” mentality wouldn’t allow you to see reality or any truth other than the one you make for yourself. See one can help the misinformed but not the intentionally stupid. Your logic is so erroneous & to try and use what you did for a living as an excuse for stupidity just makes my point.

          So how many parts did you use for your trade as well as tools that were made in countries with questionable human rights issues? I would say most. So using your stupid logic means that you were helping those that did bad to kids & you’re an accomplice. Thanks for clearing that up. Or maybe you’re just like the hypocrites that are blaming HL for things all the while doing worse. But I digress.

        • Dom

          Obama’s White House gift shops sell the same Made in China stuff — so you are announcing Obama is proudly supporting the Chinese Communists as they push out into the Pacific and imprison anyone who does not tow the line? Hmm well – Obama IS following that lead. Do you have ANYTHING made in China in your house, comrade? I guess you are a communist as well then!

        • ksting

          I have commented on this lame argument of yours before. The bible does not say who you can do business with. It does not say that you cannot do business with sinners. That is not being a hypocrite. You do not have the right to push your beliefs on others. This thing you keep pushing is not part of their religion so you might as well shut up on this point because it does not stick.

      • mike021

        You’re actually the one who is misinformed. It does not matter whether a corporation is publicly or privately held – both have to follow the business laws of the state in which they do business, and both have to follow federal law. For instance, privately held companies can not violate federal worker safety laws (OSHA rules) by claiming their internal rules are in conflict with them. A major exception is that some businesses that are religious in nature do not have to follow anti-discrimination laws for positions that are ministerial in nature. For example, private schools can discriminate when hiring teachers whose job it is to teach religious studies but they can’t for say a janitorial position within the same school.

        • Independence_R_US

          No you are. FED laws can’t supercooled state laws. But I digress. Besides this is being tested in the courts for it’s constitutionality. You folks want to have things both ways. Hobby Lobby isn’t violating OSHA etc. So that’s another liberal red hearing.

          If that’s so then Oblamo couldn’t have exempted 1000’s of folks from it. Or are you telling me that Obama has broken his own fed law? Surely not? You mean like the implementation of Oblundercare, the Dreamer act, the not enforcing our laws on the borders. etc. SURELY NOT!!!!

          More liberal stupidity.

        • Irony

          Um … “Supremacy clause” look it up dumbass. Federal law trumps state law unless the state law is more strict than federal.

        • Poet of the Light

          Supremacy clause doesn’t always trump state law and is only confirmable by a Fed. Judge when its used. In most cases the state law is usually declared unconstitutional ( flawed in theory as written) and again by a judge before the appeals process can be utilized.

        • Independence_R_US

          Oh so when the states were enforcing their borders & using a stricter standards & were stopped by Oblamo & Holder (illegals) then they didn’t have a right to stop them. Hmm I guess that doesn’t wash. So it seems that you folks only want to apply laws as you see fit. Just like Obamacare. But I digress. Oh don’t forget that Oblamo gave exemptions for Oblundercare, move out parts of it against the law, etc. But I digress.

        • ksting

          Actually immigration and who can and who cannot come into this country is a Federal Power given by the Constitution. The federal government does have the right to make all the rules in that area. The point I did not like about that ruling is that basically the state laws were saying the same thing as the federal law and should have been upheld on that basis.

        • Dom

          where are you licensed to practice law – ? which bar exams did you pass?

        • Dom

          lets see – what kind of guy spends way too much time thinking about another man’s anal region.

        • robertallen1

          Let’s see – what kind of guy spends way too much time keyboarding about matters of which he knows nothing, but only thinks he does?

        • ksting

          You are correct to a point about the Supremacy Clause. The Constitution gives the Federal Government certain powers, and any laws they make under those powers the Federal law is Supreme. However, according to the 10th amendment all powers not given to the Federal Government by the Constitution are the powers of the State. Therefore if the Government makes a law in an area that they do not have that power then the Federal law is not supreme. They had no right to make that law it is a power of the State.

        • Greg McGowan

          Got it backwards. No State can pass a law that overrides, supercedes or negates a Fed law. What you are saying is that a State can pass a law voiding the Bill of Rights for the citizens of that State.

        • Independence_R_US

          ANNNNNN wrong answer. Maybe you need to go to CO, CA, WA and buy some weed. The states declared it legal. Even though it’s against FED law. But I digress. See you folks always want to have it both ways. You want to only obey the laws you want to obey & have other obey all the laws. Can you say Oblundercare.

          Sadly you are so full of that special fecal material. Civil rights are not given by any governing agency. But you would know this if you were as smart as you thought you were. They stand outside & dictate the limits of the GOV concerning them.

          As usual you liberals think anything you want suddenly becomes a civil right. The right to have HC provided, a fee education, etc. That your pursuit of happiness supersedes intelligence/common sense & others rights. The states can’t dictate or infringe on our civil rights as they’re not given by the state or the FED. Hmm

        • cementmanandred

          After reading many of your comments, I’m thinking that it’s your mind that has digressed

        • Marty

          Civil rights were signed into law in the 60s. Violating one’s civil rights is a crime. There is a law against violating civil rights. So even though you may not understand the laws nor agree with them, you have civil rights. Being ignorant does not disqualify you from having them.

        • Dom

          thats – WOW – ignorant – so – before 1960 – there were no civil rights? But if you mean – you thank the Republicans for supporting Martin Luther King and pressing Democrats to put their white Klan robes back into the closet – you are welcome!

        • Marty

          Legally there were few “civil rights” before the 1960s. As far as the Klan goes, I wish the Klan was gone, but unfortunately, after the democrats put their robes in the closet, you and your friends got them out, put them on, got your AK47s and shut the government down every time things did not go the way you thought they should. So again, thankfully you have civil rights, just because you don’t know about them does not mean they do not exist. Like many things you TEA party people “believe”, not real. Read a book once in a while. The world is round, the earth is over 6000 years old, and global warming is real.

        • Dom

          lol what are you talking about – few civil rights before the ’60’s – i was there – they existed – I do agree – its my civil right to have an ak47 – its you and Obama that had armed guards try stop WW II vets coming to D C one last time to see the Memorials before they died and barred school kids from the White House – while Obama jetted around on golf trips with fact cat 1% lobbyists – disgusting isnt it. Explain how Global Warming is real – when in the 1970s – alllll the scientists said there is a COMING ICE AGE – was on the cover of Time Magazine – climates are NEVEr wrong are they? Do you dispute their science on THE COMING ICE AGE!!! lol

        • ksting

          Though I agree with you on most things this is one that I will have to disagree with you on. The only reason the states are getting away with the pot issue is because the President is not doing his duty and enforcing the law (the pot head himself). However, drugs have been ruled to follow under the interstate commerce clause for one and that is a power given to the Central Government. So those laws in Colorado, Washington, Oregon and California are actually illegal and the government could take actions.

        • Independence_R_US

          That is what I stated. That Obama is allowing those states to do what ever they want. Yet when ever a state tries to do something he don’t want them to do then he sicks Holder on them.

          The drug laws, Border laws, immigration laws are all under the FED purview. Yet a law is only as good as a deterrent when it’s being enforced. That’s the point. Obama is ignoring the laws of the land.

        • ksting

          I somewhat agree with you and we are probably saying the same thing. Just that he enforces the laws he likes and ignores the ones that he does not like. Unlike the oath he took to sustain all the laws of the land.

        • ksting

          Try again. The Federal Government only has the powers to legislate in the areas that they are given by the Constitution. If a State decides not to sell booze on Sunday the Federal Government has no right to tell them they have to, why, because that is not a power given to them in the Constitution. Many people believe the government has the right to make laws about anything. They don’t. Education for example is a state right. The only way the government can enforce its decisions on education is by threatening to with hold money from the state. However, if a state completely refuses to go along with an education decision by the Federal Government the government has no power to force them to do it. This is the same with many laws, they can only make laws on the powers given to them by the Constitution.

        • Marty

          You digress again. I don’t know what “supercooled” is supposed to mean, but federal laws can and do supersede state laws all the time. Another thing you ultra conservatives want to think. If you think it is does not make it correct.
          As far as not enforcing the laws on our borders, how many more illegal immigrants have been deported under this administration than the previous one? Or doesn’t that matter because Bush was a republican? How come you scream about the president breaking the laws but you have not said a word about ole Cheney and Bush being tried for war crimes. And Hobby Lobby is not violating OSHA in all probability, but they want it both ways, they want to claim freedom of religion and exempt themselves from the laws they don’t like yet they want to utilize the rest of the corporate laws that let them write off all their expenses to reduce their tax consequences.

      • Greg McGowan

        You misunderstood. The corporation has its own religion for its ‘personal welfare and “salvation” , like you choose a religion to belong to and not the type of business it engages it.

        • Independence_R_US

          No I don’t misunderstand. So you’re telling me that a Christian private school can’t dictate that teachers have to be Christians. Hmm So I guess you’re not correct on your assumptions. Nice try though.

          The rules stipulated by Hobby Lobby we’re in contention before Oblundercare. Yet it seems that the only folks that have to adhere to the laws are those that you folks say. The 1000’s of those crony’s that Obama gave exemptions too, or the parts of the law pushed out & amended aren’t an issue. Hmm

          The rules were accepted by the employee at the time. It was the laws that changed afterwards. Thus the court case. Also, the lies that Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to provide birth control are little more than concoctions of those liberal liars. They’re talking about the morning after pill which is a chemical abortion. Hmm

          BTW should you attempt to work at a Jewish place, you won’t be able to decide what rules you want to follow. The same for a Muslim run facility. So I guess you folks have an issue with being hypocrites or are just against Christianity. But I digress.

        • Spellcheck!

          Good Lord you’re a total idiot…but I digress…

      • john bing

        no, you are uninformed…a corporation has no soul and cannot make a single decision in its own way….only the people in charge of it can make decisions. Therfore, there truly is no reality to the fiction of the “corporate person”.

        • David Smith

          The corporation is not the buildings and financial assets. It is the people who own it. And people can choose to live by a religion and use their property in such a manner. You can choose to close on Sundays, you can choose to be open on Christmas. If there was any legal issue with this, Obama wouldn’t have been able to grant waivers to the ENTIRE law for his donors and entire cities, that didn’t bother to site a reasoning. Let alone one as important as religious freedom.

        • ksting

          The corporation being a person is not and has never been a ruling of the SCOTUS. This is just a liberal take of it. What they said is that the corporation can represent the ideas of the owners and therefore the corporation has the rights like individuals in politics and now in religion. It is not that the corporation has religion it is that the owners do.

      • Silvia Dupont

        Really there is a big difference between private and public non profit and corporate.

      • gesoflip

        It’s cute to see you try to make a “legitimate” argument, then turn around and say “Oblamo.”

    • ender098

      Why not? The government is set up to provide a separation of Church and STATE….not Church and Corporation. Unless you want the Government to take over all Corporations…..they have a word for that….Communism…and just FYI….it didn’t work out too well for the Soviets!

      • Marty

        Corporations are part of the state. Corporations are granted the rights of the kind of corporation as dictated by laws of the state they incorporated in. so separation of church and state would include separation of church and corporation by default. I don’t hear anyone wanting to have the government take over all the corporations, just have them obey the laws. But talking about communism, communism has been around a lot longer that democracy. I am hoping that our great republic makes it many more centuries, but with judges like Scalia, it could be doubtful.

        • Dom

          that makes NO sense – separation of church and state means the state has to leave religious corporations alone. the government IS taking over ALL corporations – look at the rules and regulations – of just the IRS. Communism – the blood of how many millions is on the hands of communists . North Korea and Cuba – 2 communists countries – wow brag on them. i can agree with you – and encourage you to work hard to get that Secular Humanist Religion out of the schools and government.

        • Marty

          No Dom, It does not mean that states have leave corporations alone. It means that religion can not be how the people are governed. For instance, Iran is a theocracy, religion is how they are governed.

        • Dom

          have a cite to a Supreme Court case saying that? The Pilgrims CAME HERE – so they could freely practice their RELIGION – there can be no STATE religion – but you Secular Humanists overlook that to force your creed on everyone else — much the same way way your friends in North Korea do.

        • Marty

          I am not forcing my religion on you. I don’t want you to force your or any one else’s religion on me. The pilgrims might have come here to practice their religion, but they did not form the United States of America. They did not set up a government in 1776. The American Indians were here before the pilgrims and had a religion that they practiced. I have no friends in North or South Korea. I don’t even know anyone in North or South Korea. Does not matter though, They do not have a democratic republic anyway, their form of government is very different than that of the United States. If you would try to understand what the constitution says instead of “Believing” what you think it says, you might be able to understand why Hobby Lobby is not right in their stance.

        • Dom

          woa – you are rambling – cant defend what you are saying – Explain how YOU know more what the Constitution says than i do…. based on what. How is Hobby Lobby wrong to give employees 16 kinds of birth control ? why is it wrong for them to hire gays and atheists? why do they never ever stop employees from getting an abortion – Lets hear how those things are bad.

        • Marty

          I don’t know, nor is it my job to interpret the constitution. It is the job of the Supreme court. And the Supreme Court found the ACA to be constitutional. That makes it the LAW. It is not wrong for them to hire gays, lesbians, blacks, those of Jewish decent or any other race, creed, national descent or gender. It is not wrong to give employees insurance to meet the ACA because it is the LAW.

        • ksting

          No they did not find the ACA to be constitutional they found the individual mandate to be legal, being a tax. That does not mean all parts of the ACA are constitutional.

        • ksting

          No you are wrong there. The SCOTUS did not find the ACA legal. They found the individual mandate to be legal as a tax. There were a few other points in the ACA that they judged, some went against the ACA like the mandate for states to expand Medicaid. No SCOTUS did not rule the whole ACA to be legal just individual parts. That is why there are still lawsuits being brought up to the SCOTUS on the ACA.

        • ksting

          Not according to SCOTUS. You are wrong your judgement does not over rule theirs.

        • ksting

          Marty you are so wrong. The first amendment is for both the fact that religion (a church) cannot influence the laws of the land, however, its people do have the right to vote their beliefs and you cannot stop that. Now it also means government has no influence on religion and cannot tell religion what it can or cannot do and cannot tell it what to believe.

        • ksting

          Religions cannot make laws in this land, however, the people in this country can and if they want to base their laws on their beliefs that is totally legal as long as those laws do not go against something in the Constitution. You do not have the right to tell people what they have to believe. If you have a majority of people vote and decide to say businesses have to be closed on Sunday they could just for the fact that that is not against anything in the Constitution.

        • robertallen1

          ” . . . separation of church and state means the state has to leave religious corporations alone.” Have a cite to any Supreme court cases saying that “Mr. Attorney?”

        • Dom

          sure – look at the Supreme Court decisions — that will be $500.

        • robertallen1

          In other words, you cannot cite a Supreme Court decision. In other words, you cannot meet your burden of proof as claimant which makes you a fucking fraud. In other words, you are trying to shift your burden of proof which makes you a fucking cheat. In other words, you are practicing law without a license which makes you a fucking criminal.

        • Dom

          thats libel per say Sally. i can cite all klnds of cases – lol who made you Budda – burden of proof lol – this aint no stinking court… you keep saying it a lot so i guess you do enjoy fucking criminals – or is it – they enjoy fucking you – naw – NO ONE could enjoy that- your mom told me. run along child – adults have work

        • robertallen1

          Per say–what does that mean or is it something more from out of your ass.

          It’s libel only if it’s false and you can prove your damages, in which case the burden of proof falls on you to prove that you are indeed an attorney duly authorized and licensed to practice in a certain state, but again meeting your burden of proof has never been your strong point, as opposed to lying and cheating and in general exposing yourself for the fucking fraud you are.

          Once again, if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities..

        • Dom

          buddy – you need to stop dreaming about my ass – i am married. you just like saying fuck don’t – maybe one day – you can find some one to make your special parts tingle. Tell me who you are – name – address – social – i will see that it gets cleared up for you. You really are a 1 trick pony – its boring.

        • robertallen1

          In other words, you can’t cite any cases supporting your position on libel,. just as you can’t cite cases for any of your claims, thus exposing you once again for the lying motherfucker and charlatan you are.

          I repeat and I will keep repeating, if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities.

        • ksting

          Try the Hobby Lobby case.

    • Andrew

      The Supreme Court has said that a corporation has a First Amendment right to free speech. Why does that not also extend to religious freedom?

  • robertallen1

    The one good thing is that if SCOTUS decides in Hobby Lobby’s favor, the company can no longer hide behind the corporate veil; i.e., its directors/owners themselves can be sued for any tort action–and it will be nice the see the Greens, who are trying to inflict religion (theirs) in the public schools. bite the dust

    • Independence_R_US

      How are they forcing religion into schools. You need to get back on the meds. There are already religious schools that don’t offer Abortions for free. As usual you nut case liberals only want to obey the things you like & the rest of America has to do what you say or else. Just like Oblundercare, your ideas are full of Bovine Excrement & the intentional stupidity is astounding. However as typically with liberals who can’t think or do anything in the real world, most others are tiring of putting up with your stupidly misinformed arrogance.

      • robertallen1
        • Independence_R_US

          Hey BRAIN DEAD. It’s legal to have a bible in school & to pray. As well as a class on the BIBLE. However, being a liberal & being overwhelmingly STUPID you don’t know anything about anything.

          It’s not forcing anyone to do anything by providing a class, Unlike you & the liberal morons promoting common stupid core where ignorance is celebrated.

        • robertallen1

          This is not about having a bible in school and praying and you know it, motherfucker. Now, what business does religion have in the school curriculum period, voluntary or otherwise? One way or the other, it’s illegal, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_v._Board_of_Education, you cocksucking son of a bitch.

        • stoney

          why the filthy language …make you point ….if you don’t have the basic command of the English language, then go back to school and learn to read…

        • robertallen1

          Hey, asshole, you don’t make the rules.

        • Marty

          Well robertallen1, many of us don’t agree with a lot of things said in the posts here, but we can utilize the English language in a manner that conveys thought and feelings without having to resort to language that offends many of those in all political persuasions. It is difficult to avoid reading the words, it is not like changing the channel, so it would be nice if you would make your point utilizing words that are not so offensive to most of us reading these opinions.

        • robertallen1

          These fuckers deserve it.

        • ksting

          No he does not make the rules but I do see a lack of courtesy from you. I guess the left thinks that when they can’t win a discussion logically they need to call names.

        • Dom

          you clearly must be a progressive – if its illegal – why is the Humanist Religion being pushed in public schools…

        • robertallen1

          You clearly must be an ignoramus. Since when is humanism a religion?

        • Dom

          Since the Supreme Court said it was. I saw a T V interview with a Humanist “Chaplain” full time paid at Harvard. Another Humanist has been pushing to be commissioned as a Humanist CHAPLAIN in the Navy — Are “chaplains” religious slots? BOOM

        • robertallen1

          Hey, moron, one can be a humanist and a chaplain at the same time. One can be a non-humanist and a chaplain at the same time.
          Now, before keyboarding any more of your pathetic and embarrassing ignorant, why don’t you find out what a humanist is?

        • Dom

          people pay me large sums of money to explain legal concepts – send me your master card and credit history and i will get back to you

        • robertallen1

          Are you an attorney? If not, you’re practicing law without a license and if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities.

        • Dom

          have you reported all the people on here putting forth opinions for others on the force and effect of laws? give me the list of all the bar complaints you have filed? dont you think this web site needs to be shut down then – as its a vehicle promoting the unauthorized practice of law? or is there some double standard when people interpret the laws ways you like …. lol

        • robertallen1

          In other words, you are not an attorney. So by admittedly “explaining legal concepts” AND, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, GETTING PAID FOR IT, you are practicing law without a license. I repeat, if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities.

        • Dom

          wow – you really do need to change your meds – tell us – which words say – I AM NOT A LAWYER lol … i would like to know where you have YOUR license – please tell us – is anyone else here “explaining legal comcepts” Do you think Legal Zoom is a law firm?

        • robertallen1

          Because if you were, you would have stated so. I have not claimed to be receiving money for my legal opinions.
          As it is, you are practicing law without a license and once again, if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities.

        • Dom

          so in other words – you are a bully -went running your mouth making threats with nothing to back it up. Now explain – if what i say here is practicing law – how is YOU jabbering not the same? Taking money is not the standard bub — but it explains why what you say is childish jibberish. typical progressive talk.

        • robertallen1

          So taking money is not the standard or at least a good part of it. Care to cite some case law supporting that or is it something else from out of that ass of yours. Nothing to do with progressivism, you lying mother fucker.

          I repeat and I will keep repeating, if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities.

        • Dom

          lol – stop bringing your mother into this – she has suffered enough with a child like you. sure – keep repeating it lol – so weak – but here’s a tip – someone tried to do that once – and a few months later – their lawyer called me to ask me to help keep them out of jail for trying the goofy stuff you are doing. but you would like jail – get to see your boyfriends.

        • robertallen1

          In other words, you can’t cite any cases supporting your proposition that taking money for giving legal advice is not the standard for determining whether law is being practiced, just as you can’t cite cases for any of your claims, thus exposing you once again for the lying motherfucker and charlatan you are.

          I repeat and I will keep repeating, if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities. .

        • Dom

          if i knew who you were – I;d have you picked up for a 72 hour psych hold – keep writing this goofy stuff – and someone else will- lol report me to who for what – who gives a crud – you are just peeved them magic pills you ordered did not make your teeny weeny grow

        • robertallen1

          In other words, you can’t cite any cases supporting your proposition that taking money for giving legal advice is not the standard for determining whether law is being practiced, just as you can’t cite cases for any of your claims, thus exposing you once again for the lying motherfucker and charlatan you are.

          I repeat and I will keep repeating, if I knew who you were and where you were, I would not hesitate to report you to the appropriate authorities.

        • David Smith

          Hey fucktard, teaching about religion is not imposing a religion. It’s probably a good idea to inform kids what 70% of their neighbors believe, so they don’t end up ignorant and scared like you.

        • robertallen1

          Hey, you piece of shit, Green’s intent is not to promote the teaching of comparative religion, but rather to inflict Christianity on the public school system. You are one dishonest motherfucker.

        • Poet of the Light

          Spoiled rotten children who are whining and stomping their feet can’t listen to logic. Until you tell them they are right and you are wrong they will keep screaming like the liberal brats they are. Its funny to read their written outburst online.

        • robertallen1

          In other words, you have nothing to post.

        • Independence_R_US

          It’s a mental disorder, liberalism. It makes otherwise seemingly intelligent folks into non-thinkers, unreasonable morons that are intentionally stupid. They argue minutia that has little to do with anything. Then try to liberally interpret things to make them appear as if your stupid.

          Our nation is full of ambiguity & laws that don’t make sense. Most of these moron’s don’t even know that we’re not a Democracy but a republic. Our founding fathers wanted to make sure that future generations wouldn’t be taken over by the loony masses.

          They forget that liberals are the one that overwhelmingly voted for slavery, women not being equals, Jim Crow laws, founded the KKK, etc. Those were laws that we as a minority fought to abolish.

          Hobby Lobby entered int an agreement with all parties (workers) & spelled out the requirements. They weren’t unlawful. At least until the tyrant took office & made this travesty called Oblundercare.

          Many companies are seriously considering cutting the benifits packages becasue of these morons. That’s why Oblamo push out the corporate mandate until 2016 or later.

          Sad that we can’t utilize the stupidity of liberals for anything useful.

        • robertallen1

          In other words, nothing to say, but a lot to post.

        • Poet of the Light

          Ita, but yes we can use libs for something positive. Those infamous prisoner trade deals Obama started. Only now we can swap a bakers doz. for just one honorable American.

        • ksting

          I will have to disagree with you. I actually find that liberalism is not a disease that affects intelligent people, I actually find that it is something that attracts the unintelligent.

        • bbroome62

          Please. You are making robert cry.

        • Poet of the Light

          Is he still whining ? give that boy a bottle will ya ?

      • EmmaLib

        Try watching any other station besides FOX, you might realize you are getting only half of the story.

        • Independence_R_US

          AH yes the typical liberal response. Seems only liberals have a problem with whom delivers a fact. It seems that you folks disregard any facts provided by sources that you wish to demonize.

          So just like the typical responses from a liberal, You’re stupid, you’re a bigot, You’re a racist, etc I consider the ignorance & the source. Then I have a huge laugh at the intentional stupidity being presented. Or I could go to the news sources used by liberals: The Huff Post, MSNBC, or from the horses rear Obama. But I digress. Either way you folks are a laugh a minute.

          BTW I do research & seldom ever watch Fox. Or maybe I should quote
          your legendary geniuses:Pelosi. Wassermann, Biden, Hillary, Bloomberg,
          Rahm, or any other dim whits. BTW Moron I’m independent. So other than
          showing your inherent bigotry & stupidity, you show how correct those
          on the right say you are. Also, remeber that Oblamo wants us independants to vote liberal…. ANOTHER HUGE LAUGHABLE MOMENT.

        • robertallen1

          In other words, you can’t refute anything Emmal:ib has posted. So it’s more ignorant drivel.

        • Independence_R_US

          I gather your reading comprehenshion is as bad as your stupid liberal responses. So should I copy & past my response. Or are you man enough to read it for yourself? As stated I don’t watch Fox news. I do see their responses online & read them as I do the laughable responses from the liberal so called news agencies. So obviously you’re to stupid to read & comprehend or are just a troll. Either way. Don’t care.

          Do try to get that dreaded liberal disease attended too though. The Cranial rectal insertion. And maybe something for the voices in your head. I’m sorry if I used to big a word for you to understand.

          You can go back to mom’s basement now.

        • robertallen1

          In other words, you cant refute Emmail:ib’s post. Nothing to do but keyboard what a moron you are.

        • ksting

          You know I get the same response. They accuse me of getting my information from Fox. Though not bad since it was just recently voted to be the most factual of the news stations. However, I do not have cable. I do not have the opportunity to watch fox. I get my information from other sources and make my own decisions. Just because they don’t agree with the liberals then I have to have gotten my views from Fox.

        • EmmaLib

          If you did research, you would have drawn a different conclusion, facts are facts. Independent means nothing, when your core beliefs are conservative, like baggers, they are Republicans, one in the same.

        • ksting

          I love how the liberals blame everything on FOX News. However, do they realize that investigations have proven that most people trust FOX news more than any other news. However, I do not have cable and do not watch Fox news but find my information other ways and I am always being blamed for watching Fox. Just goes to show you if you do not agree with the liberal agenda then you watch Fox news. Shows their mentality.

        • EmmaLib

          You do not have cable, or watch FOX because you do not watch TV……. so you are clueless to the realities in this world. You read some blogs, unsubstantiated opinions…….and make your decisions.
          I WATCH FOX, MSNBC, BBC, AL JAZERAS, AND MANY OTHER channels BEFORE I form an opinion. I collect all the facts and propaganda before drawing a conclusion.

        • ksting

          Did I say that I do not have or watch TV. No I get my information from ABC, NBC, CBS also some local channels. I also get news from the papers, oh, I forgot reading is a lost art to you, and different sites on the internet. Both liberal and conservative. So whom may I ask is making assumptions and jumping to conclusions?

      • Marty

        But you digress.

    • Poet of the Light

      I see you have been watching Judge Judy for your law education. outdated, convoluted and just way out in left field (pun intended), but no homer, a foul ball.

      • robertallen1

        In other words, you can’t refute what I’ve keyboarded.

        • Poet of the Light

          What, that is your best childish and repetitive retort? It’s not indicative of me to address garbage logic more than once but I will type slowly for your special situation. Nothing you posted is logical enough to address without correcting it all which we have done already. talis est vita !!

        • robertallen1

          In other words, you can’t refute a thing I have posted.

        • Poet of the Light

          ahh, looking for the last word !! Its already done.

        • robertallen1

          In other words, you still can’t refute a thing I have posted.

        • Poet of the Light

          Nothing to refute, just same ole perverted stories.

        • robertallen1

          And just which perverted stories are these or is this something from out of your ass?

        • Poet of the Light

          Robert… you’re just being a contrarian terrorist because your president tells you to. Maybe one day when you grow up and become more disciplined so you can think for yourself. You will have to give up Nick a night so you can get plenty of rest for a republican world. tah tah

        • robertallen1

          In other words, these “perverted stories” are indeed more from out of your ass on a pa with your inability to refute a single thing I have posted.

        • susan g

          Being religious is a mental disorder.

          robertallen1’s words don’t offend. What offends is Mr. Green’s religious agenda to introduce his religious beliefs into every public school in the country. He is doing this under the thinly veiled guise of it being a course on biblical history. Of course it’s nothing of the sort. I’m sure YOU think this is a good thing, but it’s not only morally wrong but against the law. As in UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

          We STILL have a separation of church and state in spite of the efforts of right wing politicians and men like Mr. Green.

          robertallen1 is right. You can’t refute a single thing he’s said. All you’ve offered is one post after another that goes something like this: liberals have the dreaded liberal disease, liberals have a problem with who delivers the fact, liberals showing inherent bigotry and stupidity, liberals, liberals, liberals, bla bla bla.

          You DON’T have anything of any substance to offer. Let’s se you dispute anything robertallen1 has said.

        • Poet of the Light

          Well it seems robert had to go get help, figures. I won’t repeat myself or others who have already addressed his conjecture or rehash the same facts he refuses to accept. Nor will I with you.

          Morals you say? hmmm morals are a philosophical concept of a person conscious of right and wrong, which is exactly where we are coming from in our beliefs. You don’t get to dictate what our beliefs are and rejecting them shows you have no respect for other ideology that differ from yours. You don’t like our facts, well too bad they are ours like yours is yours.

          And while we are on morals seeing how you brought ti up, shouldn’t fetuses be entitled to the same protections as any other human life ? or will you now guise their right be claiming a women right is higher? the same woman who permitted the pregnancy to take place in nearly every case.

          According the American Psychiatric Association; having a religious belief and practicing it helps people live healthier and longer so nice try.

          Should you feel i don’t have anything of substance to offer my side, simply refrain from childish behavior and move on.

        • susan g

          That’s exactly my point. No one gets to dictate another’s beliefs. Not you, not me, and yet that is exactly what Mr. Green is attempting to do by interjecting his religious beliefs into the public schools, in the form of a bible history program.

          When you are willing to admit this is wrong and unconstitutional, then you will have credibility. How come you don’t hear of atheists, Jews, or Buddhist trying to incorporate their beliefs into the public school ciriculum?

          The problem with religious right wingers like yourself is you confuse facts with religious beliefs. Your religious beliefs are no more FACT than anyone elses. Religion is completely a set of beliefs that are based on faith. Period. These beliefs can vary greatly between religions. In order to respect everyone’s religious beliefs, religion must be kept out of government and public institutions like schools. No one particular religion should be given preference over another by teaching it in a public school.

          I’d be willing to bet you’re just fine with Green’s efforts to convert everyone to Christianity.

          I will not debate abortion with you except to say, fact, it is legal, fact, it has been for forty years. Fact, one in every 3 women will have at least one in her lifetime.
          If you aren’t in favor of abortion, then DON’T have one. I believe the decision of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is up to the woman. No one has the right to stick their nose in other people’s PRIVATE business. Here’s a good explanation for someone like you who doesn’t get the “it’s the woman’s body” point.

          “THERE IS A CONCEPT CALLED BODY AUTONOMY. ITS GENERALLY CONSIDERED A HUMAN RIGHT. BODILY AUTONOMY MEANS A PERSON HAS CONTROL OVER WHO OR WHAT USES THEIR BODY, FOR WHAT, AND FOR HOW LONG. ITS WHY YOU CAN’T BE FORCED TO DONATE BLOOD, TISSUE, OR ORGANS. EVEN IF YOU ARE DEAD. EVEN IF YOU’D SAVE OR IMPROVE 20 LIVES. IT’S WHY SOMEONE CAN’T TOUCH YOU, HAVE SEX WITH YOU, OR USE YOUR BODY IN ANY WAY WITHOUT YOUR CONTINUOUS CONSENT.

          A FETUS IS USING SOMEONE’S BODY PARTS. THEREFORE UNDER BODILY AUTONOMY, IT IS THERE BY PERMISSION, NOT BY RIGHT. IT NEEDS A PERSONS CONTINUOUS CONSENT. IF THEY DENY AND WITHDRAW THEIR CONSENT, THE PREGNANT PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO REMOVE THEM FROM THAT MOMENT. A FETUS IS EQUAL IN THIS REGARD BECAUSE IF I NEED SOMEONE ELSE’S BODY PARTS TO LIVE, THEY CAN ALSO LEGALLY DENY ME THEIR USE.

          BY SAYING A FETUS HAS A RIGHT TO SOMEONE’S BODY PARTS UNTIL IT’S BORN, DESPITE THE PREGNANT PERSON’S WISHES, YOU ARE DOING TWO THINGS.
          1. GRANTING A FETUS MORE RIGHTS TO OTHER PEOPLE’S BODIES THAN ANY BORN PERSON.
          2. AWARDING A PREGNANT PERSON LESS RIGHTS TO THEIR BODY THAN A CORPSE.”
          Hannah Goff

        • ksting

          No it is not wrong. As long as it is a extra class not one required to take it is not unconstitutional. Evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity. You do realize it is still called the theory of evolution. It has not been proven, it has not become a law. So why do I have to be taught a theory which could be wrong? You on the left want it both ways just as much as religious people do. They would like their beliefs taught and you want yours. I do not have to believe the same way you do so why should I be forced to listen to your beliefs?

    • Dom

      thats stupid – it has nothing to do with that – but if you mean Ms Huffington and the guys in charge of MoveOn and Media Matters can be personally sued – bonus – they are all fat rich cats. which states have you had your license to malpractice law taken away from? Stop forcing your Humanist Religion on others

      • robertallen1

        Yes, it does. If the company’s directors can use their religious beliefs to exempt themselves from following the same laws that other for-profit businesses have to follow, then the corporate veil is pierced and the directors can be sued individually
        Now, once again, moron. since when is humanism a religion?

        • Dom

          you know nothing about the law do you – lol – Hobby Lobby won its case in the 10 th Circuit – explain how you think that Court got it wrong to say the new Obamacare rules need not be enforced against that corporation. Hobby Lobby hand out 16 kinds of birth control – they can not stop anyone for getting abortions – heck – i am for later term retroactive abortion in your case – they can not force any religion – they hire atheists – they do not hire total wack jobs like you. Humanism has been a “religion” since it met the tests set out in U S Supreme Court cases and EEOC regulations – go look it up and explain to me how you are smarter than Ginzburg -0k ok – you look better in a dress than her – …. Isnt it time for the short bus to pick you up?

        • robertallen1

          Makes no difference what the 10th Circuit ruled; it’s SCOTUS’ ruling that matters.

          From Wiikpedia:

          “The implication in Justice Black’s footnote that secular humanism is a religion has been seized upon by religious opponents of the teaching of evolution, who have made the argument that teaching evolution amounts to teaching a religious idea. The claim that secular humanism could be considered a religion for legal purposes was examined by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1173 (1995). In this case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the “religion” of secular humanism. The Court responded, “We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or Secular Humanism are ‘religions’ for Establishment Clause purposes.” The Supreme Court refused to review the case.

          “The decision in a subsequent case, Kalka v. Hawk et al., offered this commentary:[59]

          “The Court’s statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a “religion” under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the “Fellowship of Humanity” qualified as a religious organization under California law.”

          ***

          “In the 1987 case of Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County a group of plaintiffs brought a case alleging that the school system was teaching the tenets of an anti-religious religion called “secular humanism” in violation of the Establishment Clause. The complainants asked that 44 different elementary through high school level textbooks (including books on home economics, social science and literature) be removed from the curriculum. Federal judge William Brevard Hand ruled for the plaintiffs agreeing that the books promoted secular humanism, which he ruled to be a religion. The Eleventh Circuit Court unanimously reversed him, with Judge Frank stating that Hand held a “misconception of the relationship between church and state mandated by the establishment clause,” commenting also that the textbooks did not show “an attitude antagonistic to theistic belief. The message conveyed by these textbooks is one of neutrality: the textbooks neither endorse theistic religion as a system of belief, nor discredit it.”
          YOU MOTHERFUCKING LIAR!.

        • Dom

          the 10 th Circuit decisions stands as of now. explain why its wrong – did you even read its opinion?

          lol you diss the 10th but point to the 9th – the most reversed appellate court in the nation – everyone knows – you say – this is settled law – except in California.

          you cite a case where guys in prison could not sue the warden due to his privilege – oh come on – please …

          so the Humanists who sought and received tax exemption as a “religion” – were lying?

            See Washington Ethical Soc’y v. District of Columbia, 249 F.2d 127,
          128 (D.C.Cir.1957).   The Society was held entitled to a tax exemption
          as a religious corporation even though its members were not required to
          believe in a Supreme Being or a supernatural power.   See id. at 129.  
          In Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 674,
          315 P.2d 394 (1957), the second case cited in Torcaso, an organization
          of Secular Humanists sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used
          their property “solely and exclusively for religious worship.”  
          Despite the group’s non-theistic beliefs, the court determined that the
          activities of the Fellowship of Humanity, which included weekly Sunday
          meetings, were analogous to the activities of theistic churches and thus
          entitled to an exemption

        • Dom

          lol — do you even READ the stuff you cite — the guy in one case was complaing his prison warden violated his rights because Humanism was A RELIGION l– “a scientific religion for a scientific age” lol

          Other parts of Kalka’s submission describe humanism as a religious movement.   For instance, an excerpt from the AHA’s Free Mind magazine discusses the Humanist Society of Friends (“HSOF”), a group whose motto is “a scientific religion for a scientific age.”   The article speaks of the “concept of Humanism as a non-theistic religion,” stating that its view of humanism as a religion “allows for the opening of many doors and acquiring of many privileges that Humanism as a philosophy d[oes] not.”
            Another AHA publication includes an advertisement advising readers of AHA sponsored humanist counselors who provide humanistic marriage and memorial services and have the legal status of minister in all fifty states.Kalka also furnished his own statement attesting that humanism “is a study of ethics, and a religion for some in a personal way.”

        • robertallen1

          From the article ” . . . three circuit courts have struck down the contraception coverage rule, while two others have upheld it.” So no, the Tenth Circuit does not stand until SCOTUS says it does.
          Funny, how you failed to mention that in both of the cases you cited, the court did not so much address the beliefs of practitioners as it did the similarity of the function and form of the practice of the organizations to the function and form of the practices in other religious institutions. In other words, secular humanism was not determined to be a religion per se, YOU MOTHERFUCKING LIAR!

        • ksting

          You were right it does matter what the SCOTUS rules and they went completely against everything you said. Sorry.

        • ksting

          I guess you lost on that one too.

    • ksting

      I guess you were wrong on that point also.

  • Marcus

    I find Hobby Lobby to be hypocritical on the religious issue. They close their stores on Sundays but they leave their website up and running for people to do business with them anyway. They may be closed and it may be automated but there are living, breathing customers doing business with Hobby Lobby on the Sabbath. Saying it’s ‘automated’ is like using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law.

    • Independence_R_US

      Really!!! How ignorantly foolish. You’re a liberal right? Just becasue a web site is up doesn’t mean that there are employees working. How sad. You must have one of those liberal Degrees.

      I can go online & find a ton of web sites up right now that don’t have a single person working as they’re past normal working hours. How stupid can you get.

      • Marcus

        No I’m not a liberal. Read my original post again. I clearly said that I realize that their employees are not working on Sundays and that the system is automated. My point that they claim to operating on Christian principles yet they still allow people to do business with their company on Sundays through their website. It doesn’t matter whether they have employees working or not. The company is doing business on the Sabbath which to me is a violation of scripture they claim to be trying to uphold.

        • Poet of the Light

          Christian doctrines permit commence on the Sabbath, as established by Christ. So your premise hold no water to begin with. Grasping at straws of tradition is not doctrine.

        • ksting

          That be your opinion. In the old days were the Jewish people to stop the goats from giving milk on the sabbeth. No. It is a day of rest and worship for the people. Nothing else. I love how non Christians or non Jewish like to try and interpret our beliefs and dictate how we have to believe.

        • ksting

          They are not doing business on Sunday. They cannot force their beliefs on other people and if those people want to do business on Sunday that is their right, it might be a sin, but it is their right.

      • susan g

        Are you brain damaged? Is EVERYTHING about liberals with you?

        What an asinine statement, there are plenty of websites up on the Internet that don’t have a single employee working as they are past working hours. First of all, how would YOU know who every site has working beyond normal business hours. All big companies have their SALES open 24/7, even Hobby Lobby! I can guarantee you they have SOME employees manning the system. So the stupid one is YOU not Marcus. Who by the way didn’t deserve such a nasty response from you, since he was very polite in stating his opinion.

        So let’s see you refute even one single thing roberallen1 has said.
        Crickets chirping.

        • Independence_R_US

          Wow are you exceptionally ignorant. I gather you’re a liberal. So regale us with your expertise in the matter. SO how many business have you run? How many payrolls have you been responsible for? How many POS (Point Of Sales) web sites have you set up? I would be safe to wager the answer would be ZERO on all counts.

          So as usual you interpose your ignorance into the debate. Just last night I went to a very big pet suplly web site to place an order. I was unsure about a product so I called. Guess what? No one answered. Why? Becasue it was past business hours. The recording stated that if I needed assistance that I could call at REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS. OOPS So much for your Epiphany.

          It’s so sad that you folks don’t really think. That it’s impossible for you to grasp the complexities of reality. But I digress.

          As for your guarantee, It’s as worthless as the promise from Oblamo that I could keep my HC provider.

          Oh BTW you free to believe in stupidity if you wish. It’s a free country at least until Obama whips out his pen to take that freedom away.

    • FreeToThink

      I never even thought of the e-commerce aspect. Even if the site is automated, there is still commerce happening on the Sabbath.

      • Marcus

        Exactly!

      • ksting

        The Lords Law never said anything about commerce, it said that you should not work on the Sabbeth it said nothing about commerce so you liberals are putting in words into the commandments that are not there.

        • ksting

          Sorry mistype sabbath

      • ksting

        If you knew anything about Christian or Jewish beliefs the law does not say anything about commerce. It states that you shall not work, that it is a day of rest. Tell me how a computer doing something is you working and not resting. No that is not breaking any commandment.

    • Cathi Korelin

      Sunday is not the Sabbath. Saturday is Sabbath is Jewish not Christian.

      • ksting

        You are right and wrong. For the Jews the Sabbath is still Saturday. For Christians it is Sunday because of the rising of Jesus on Sunday. So try your lame point someplace else. It does not work.

    • ksting

      The people working for the store do not work on Sunday. They do not do business on Sunday. If people want to make an order online on Sunday it is that person that is breaking the law. The order will not be taken by the business until Monday. People for Hobby Lobby are not working on Sunday that is what the Sunday law is about.

  • 101fitness

    Isn’t it just American to force Hobby Lobby to provide the abortion pills that it doesn’t want to. You stupid, uncompromising, nut-jobs deserve that Hobby Lobby stop providing Health Insurance and make all of you 29 hour workers.

    • I’mRightYerWrong

      You are so misinformed. “…force Hobby Lobby to provide the abortion pills that it doesn’t want to.” That’s not what they would do. The law says they’re to provide insurance or pay a fine.. What the worker does with that insurance is up to them. It’s like making you go to school but it’s up to you to decide to learn, which you obviously chose not to do.

      • 101fitness

        You are so wrong and obviously think you know everything, it is a waste of time even pointing out your mistakes.

        • Godling

          Your intellectual cowardice entertains me. More please.

      • Kathi J

        No one is forcing HL to pay for abortions or abortion pills (RU486). The morning after pill and IUDs do not cause an abortion.

        • ksting

          You are so wrong. Many people believe a child is living at inception. I myself also believe this, what right do you have to say I cannot believe that and force me to go against my beliefs. Under the 1st amendment you do not have that right. Why do you think for years these pills have been called the abortion pills.

        • Kathi J

          The word is conception or more accurately fertilization and they are not correct, there is no guarantee a fertilized egg will not simply die and sluff off, up to 70% do that exactly. Plus neither methods of contraception work to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, they prevent fertilization. And at no time has the morning after pill ever been defined as an abortion pill, except by the religiously crazy.

        • ksting

          Kathi J _ I’m sorry the Constitution does not say one thing about science, what it does say is religious beliefs are protected. If a person believes life begins at conception that is what is important not the fact that some doctors have decided that it does not start until it is implanted. Sorry beliefs are protected not some ones scientific facts. By the way not all doctors agree with you on that one either.

        • Kathi J

          So if you believe little green men live on the moon and come to visit earth occasionally that’s just fine, no science involved? SCOTUS did not rule on whether or not the Greens/HL were accurate in their beliefs only that they had them and that those beliefs were constitutionally protected. Your religious beliefs do not and should not define scientific accuracy however.

        • ksting

          Like I have said the Constitution does not mention science, that was never a fact in this case. The question was on religious beliefs which are protected by the Constitution. Plus not all scientist agree on when life begins so just because you have one group saying something does not make it so. But, like I said that really does not matter was never relevant which I tried to tell you. All that mattered was the Green’s religious beliefs since they are what was protected.

      • ksting

        No the law says to provide insurance that has benefits, one of those benefits is providing the abortion pill. Or pay a fine. The government does not have the right to tell someone to provide something that is against their religion. Government has already admitted this when they gave religious hospitals the okay not to provide.

    • plainlyspoken

      Hobby Lobby and the Green family are HYPOCRITS. They buy CHINESE made products–a country that has long insisted on abortion for population control. Hobby Lobby is an EMPLOYER! They have NO business saying what ANYONE does with their health. They have no business in the bedroom or the doctor’s office with their employees. THIS is tyranny. It is ridiculous to say that Hobby Lobby is made to hand out abortion pills. You are just another crazy conservative who throws a fit if you can’t carry your guns, want to make everyone
      worship YOUR god, but throws yet another fit when women want control over
      their own bodies. I no longer shop at Hobby Lobby since this nut-job, Mr. GREEN (as in money made from sweat shops in China where abortion is a way of life) got too big for his britches. He’s a guy who started a craft store. He needs to get out of other people’s business.

      • susan g

        I agree with what you are saying. Talk about trying to takeover people’s lives and dictate how they live! Green wants to control the reproductive care of the women who work for him. That is none of his business. He is now working on a scheme to interject HIS religious beliefs into the public schools.

        Recently, Green built a creation museum just blocks away from the Capital Mall in Washington. Placing his museum, which by the way, teaches that the earth is 6,000 years old and has displays of children playing with the dinosaurs, just blocks from the National Museum of Science is nothing but a sneaky attempt to give the impression it might be associated in some way with a LEGITIMATE museum.

        Green’s agenda to turn this into a Christian nation couldn’t be more clear.

        • ksting

          No he is not. He is saying that he should not have to provide something against his religious beliefs. However, if the employee wants the abortion pill they can go and buy it themselves and face no retribution from him.

      • ksting

        You stay on this same subject and won’t take anyones answer. You do not have the right to dictate ones belief. There is no law in the Christian teachings that you cannot do business with the Chinese therefore your argument is null and void. You do not have the right to dictate what a persons belief is.

      • ksting

        By the way he is trying to stay out of other peoples business just that the government will not stay out of his.

  • stupidliberals

    Who was it said ‘corporations are people’?

  • ‘Til Tuesday

    Here is what may happen: the SC rules that a company can use the RFRA to object to certain laws like Health Care Reform Act, but that they are not “substantially burdened” by this particular portion of the Health Care Reform Act. That’s my vote anyway. We’ll know tomorrow or Thursday.

  • LiberalBrainWashedBonehead

    If HL consider it’s workers family, them yes they can.

    • drixnot3

      hobby lobby doesn’t consider its workers to be family.

  • LiberalBrainWashedBonehead

    Ok here’s my opinion, if HL can hire only Christians and consider their workers family, then they could possibly prevent the State from forcing them to include birth control in their medical plans.

  • Beth Hagerty

    Funny how a christian business buys all it’s crap from CHINA…… where religious freedom is NON existent.

    • LiberalBrainWashedBonehead

      There a liberal investors that also unknowing invest in things that destroy our environment too.

      • plainlyspoken

        He knows exactly where he’s buying his goods, from a country that not only sanctions abortion but insists on it for population control. He’s a craft store owner. He has no business in the bedrooms and doctor’s offices of his employees. It is none of his business what they do. He is a bully like most over-bearing Christian Republicans. He will never get another dime from me. He may not feel it directly, but if others who spent as much as I did there every year (I run a business so $$$ spent), it will catch up with him. What a pos.

    • ksting

      Big deal there is no Christian law that says who you can do business with. This is just you liberals trying to force your beliefs on others.

  • nickname

    Corporate Christians?… Sounds taxable

    • ksting

      Hobby lobby is taxable and has been paying taxes. Hobby Lobby is not a Religion its owner have religious beliefs. However, religions are not taxable because that breaks as you non religious nuts like to phrase it the separation of church and state. If the Government has the right to tax a religion it has influence on that religion, that is against the Constitution.

  • Independence_R_US

    It’s not hard as there are private Christian schools that don’t fall under the purview of GOV run ones. They have strict dress codes & rules concerning how employees are to act.

    Like most corporations folks agree to work there based on the acceptance of the job. Yet we now have folks that agreed to work for a corporation that provided them their corporation’s rules. Now they want to disregard those rules.

    It’s very simple. If you don’t like the rules at Hobby Lobby quit & work somewhere else. They have a right to not even provide HC if they don’t want. But the morons won’t be happy until we’re all have the same poor HC as they do in Europe. Then they’re scream like little pigs that it’s not fair & that they’re not happy. Then blame the GOP & everyone else for their stupidity.

    Hobby Lobby is against the morning after pill. It’s a drug that ABORTS a baby. So other than the morons that think everyone shoudl agree with them or else about Abortions, it should be the right of cooperation & businesses to not provide for abortions.

    • Chris Sievert

      America spends 2x per Capita than the #2 highest spending Country on Health care. Which should make the US 2x or more as good as everyone else on Earth… Yet we rank #51 Worldwide for Heath care Outcomes. Our HC Sucks.

      As for Hobby Lobby being anti abortion why do they pay for THOUSANDS of Abortions a Year?

      Hobby Lobby’s biggest problem is they have no problem paying for Forced/Mandatory Late Term Abortions. Since over 80% of the stock they sell comes from China they are in FACT PAYING FOR ABORTIONS and have been since the day they opened their doors.

      • Independence_R_US

        That was debunked years ago. As it doesn’t speak to real mortality figures & real HC. But you folks always love the gened up non-facts to make your stupidity seem plausible. Just like your climate change, Oblundercare, etc all stupid examples of socialized Bovine Excrement that has been shown to be abysmal failures. But that doesn’t matter to a liberal. They have a real problem thinking.

      • ksting

        Wow what a common stand by you people of non belief. The teachings of Christianity and Judaism says nothing about who you do business with. Yes we would like it if they did not do those things. But we do not have the right to dictate their beliefs.

    • What – me worry?

      Why doesn’t the down arrow work? Your post certainly deserves it.
      So, according to you, people give up their Constitutional rights when they accept a job? Hmmm…. I don’t think so.

      And you really should investigate European HC before making any other stupid remarks about it. They have better outcomes in care at FAR less cost than what has been the record in the US. Mostly this is because they target prevention and early detection rather than treatment. That only comes with insurance coverage for everyone.

      • Independence_R_US

        You know you folks are like a broken record. You don’t have a problem taking away my right to freedom of speech, religion, guns, etc. Then listen to those liberal voices in your heads telling you that I said that a corporation can take away civil rights. Hobby Lobby isn’t denying a right to anyone. When will you morons get it. They don’t have to provide you with anything. How utterly foolish & stupid. But I’m talking to a liberal. So it’s to be expected.

        • What – me worry?

          “broken record”? That’s rich! Play it backwards and it says “The GOP is dead. The GOP is dead. Romney was the walrus!”

          While you certainly excel in hyperbole and demagoguery, you totally lack any credibility in factual basis, logical thought, or demonstrable empathy. But what can you expect from one who gets their “information” from Fox News, or is it WND or the Blaze?

        • Independence_R_US

          Stupid liberal. Seems you forgot to think which is typical of liberal. You folks are all about your grandiose plans to save the world. But them reality hits & the unintended consequences come up that make the resolution worse than the problem. But I digress.

          Sadly you did’t get the point which is another ignorant trait of liberals. Why? Becasue you’r not intersted in logic, facts, truth, Just want others to bow down & accept your stupitiy. So again, answer the question? Is the child responsible for the actions of the adult? Try being honest? I answered your stupid straw man. You’ve not the courage to do so becasue it would destroy your silly foolish talking points.

          Again only a fool wouldn’t accept a fact not matter the source. I understand that liberals are foolish when it comes to such matters. It’s hard for you to admit to being wrong or taking responsibility for your actions.

          Maybe if you read some of my other comments instead of being a typical liberal you would know that I don’t watch Fox News or get my info from Fox. However, it’s convenient for you folks to move blame & focus away from the issues at hand. So why haven’t you played the typical liberal cards, You’re a racist or your a bigot. They always seem to end the typical liberal debate when liberals run out of stupid.

          Thanks for playing. You’ve sown the world that liberals are just as the right portrays you. Shallow, non thinking, narcissists. But I digress.

          For your edification, I’m an independent & have been one for probably longer than you’ve been alive. So that will cut off the silly foolish liberal response about me being a right wing terrorist because I don’t agree with your illogic & ignorant answers. Oh what will you do now? I know it’s Bush’s fault or the dog ate your answers.

        • ksting

          The GOP is dead? The democrats are about to lose the majority in the Senate to the GOP, Obama has real low rankings. The GOP is dead? You must be living in a fantasy world.

    • Kathi J

      According to actual medical experts the morning after pill and the IUD do not cause an abortion. And if you think a fertilized egg is a baby you are incredibly stupid.

      • Independence_R_US

        According to you. Maybe, just maybe others have a differing opinion. But you don’t really care about that, The same could be said of you folks concerning abortions. It’s just a mass of cells like cancer. So since it’s a bother we’ll have an abortion. Yet you mental midgets don’t get it. The facts are life starts at conception.

        I’ve never read or heard anyone say that an IUD caused an abortion normally. Or that it was used to cause one. Yet the real facts are that if like has stared the Morning after pill will end it. So as usual you decided with others that life only starts when you decide it does. It doesn’t matter what others think or that you can’t have a child without conception. So you may believe as you will. Yet the facts are the morning after pill kills an otherwise viable infant.

        So keep telling yourself that it’s OK to end a life. Morning after pill is only used to kill.

        • Kathi J

          Not just according to me, according to ACOG, medical scientists, the manufacturers. And how could an abortion possibly take place when a woman isn’t even pregnant yet? Fertilization does not mean pregnant. Medical science has never defined when life begins, they have decided pregnancy doesn’t begin until after implantation, a woman can’t even get a hospital style pregnancy test and/or an abortion until 4 weeks after her last period. Infant/child/baby = after birth. A zygote not yet even implanted is not hardly an infant. Morning after pills are used to prevent fertilization and so is the IUD. You are very misinformed.

        • Bill Rawlins

          Kathi – Life begins at conception. The purpose of the IUD is to prevent a conceived life from implanting in the uterine wall. Of course it is not an infant, but it is human and it will grow into what you and I have become if it is allowed to live.

        • Kathi J

          Science has never come to a consensus on when life begins, not everyone believes it begins at fertilization. You know what percentage of fertilized eggs simply sluff off and never implant? Like 50% to 75%. I’m not getting excited about them at all. I think women need to have access to the best possible methods of contraception including IUDs and the morning after pill, whatever it takes to prevent unintended pregnancy.

        • ksting

          That is the point science has not come to a consensus. However, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about science but it mentions religion and religious beliefs. Most Christian religions believe life begins at inception and you or the Government have not the right to dictate otherwise.

        • Kathi J

          You could at least get the word right “conception” not inception, and technically the term is fertilization. Doesn’t define pregnancy and without pregnancy there can be no abortion. And most christians do not share this belief, only the catholics, evangelicals and other wacko’s.

        • ksting

          Sorry you are so ignorant. Science does not matter in this subject it is religious belief that matters. These people believe that life begins when the egg is fertilized. That is their belief. It is protected by the Constitution nuff said.

        • Kathi J

          Science should matter, clearly to bible-thumping evangelicals and catholics it does not and they are the ignorant ones. Their erroneous beliefs are not protected, their religious beliefs (aka delusions) are.

        • ksting

          No science does not matter. Protection of religious beliefs is specifically stated in the Constitution. It says not one word about science or even facts. So if you think that science should be considered more than religious beliefs then get enough people and states to agree with you and amend the constitution. Otherwise religious beliefs is what matters and science has no say.

        • Kathi J

          Frankly, I have little use for religion, religious beliefs and do not care if those rights are protected or not. And the issue is why permit a corporation to force their religious beliefs on their employees. I do not agree that corporations are people with beliefs.

        • ksting

          I am sorry but you do not have the power to decide what parts of the constitution are good or not if you don’t like something there is a way to get it changed butr until you do that it is the law of the land, the supreme law of the land. NOw as for forcing their religion on its employees tthis does not they can still get these pills they just have to pay for them themselves. there is no constitutional right to having someone else pay for your contraceptives.

        • Independence_R_US

          Really!! So now we have a few other nut cases saying that a fertilized egg isn’t a child. There is no other reason for the morning after pill than to terminate a pregnancy. There is no one single instance where it’s used that it’s not to used to abort a child. DR’s have stated for years they don’t always know when a women is pregnant. The pregnancy tests have gotten better about the process but DR’s haven’t. So sad that your belief in life has such little value. That it’s OK to kill millions becasue they’re inconvenient. You should be so proud.

          So since you’re a specialist in pediatrics explain to us how a child becomes a child unless it starts out as a zygote. I know they grow under a cabbage leave. How truly sad. Again the pill serves no other purpose other than to abort a child. You can play all the semantics you want. Liberals are good at that game.

        • DonC

          By using your way of thinking, doctors would not be able to help a woman with an eptopic pregnancy. That is just insane…

        • Independence_R_US

          So what’s with your liberals. You always take things not said & infer them to others. I never said that there weren’t times that a baby could be aborted becasue of extenuating circumstances.

          Yet the common sense thing comes into play. The lack of common sense of liberals is astounding. Yet you have no problem with the millions of abortions already performed because of complacency. It shows a remarkable amount of ignorance, lack of caring, & plain intentional stupidity.

          The very fact that 99.99% of abortions today are performed not because of a threat to the women’s health, but the child is an inconvenience. Then you wonder why so many folks kill without remorse. Life has little meaning when it’s relegated to a mass of worthless cells. Or that it’s too inconvenient. This begs the reality that if you can’t do the time then don’t commit the crime. Another liberal trait that’s unbecoming, not taking responsibility for your actions. But I digress.

          What’s really insane is that well over 55 million children have been aborted since the mid 70’s. The numbers are going up because folks like yourself see this as a non event. Also that you feel no remorse or care that this is happening, says a lot about your morals.

        • DonC

          Who is the one inferring? I am against abortion for any reason other than health of the mother or rapeincest, but to say that the morning-after pill is abortion is beyond the pale, since the woman is not pregnant yet. It is the same as saying that an abortion happens every time an egg is fermented, but fails to implant, which happens quite a lot. That is just craziness….

        • Independence_R_US

          Why because it’s the truth. It’s primary function is to kill off any developing embryo. Just because you have a problem for when life begins doesn’t mean you’re correct. But I digress. Folks don’t take the morning after pill like they would a birth contolr pill. hmm

          Oh BTW so it’s the child’s fault that it was conceived by rape or incest? Hmm you have a funny way of showing your moral center.

          The craziness is your lack of reality & definition of life. As you still haven’t answered the real question of when life begins then you’re just offering your opinion. So other than you being a bit egocentric & determining for all when life truly begins, then it’s you not I that is the real issue.

          Or maybe you don’t believe in the Bible or God’s word concerning the definitions of when life begins. I on the other hand would rather leave that in the hands of a higher authority.

        • DonC

          So, you are literally saying that a woman who has been raped should be made to carry the child to term, even though she made no conscious decision to have sex and become pregnant in the first place? That is really your position???

          When does the Bible take precedence in our laws? Does what the Bible say have any standing in any legal decision?

        • Independence_R_US

          So are you saying that the child is responsible for the act? Sadly your liberal voices in your head are telling you something that wasn’t stated. If you were honest, obviously you’re not, then you would have read my comment as I stated it. There are very few exceptions in the Bible concerning abortions. Yet it’s always in the purview of the person. As it’s called free will.

          So instead of turning everything I say into an offensive statement by your liberal interpretations, try thinking for a change. Try reading & comprehending. BTW the morals of today don’t care if the child was conceived by rape at the stats show that to be way less that 1%. But hey those stats don’t make for good liberal talking points & won’t give you folks an out for killing so many just because you were lazy, didn’t want the child or some other lame excuse. Or as I like to say, you don’t want to be responsible for your actions. Oh I’m sure that will be offensive as well. Making a liberal be responsible is committing heresy.

        • DonC

          You are truly one stupid idiot. I have already stated that I do not believe in abortion in most cases. I know that more than 90% of abortion cases are due to convenience. You, though, have only offered your view that the woman has zero rights in this scenario. You cannot tell a woman who has been raped that she must carry the baby to term, just to conform to some moral code that very few, including you, have. I am all for responsibility when it comes to abortion, but you are the one telling a woman she has to be responsible to something that was not her responsibility on the first place. That goes beyond free will or civil rights.

          Please, move to Iran. You are better off there….

        • Independence_R_US

          Well as usual another typical liberal response that uses those silly voices in your head instead of any powers of reasoning. You must be great at parties playing the jester. A vertable font of illogic & unreasoning answers to the questions presented.

          If you reading comprehension was on at least a 3rd grade level you would have understood what I said instead of liberally interpreting it to what you wanted it to say. Again is the child responsible for the actions of the father. In a reasonable & non-liberal world no. Would I as a bystander keep a woman from an abortion?NO!!!!! It doesn’t mean that I embrace the act or would say hey I think your actions don’t have consequences.

          Sadly you argue a moot point. There ar so few babies conceived by rape. Yet you love to make straw men & place words not said into other folks mouths. That way you can demonize anyone that doesn’t agree with you silly foolish thoughts & actions. Sadly millions of children have been murdered becasue of abortions. Not becasue they were rape babies. But becasue they were inconvenient.

          See the facts are very inconvenient to the liberal talking points as you never get to hear the other side. The child is dead, those that oppose abortions as a convenience are demonized by you liberals becasue they dare to have an opposing position. Also you hypocrisy is world renown becasue you say you’re all for accepting of diversity until it doesn’t agree with your self centered egotistical stupidity. Then my rights go out the door. I can’t have freedom of speech or dare to have another view other than the liberal sanctioned one.

          So as I tell you liberals…. WHO DIED & MADE YOU KING. You dont have a civli right to not be offended. So buck up 7 as you folks love to say …..LIVE WITH IT!!!! As I’m not going away. And I don’t have to accept murder because your to stupid to understand the concept.

        • DonC

          I am not sure of the disposition of @Bill Rawlins, but it is readily apparent that you are more than worthy of the idiot title I have given you on this thread. It is not me that is lacking in reading comprehension, you mewling quim of a TeaBillie.

          Let me say again, I AM OPPOSED TO ABORTION FOR CONVENIENCE, TOO!! I believe that abortion for this should be illegal because a man is not given the same consideration. A man has to be accountable to his decision to have sex as soon as he has sex. Abortion for convenience removes this responsibility from women, and that is not right. I also oppose abortion because it is consciously killing a life. There are situations in which that is necessary, though, such as during a war, and telling a woman that there should not be an exception for this when she is raped is not giving her her rights. I have not mis-interpreted your words though, because it was you that said the following:

          “Oh BTW so it’s the child’s fault that it was conceived by rape or incest?”

          “So are you saying that the child is responsible for the act?”

          There is no other interpretation for these statements other than you believe that a woman should be made to carry a baby to term when she made no decision to become pregnant! Are you really too stupid to not understand this?

          I know that there are very few pregnancies from rape, and as I said, I know that more than 90% of abortion cases are due to convenience. Why are YOU being so intractable?

        • Independence_R_US

          Ah yes more spewing liberal swill. Congrats on the name calling though.

          As usual you closet liberals are all about the mock indignation especially when faced with an opponent that won’t back down becasue you try to move the focus away from the issues or the usual demonizing of those that have opposing views. So much for acceptance of those that have other opinions. You do know what the word hypocrisy means? I seriously doubt it by your comments.

          Thanks for labeling me as a Tea Party person as that is a badge of courage that real American’s should wear. However, I’m not a part of that true American affiliation. So more lies from a lying deceitful liberal.

          Obvious your brain damage is worse that I expected. For that I’m truly sorry. Was it when your parents dropped you on your head as a child. Or a more recent brain injury? Either way, you stupidity is simply amazing. AS I STATED, I never said that I would prohibit ANY WOMEN FROM HAVING AN ABORTION. Try a remedial reading course,upping your meds, or both. As usual those voices in your head added what you wanted to hear instead of what was stated.

          Still you can’t & won’t answer the real issues which are that the child has no say in the abortion. Yet you liberals are always touting how freedom of choice is priority one. Yet only show your hypocrisy & stupidity when you make 99.99% of your statements. It truly must be a mental issues with you folks.

          I’m not being intractably. I’m making a point which you refuse to admit or acknowledge. If you did you would say that you agree & then there would be no points of contention. Instead you keep lying about what I stated as if your saying a lie over & over makes it a truth.

          So in usual liberal form, it’s my fault that you had a brain fart & didn’t understand what was said. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragically the liberal way to the destruction of our country.

        • DonC

          You are one seriously stupid TeaBillie. You inability to logically make an argument shows that you pretty much rely on TeaBillieNeocon dogma to make your argument, and cannot weer from that one iota.

          I have so thoroughly embarrassed and pwned your dumb ass in this thread that you should now go home and ask your Mommy to let her lick your manifest and myriad wounds from this ass-whooping you took on this thread.

          Your stupidity is only matched by your illogicality. Please never reproduce, and please stay away from children. In fact, the best thing you could do for society is to become a hermit. Since you would be most comfortable near muslims, I would suggest a mountain in Iran…

        • Independence_R_US

          Sadly repeating liberal diatribe won’t make it so. Logic is logic & you have none that anyone with any common sense can see. What I do see is a person that won’t admit that they’re stupid & is arguing a point that has been asked & answered. But isn’t getting what they want. In other words you’re acting like a juvenile that hasn’t gotten their way. Just like Oblamo.

          As many have said, you can’t make a liberal think. So you’ve proven that statement to be correct.

          So in your liberal puny mind you’ve won a grandiose battle. How truly sad & misinformed. But that’s typical; of liberals. They make things up including perceived victories. It must be great living in your make believe world of unicorns & freebees.

          Well Unlike you I have a life & as usual I’ve wasted too much time trying to educated & make a liberal think. The real sad thinkg is that your stupidity has permeated so many. That the liberal diseases is spreading like a cancer throughout the US. So congrats on killing children, the economy, our effectiveness in the world, etc. You should be so proud.

          Keep blathering to yourself. As I’m sure that you’ll convince yourself that you’re right. Irregardless of facts, truth or anything resembling rational thought.

        • DonC

          Your post basically equates to: “I am rubber, you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and stick to you!”

          I apologize, I did not realize I was speaking to an elementary student…

        • ksting

          DonC: I understand you are against abortion in most instances. However, the question is not about science but religious beliefs. I believe that life begins at inception. That is a religious belief protected by the 1st amendment. The amendments say nothing about science. Science does not have an impact on the 1st amendment. So if I religiously believe that life begins at inception and the abortion bill kills that to me it is murder. That is a religious belief protected by the Constitution.

        • DonC

          You are welcome to your belief. No one says you are not. The thing is, you are not welcome to make your religious belief someone else’s, because the right you speak of is for everyone.

          The law, though, is not religious in basis. We do not derive our laws based on what some religion decrees. I base my view on abortion on the way the law is now, and my moral conviction. I believe that the view that right to choose people use is bogus, that a woman has a right to choose what she does with her body. We certainly do not have the right to choose what we can put into our own bodies, so that makes the argument moot. But to say that a woman has to carry a baby to term when she made no conscious choice to act in a way that would get her pregnant is beyond civil liberties, in any way you can think. That is what @Independence_R_US:disqus is proposing, and it is atrocious.

      • ksting

        Some medical experts say that others say it is after inception. That really does not matter the question is religious belief. You are affecting a religious belief which falls under the 1st amendment.

        • Kathi J

          No they do not, not legitimate experts nor the FDA which defines both the morning after pill and the IUD as contraceptives not abortifacients. Really all the religious nut cases just need to hurry up and die off, they are destroying this country.

        • ksting

          Many other experts believe otherwise. However, the constitution does not mention science, science is not protected by the constitution religion is. This is also what the Supreme Court said. Sorry you lose.

  • Van Hudson

    If corporations under the cnstitution have a right to lobby, or pay congressmen, or otherwise influnce legislation then they have the same rights to religious rights provided by the constitution. You can’t have it both ways.

    • Chris Sievert

      For them to not have to pay for Birth Control they would have to be consistent across the Board… meaning they would have to drop China as a source for their products… Since the Taxes HL pays to China are used to Force Abortions on Chinese women.

      • ksting

        Who are you to dictate what a persons religious beliefs are. The Constitution does not give you that power. Keep bringing up China it does not matter. Christianity says nothing about who you do business with.

  • plainlyspoken

    Women shop at his stores. He is trying to control and interfere with women’s health. He is a hypocrite who buys goods from China, a country where abortion is a way of life to prevent overpopulation. It’s time to shut him down.

    • Bill Rawlins

      I find it interesting that people on the left falsely refer to abortion as Womens’ Health in order to gain sympathy. Why not call abortion what it is: abortion.

  • Ted

    The company is organized as a separate entity from the individuals for tax and financial reporting purposes, in addition to legal purposes such as bankruptcy and liability.

    If the owners want the courts to pierce the corporate veil for religious purposes, then it should also be pierced for all other.

    Clawback those profits and dividends and charge them self employment taxes, too.

    • ksting

      Ted that has to be one of the stupidest statements I have ever read. The profits from this corporation are taxed at a higher rate than anyone else. You happen to forget it is double taxed. The corporation first on all profits. Then the stockholders pay tax on their dividends, so in other words those stock holders have paid taxes twice on the same money, but you liberals forget this.

  • Independence_R_US

    Seems that Oblamo gave exemptions to a ton of folks concerning Oblundercare. But you don’t see these folks being brought into court. Why becasue Oblamo gave his campaign contributors & cronies exemptions.

    When you go to work for any company, you agree to work under their rules. If you don’t like the rules then you don’t work for them.

    I can’t wait until companies force everyone onto Oblundercare & away from company provided HC. Then the morons that voted for Oblundercare & Oblunder will finally get what they deserve. You just cant fix liberal stupidity. Oh everyone deserves a living wage, free HC, free education, free homes, free ….. They’re too stupid to realize that free isn’t free & that you’re not entitled to squat.

    • Ted

      “When you go to work for any company, you agree to work under their rules.”

      And a company’s rules are subjected to Federal law, one of which states that if your insurance plan covers a number of specific prescriptions, like viagra, the plan must also cover women’s birth control pills.

      That law existed at least a decade before we enacted Romneycare as a national plan instead of just a specific state plan.

      • Independence_R_US

        The laws provided when the folks went to work there were lawful. It’s only since Oblamo & you liberals decided to force your stupidity onto others that the law changed. As I’ve stated Oblamo gave a ton of his cronies exemptions. But I guess you conveniently forgot that.

        Oh BTW moron Oblamo seems to feel he’s above the law by moving parts of it out so as to not have problems for the mid term & 2016 elections. OOPS.

        So it seems only certain folks in America have to obey your rules. While you folks don’t. You do know what the word hypocrite means don’t you.

        No one ever said the Hillarycare was good. Oh you forgot about that one as well. Seems that Hill wanted this way before Romney but both sides of the isle voted it down. How stupid can you be? Oh you’re a liberal. There are no limits to the amount of stupid you folks can come up with.

      • ksting

        Sorry not all places had that law. Before Obamacare in most states the business could pick and choose what they offered in their insurance if they offered insurance at all. You see insurance was not forced upon the companies but was a way for them to get good workers to work and stay with them.

  • aunt_deen

    I’ll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.

  • delta4ce7

    Since people can’t justly be forced to work for Hobby Lobby or any other business, Hobby Lobby nor any other business can justly be forced to violate the moral convictions of the owners. Notice the emphasis on “just.” Anyone can be forced to do what they don’t want to do or think is wrong but true justice does not permit force unless what they are doing means that people who have no choice but to work there are going to be fundamentally harmed. The beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby do not harm anyone who is being forced to work for them but people who choose to work for Hobby Lobby will be harming the owners if they are forced to violate their sincere convictions concerning right and wrong. In that case, a huge injustice will be taking place and the only choice Hobby Lobby will be left with is to shut down the business.

  • Blue Sunflower

    Isn’t this the company that just recently said “Don’t call us a Christian company?”

  • Syanis

    They already said a corporation has freedom of speech as an individual (corporate political financing crap). This would follow suit with that ruling they have religious rights as well. After all doesn’t make sense you say in one hand they count as an individual for individual rights while in another they don’t.

    People also forget the biggest corporation / business on the planet is the Roman Catholic Church and yes they are for profit while claim otherwise. Corporate religion has been around for centuries.

  • Thomas Billis

    Start with a ridiculous argument that Corporations are people and here is where you end up.When I see corporations on the front lines in some war or going to jail for misdeeds or having children then let’s talk.Corporations were formed as liability deflectors not to be people.This conversation about corporate people hood goes on no where else because we are the only country dumb enough to think it is an issue.Obey the laws of the country you are doing business in and drop these ridiculous arguments.

    • ksting

      See this is the point it is not the corporation but the owners of the corporation. They as owners are being forced to provide something against their religious convictions. Maybe the corporation has no feelings or beliefs but the owners do.

  • querty

    I will never understand why people and religion are against contraception. It’s a win win! It means less people to support and less resources being used! How thick headed to do you have to be to be against it?

    • ksting

      Why don’t you become a little more informed before you make a statement. Hobby lobby will provide and has in the past contraception however, it is the abortion pills the day after and pills like that they are against. These are pills that kill after impregnation. These are the contraceptives they are against. Not all contraception.

      • cecilia

        when did this corporation go to medical school and become a doctor?

        It’s mother must be SO proud.

        • ksting

          This has nothing to do with science or medicine. The Constitution does not even mention science or medicine. What it does mention and what this is about is religious belief, which is protected.

        • cecilia

          yes, the Constitution states that every individual can practise any religion (or no religion) they wish.
          It DOESN’T say people can use their religion to bull others.

          In other words, if YOUR religion tells YOU not to use contraception then don’t YOU use contraception. You can’t tell other people to live your life and act like you.

          The Constitution protects MY civil rights to live MY life as I see fit.

          My civil rights trumps Your religion

        • ksting

          Try again. You have no civil rights that someone else has to provide your contraception. Making someone provide these items against their religion is against the Constitution. The Supreme Court saw it that way you lose.

        • cecilia

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion………….

          First Amendment

          The Supreme Court just went against the Constitution.

        • ksting

          You really want to go on and show your ignorance. You use part of one sentence to make a point and fail at that. You have to use the full sentence and paragraph to understand what is being said. This part of the amendment had two purposes. 1) to keep the federal government from establishing a governmental church like England did with the Church of England or Italy and the Catholic church. To keep the government from telling people that they had to join that church or believe what that church believes. 2) to protect the people so that they could worship as they believe without any problems from the government. Now this ruling did not say that you had to believe the same things that the owners of Hobby Lobby do. It just said that the government could not force Hobby Lobby to do something against their religious beliefs. It did not create a church or a religion. They went with the Constitution and not against it. But I guess you are too ignorant to understand that.

        • cecilia

          what the Supreme Court did was tell a corporation that their “rights” superseded the civil rights of American citizens. That’s fascism.

        • ksting

          No what the Supreme Court said isthat the owners of a business, their constitutional right to religion supersedes the governments law that intrudes on their right of religion. I know you don’t care about religion. But the constitution protects religion, it does not protect a woman’s right to contraceptives. No that is not fascism. I guess you are so illiterate you do not know what fascism is. No that is a country that has a constitution as the supreme law. And if you do not like how the Constitution protects religion then make and get passed an amendment to change it.

        • cecilia

          as soon as a Muslim owned company starts insisting what it’s employees can and can’t do you will be screaming

        • ksting

          You really are dense aren’t you . The SC or Hobby Lobby did not tell women employees they could not take those pills, they did not say that the employees had to believe and act they way hobby lobby’s owners believed what they said hobby lobby’s owners did not have to provide something against their religious beliefs they did not infringe on any of the rights of the women employees. Again If you can show me in the constitution where it says women have the right to have someone else pay for their contraceptives then I will change my view.

        • cecilia

          no, you just don’t understand what a can of worms this has opened.

        • ksting

          No you just don’t believe in the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land. You cannot pick and choose what parts of it you want to obey. The very first amendment to the constitution was the protection of religion that is how important the founders of the nation felt it was.

        • cecilia

          The First Amendment protects YOUR personal right to practise as you see fit in your personal life.
          it’s not a free-for-all to bully other citizens.

          you think you have a special right.
          You think your right is above all others.

          wait until you find out you are incorrect. I’ll keep a hankie for you

        • ksting

          First off I don’t see that phrase in the constitution of personal life. Next off tell me how this ruling bullies anybody. It just says they do not have to provide something, something that they did not have to provide until the ACA overstepped governments authority. Now as for Christian based laws being passed people have the right to vote their convictions and as long as it does not go against the Constitution is completely legal. If you don’t like that then get enough people to vote against it. Oh I’m sorry most people in this country recognize themselves as being religious. I guess you lose again.

        • cecilia

          and the minute a different religion from YOURS insists on this special privilege you will get upset.

          This is why the Founders wrote the First Amendment – so no one religion gets to be above others.

          All religions and viewpoints are equal in the eyes on the Constitution. Each person gets to believe whatever THEY like. In their personal life. They can go to any church or temple…watch the prayer channel on TV, get religious material in the mail and so on.

          So your boss making medical decisions for your life based entirely on THEIR religious views is really a big intrusion.

          It really makes me laugh that very the people who DON’T appreciate how the First Amendment actually protects THEM are the ones trying to break it.

        • ksting

          First off what Political Science courses in College have you taken. I can tell you have not taken any since you are just spouting off leftwing comments. You do not know what the meaning of the first amendment is about. Having said that, the court did not infringe on any ones rights or beliefs. there is no Constitutional right to have some one else pay for your contraception. They did not say these employees had to believe what the owners believe, they did not say they could not use those contraceptives. They just said that the owner does not have to go against their beliefs and provide them. They can still use them just that they have to pay for them. Tell me what rights did the supreme court infringe upon.

        • cecilia

          this issue is really not about hormone therapy.
          it’s about a corporation having rights above citizens.

        • ksting

          No this is about owners having their religious rights protected against citizens that have no right. There is no right to have someone pay for your medical expenses. That is not a right. So tell me how this infringes one bit on their employees rights.

        • cecilia

          you actually wrote “citizens that have no right”…wow, that’s just sad…

          I know you don’t understand this but citizens have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Citizens aren’t slaves. And with their doctor’s assessment some citizens need certain medical solutions to be productive in their work.

          Any corporation that isn’t interested in the welfare of their workers is only out for slaves and frankly shouldn’t be in business.

        • ksting

          Yes and if you read I said they had no right to have someone pay for their contraceptives or even to have someone pay for their healthcare. Where as in the Constitution it specifically says that people have the right to religion with out government influence. Now I am stating law and all you can state is your personal feelings. I am sorry but you have lost this debate, just like your counterparts lost the war at the Supreme court.

        • cecilia

          yes, individuals can practice whatever religion they wish…but how can an individual citizen do that if the government gives religious power to corporations?

          Don’t you see that the government giving religious preference to a corporation is EXACTLY against the First Amendment?

        • ksting

          First off the Constitution says nothing about individuals so you cannot limit religious beliefs to individuals. Next they are not saying that the employees or customers have to believe or act the way the owners of the business believe they are just saying that the owners do not have to provide something against their religious beliefs. Now explain to me how that infringes on any ones right to believe the way they want. They can still get those pills shoot they can have an abortion the ruling does not stop that. What it does stop is that Hobby Lobby does not have to provide it. No that is not against the 1st amendment that is exactly what the first amendment is about. You still have not answered the question of how they have infringed on anybody’s right to their beliefs. However, remember birth control is not a right. No where in the constitution does it say someone has the right to have someone else pay for their contraception.

        • cecilia

          “.. the Constitution says nothing about individuals…”

          What the heck do you think “We the People” means?

          and you don’t understand that insurance is payed by the employee.

          In any case this kind of mess will make people realize how much better Single Payer is

        • ksting

          You really are stretching aren’t you We the people. That does not say individuals. That says a group. Next off again it does not say individuals in the 1st amendment. No insurance is not payed by the employee. It is mostly paid by the employer as a benefit. So once again your arguments come to naught. You still have not answered how this ruling affects Hobby Lobby’s employees religious rights. But, of course you will not answer that because it does not affect their rights. Now as for the single payer yes that would solve this problem the problem is most of the country does not want single payer yet. Obama tried to get that through but could not get enough democratic support for it to pass.

        • cecilia

          I’ve already explained it….but you are blinded.

          your eyes will be opened when a Muslim owned business does the same thing Hobby lobby did

        • ksting

          Hey a muslim owned business has the right to do things according to their religion. As long as they are not trying to make me believe or act the way they do. But this question is not an answer to how the company not paying for or providing the day after pill infringes on a single right of their employees. Tell me one right given to us by the constitution that that inhibits. You can’t because it does not.

        • ksting

          Plus you still have not told me how this ruling interferes one bit with the employees rights either to their religion or the rights given to them through the Constitution. It does not. They can still believe however they want, they can still use whatever contraceptive they want. So how does this interfere with the employees rights.

        • cecilia

          what can happen:

  • Bobby Joe Houston

    I think every time these religious nutbags throw a new temper tantrum like this, they should pay a fine to sexual education fund, which works to actually prevent abortions.

  • Leigh Anne P

    But this same company actually invested $73 million in the pharmacy companies that MAKE the pill. So, okay if we make money off of it, not okay if we have to pay for it? Sounds kinds hypocritical to me.

    • ksting

      No that has been disproven. They invested there money in one thing that organization diversified its stocks which part of that was the pharmacy company that makes the abortion pill but hobby lobby did not invest in that company directly.

  • Greg McGowan

    Snobby Lobby does not have a problem with all contraceptives, just one particular brand, unless they have since filing the suit dropped the other 3,I believe, contraceptives they don’t have a problem with. Does not the owner own stock in one or more of the contraceptive firms? While Snobby Lobby is a person it is only with regard to the 1st Amendment but nothing else. Therefore RFPA cannot be invoked by Snobby Lobby. It is interesting how the Supremos have ruled that money is protected by the 1st Amendment. This means deep pocket ‘persons’ can buy the finest politicians available, the amount of contribution is unlimited.

  • thetruth777

    “Hobby Lobby Attempts to Claim Corporate Religion”
    No, it’s not a corporation that owns Hobby Lobby, it’s a family.
    And this family is just following it’s religious practices which condemns the practice of homosexuality as an abomination.
    Their religious freedom should be respected.

    • DonC

      So, you are saying that a corporation should be legally allowed to discriminate due to its religious convictions?

    • opalka10

      they are registered as a corporation. A corporation is a seperate entity. Just like you have a church, and it has people in it, but a person is NOT “the structure”.
      The “structure” has people within it. They are seperate.

    • Bobie Spencer

      because they signed articles of incorporation to separate themselves from the company the corporation is no longer them, and if they did actually follow their beliefs, they would not get most of the items they sell from china

      • ksting

        Tell me one place in the Bible it says they should not buy goods from China. That is only your opinion not religious beliefs. So get off your high horse. I bet you shop at Walmart where everything comes from China.

        • Bobie Spencer

          actually i don’t

  • ray

    …obviously, corporations “are people too”…can be executed…as religious corporations, have no business in govt…separation of church and state.

    • Poet of the Light

      clearly you miss the whole theory of “separation of church and state” and this is what keeps logic from eluding your grasp.

      • DonC

        I doubt you have a firm grasp of it, either…

  • Poet of the Light

    Liberal terrorist online are worse than real terrorist with a gun. One wants to shoot us while the other wants to strip guns from us so we can’t defend ourselves. They scream for tolerance yet don’t tolerate anyone who dis agrees with them. Liberal conjectured opinion is being substituted for fact when logic disagrees with them. They argue over the legal meaning of “Corporation” yet those liberal who have a Corporation, claim entitled tax deduction that they “personally” enjoy. anti-Christians is all it is.
    Talk about hypocrites having it both ways. how could a corporation stay at a motel, eat hundreds of dollars worth of dinners, drive cars, fly first class, use health insurance, ect….

    • opalka10

      no one wants to take your guns, Barney. We just don’t think you need 30 bullets to hit your target. If you need that many, you’re as good as dead anyhow.

      • Poet of the Light

        return to sender, no Barney at this address but thanks for trying.

        • DonC

          Ok, Bubba then….

  • Bill Rawlins

    Hobby Lobby’s argument that it has religious freedom as a corporation is valid in a very clear way. Do news corporations have freedom of speech? Of course they do. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both First Amendment rights. So, if a corporation has freedom of speech, then it follows logically that it must also have freedom of religion.

    • DonC

      So, can a corporation claim it should not have to hire Jews if it is against their religion?

      • Bill Rawlins

        Should a Kosher Deli be required to hire Muslims?

        • DonC

          Not required, but required to not discriminate….

        • Bill Rawlins

          In order to support the First Amendment, some types of discrimination are (or should be) permissible.

        • DonC

          Such as?

        • Bill Rawlins

          Such as the Kosher Deli example I gave above.

        • DonC

          Hate to disagree. All that would lead to is people saying it is against their religion to hire black people….

        • Bill Rawlins

          Bad analogy. The racial discrimination argument is not religion-based.

        • DonC

          It most certainly is to some people. If you believe otherwise, take a look at the arguments for anti-miscegenation laws prior to Loving v. Virginia…

        • Bill Rawlins

          That case is 50 years old! I live in the Deep South and I have never heard of a religion-based racial discrimination case during my adult lifetime. You need a better example. Now, back to point: People with deeply-held religious convictions will not drop them at the door of anti-First Amendment law. Do you think Hooby Looby will drop their beliefs if they lose the suit? (I predict they will win, by the way.) No, they will drop health coverage entirely.

        • DonC

          First of all, OH MY GOD, THE CASE WAS FIFTY YEARS AGO!! THERE MUST BE NO MORE RACISTS IN THE DEEP SOUTH ANYMORE!!

          What an idiotic thing to say. I lived in South Carolina for a large part of my adult life, and also Virginia and Florida. You don’t have to tell me about racial discrimination in the Deep South; I have seen it first hand. Roe v. Wade was literally seven years after Loving v. Virginia. Has that case caused any consternation?

          Secondly, Hobby Lobby is a company with 569 stores, with probably thousands of employees. Since they are more than 50 people, they will have to offer healthcare, or pay a sizable penalty. I’m thinking that you have no clue what you are talking about.

        • Bill Rawlins

          Sad that you have now played your TROLL card and have taken the dialogue from debate to insult. I repeat my comment that I have not seen any religion-based racial discrimination suits in my adult lifetime, not racial discrimination alone. You changed the argument. Lastly, I believe Hobby Lobby will not pay for abortion-related insurance no matter what the results of the case are. I have followed this case closely. We will see if I am right.

        • DonC

          You stupid idiot. Do you think that you will not see a religion-based racial discrimination suit if the Holly Lobby case goes in their favor, or are you still naive enough to believe there is no racism in the South. I have followed this case quite closely, too, and if the SCOTUS does not see the floodgates this will open, they are as foolish as you are.

        • Bill Rawlins

          You are sad with your anger issues. I predict that if Hobby Lobby wins, there will not be any religion-based racial discrimination suits as a result. And, as I said before, you changed the argument. No-one denies there is racial discrimination. I said (for the last time) that I have not seen any religion-based racial discrimination suits during my adult lifetime. We will see if I am right on Hobby Lobby. If I am, then I assume that you will call yourself a “stupid idiot” (your words). I have no interest in further discussion with you since you can’t control your anger. We’ll see what happens and see who was right. Have a good evening.

        • DonC

          Again showing your stupidity, I see. I never said there have been religion-based racial discrimination suits up until now. I said that if the SCOTUS finds in favor of Hobby Lobby, there WILL be these type of lawsuits, because those types of feeling do not just subside. Racists are ALWAYS going to try to find ways to validate their discrimination. For you to say otherwise is either you being obtuse, because you know I am right and do not want to admit it, or because you are just plain stupid.

          Since you are obviously a TeaBillie, I am not sure which one is the case…

        • ksting

          Sorry that part of the law has been postponed or are you not up with politics.

  • Thomas Moore

    The GOP sees corporations as “super people” who are above the law, can’t be taxed, can buy elections, and whose religious rights come first.

    Sick.

    • Bill Rawlins

      Headline from 9/27/2012: Billionaire George Soros gives $1,000,000 to Barack Obama Political Action Committee. Now who’s trying to buy elections?

    • ksting

      I see you know nothing of corporations. They are taxed as a matter of fact the people with stock in the corporation are double taxed. First the corporations profits are taxed (yes at a reduced rate) then the dividends to the investors is taxed. So they pay twice. But of course you would not know that because you don’t care about the truth. What corporations do is protect the individuals property if something goes wrong.

  • bbroome62

    If corporations are legally considered people, then they can pray. It’s a no brainer.

    • ksting

      This has been the liberal view of the rulings. Not once did SCOTUS say that corporations were people or individuals. What it did say is the corporation represents the owners of it and they have their rights and since the corporation represents them it has rights. Never once did the supreme court say that the corporation was a person.

  • lowens1975

    Corporations should not be allowed to force their own beliefs onto to their employees.

    • ksting

      Your’e right, however, this is about the government telling the owner of a business that he has to provide something to his employees that goes against the owners religious beliefs. This is the government telling someone they have to something against their religion. I am sorry the government does not have that right. The owners aren’t saying the employees have to believe a certain way and the employees can still go and get that type of birth control if they want to, but the company should not have to provide that.

      • cecilia

        are you saying corporations don’t have to follow the laws of the land?

  • marxwj

    If the corporation is religious, then it would maintain the same policies and practices regardless of owner. That means that if the current owner were to sell it off, the company would still finance Christian Charities of the same sort it does today, and that it would still be a religious organization and maintain its exemption from a variety of laws no matter who owns it. Since there is no realistic way of guaranteeing these things, the company in and of itself can’t be considered religious. It operates at the whim of its owner. It has no free will, no faith, it is nothing but property, like a car or a house.

    • Guest

      Study Cannons, Corp and Busn. Constitutional law concepts and theories and get back to us.

    • Poet of the Light

      Finally a law scholar to educate everyone. Go ahead marxy and teach us why SCOTUS will side with you !!

  • David Smith

    Doesn’t have to be religious in nature. The corporation should have the right not to pay for birth control for whatever reason they choose. If you don’t like it work somewhere else.

    • x1134x

      UGH. They don’t pay for birth control. They pay for an insurance policy. Once they buy the policy, the money no longer belongs to them, and is part of the employee’s compensation. When it is spent, the EMPLOYEE is spending it, not the employer.

      • ksting

        So they should not have to buy an insurance policy that provides something that is against their beliefs. They are not saying women cannot use them just that they will not supply them. The Supreme court also saw it this way. I will take their intelligence on the matter over yours anyday.

        • x1134x

          That’s like saying I shouldn’t have to pay you cash dollars because you can use them to buy drugs or pay a hitman or do some other percieved “sin”. You’re not “supplying” anything when you buy insurance. . You’re supplying INSURANCE. What the insurance company does with THEIR money on behalf of the employee is THEIR business, not the employer’s. Its no different than you employer telling you what you can and cannot spend your paycheck on, because “they don’t want to supply you” with things you may purchase that is against their religion.

        • x1134x

          Yes, just like they should have to pay you in money that can provide you something that is against their beliefs. Money is money, regardless of how you’re paid it, its YOURS once you’ve earned it, and how it is spent from then on is YOUR business not your employer’s. be it cash wages or insurance premiums.

        • ksting

          Sorry insurance is not something they owe you it is a benefit offered by the company. It is something that is paid for by the company. This was the view of the majority of the Supreme court so your argument is null a void. Sorry a boss does not have to offer you something that is against their political beliefs.

  • BW

    The Green Family are not Southern Baptists. They are Pentecostals. Rule number one in journalism is that you report facts, not opinions. I know more about the Green family than anyone here since I was in upper management with this company. And no, I am not supporting them or their views and I am totally into God and walking in Christ. There is a lot of information the general public has no idea about, yet they make their own opinions up based on rumors instead of facts.

  • Leigh

    If HL wins, these uber-Christian ya-yas will wish they kept it zipped when a can of worms the size of the Grand Canyon opens up under their feet. I can see it now…private companies will have the ability to pick and choose who works for them, and what’s more, the religious rules their employees will have to follow, whether they’re of that religion or not.

    I have to admit, it kind of would be amusing to learn of a high-level female Christian employee making 6 figures for a company that’s HQ’ed in Saudi Arabia and whose owners are Muslims, being forced to wear a hijab while in work. When she protests, her option is “wear it or quit”. Wonder if she’d leave that 6-figure position just like that? Hmm. That deafening roar you’ll hear is every Christian in this country screeching about how they’re being “persecuted”. To which I say you should’ve thought about the repercussions before you opened that can of worms, dummies! It’s going to come back to bite them all in the posterior and I will be laughing mine off, guaranteed.

  • Andrew

    If a Corporation has a First Amendment right to free speech as the Supreme Court has said, than why does it not also have the First Amendment right to religious freedom?

  • RLTO

    Like most religiously fascist phony “Christians,” the Greens are total hypocrites. As a “Christian” business, that business buys all its product from State owned companies in China, a country that forces abortions on women, prevents the free excursive of religion and forces children to work in horrid conditions that no civilized society allows. But allowing their female employees birth control. Oh my!

    • InvisibleZombie

      But those are “just” Chinese children. Unborn, unwanted American children are more important to them.

  • ksting

    Rlto- that is only your atheist view. There is nothing in Christian teachings preventing anyone from buying goods from China. However, there is against killing and Hobby Lobby is against the abortion pill. This is a case of the right to practice ones religion. They don’t want to stop supporting womens contreception just not the abortion pill. The right to practice ones religion is not based on what you think people should believe. You do not dictate wahte I can believe or not believe.

    • cecilia

      practising their religion means THEY don’t have to get abortions…it doesn’t mean they get to tell other people how to live.

      The First Amendment don’t let you be a bully in the name of your religion.

  • Harry Haff

    A corporation having a religion is like a car having a religion. Corporations as entities cannot function apart from the people operating them. If they can have a religion, then they should be eligible for military service, eligible to vote and eligible to be thrown into prison for wrong doing instead of just getting fines.

  • MEP1101

    This tyranny by the LGBT
    Minority highlights that the U.S. no longer is a democracy within a
    republic; “Government OF…BY…and FOR THE (The Majority) of the
    PEOPLE.” It now has a Bolshevik government; rule over the Majority
    by a minority (Tyranny by a minority). This change in government has
    been described as “The Culture War”, but in reality is a
    religious war between the two most famous Jews in history over who
    will rule the hearts and minds of mankind, Jesus, the spiritual,
    Jewish Christ or Karl Marx, the Jewish messiah of Materialism and End
    Times Anti-Christ. Initially the Anti-Christ will prevail, but in the
    end Jesus will triumph. In the mean time Christians have to SHARE
    THEIR FAITH ZEALOUSLY, because the end of this old world is near!

    • DonC

      Let me guess, you were a Birther for time, too, right?

  • jdmeth

    “Under the designation of ‘person’ there is no doubt that a private
    corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations
    are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and
    permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession
    of members without dissolution.” 1888 Supreme Court

    Do they have all first amendment rights, or just free speech (campaign contributions)? We know they have second.

  • x1134x

    Forcing an insurance company to offer policies with religious coverage exceptions is not religious freedom.

  • J

    I thought a southern baptist woman’s workplace was in the kitchen.

  • ksting

    You liberals want to bring it down to the corporation it is not about the corporation but the owners of the corporation. This law infringes upon their religious rights.

  • Scott Amundsen

    Hobby Lobby is a STORE, NOT A CHURCH. I have been a Christian for almost fifty years but I also remember my Civics 101 and the Green family has NO RIGHT to expect to prevail in this case. If they do, SCOTUS will have committed a PROFOUNDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL act and we will be headed toward a theocracy. And if that happens we will all be well and truly screwed.

    • ksting

      I guess you were wrong. Just because they have a business does not mean the government can make them do what they religiously oppose.

      • Scott Amundsen

        You’re either a moron or you slept through Civics 101. What SCOTUS did was PROFOUNDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL in ways that we have not yet even BEGUN to see and I predict that unless this HORRIBLE decision is reversed this country is heading for a Christian version of Sharia Law and if you think that is an improvement on the Muslim version you just wait until it comes up and bites you in the ass.

        • ksting

          You tell me one way this is unconstitutional? The very first amendment to the Constitution protects religious beliefs from the Government saying that it could not make any law restricting beliefs. This is the first amendment. Now you tell me how the SC protecting the owners right of religion was unconstitutional?

        • Scott Amundsen

          Simple. The Greens are attempting to force their own religious views on their employees. Now if Hobby Lobby were a church or some other religious organization they might have a leg to stand on but they are a RETAIL FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS and as such do not have the right to such protections.

          Oh and they are hypocrites too: Hobby Lobby sells products that are made in China, a country where abortions are not only commonplace but *encouraged* under the one child per family law because the country is already so overpopulated that the government has actually imposed upon people’s choices with regard to having children.

          They have also invested in companies that manufacture the very contraceptives they seek to deny to their employees. So the bottom line is their *religious beliefs* do not allow them to pay for them but profiting from them is another story entirely.

          Just in case you missed the spelling the word is H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

        • ksting

          They are not
          forcing their beliefs on their employees.
          Those employees can still believe in those pills and use them. It is just that Hobby Lobby does not have to
          provide for them. That is not making
          them believe the same way. There also is
          no constitutional right to have some one pay for your contraceptive matter of
          fact there is not right that says someone else has to pay for your medical
          bills at all. So they are not infringing
          upon any of your rights.

          As for buying from China there is
          nothing in the bible that says you cannot do business with sinners. You cannot provide the means to sin, but
          nothing about doing business with sinners.
          Therefore that argument of yours holds no water.

          Next you say they own stock in these
          pharmacies. No you are wrong. They own mutual funds. Those mutual funds have diversified and own
          stock in the pharmacies, but they do not directly own stock in those
          pharmacies. So no they are not
          hypocrites. And besides that who are you
          to judge? They just are trying their best not to sin themselves. Next off I don’t believe for one instant that you are Christian.

        • Scott Amundsen

          “Next off I don’t believe for one instant that you are Christian.”

          1) That is not your call.

          2) I’ve been a Christian for close on fifty years. Who are YOU to say otherwise?

          “As for buying from China there is nothing in the bible that says you cannot do business with sinners. You cannot provide the means to sin, but nothing about doing business with sinners. Therefore that argument of yours holds no water.

          Next you say they own stock in these pharmacies. No you are wrong. They own mutual funds. Those mutual funds have diversified and own stock in the pharmacies, but they do not directly own stock in those pharmacies. So no they are not
          hypocrites.”

          Boy oh boy when you people want to justify bigotry, cruelty, and unfair practices, you will always find a way, won’t you? You are as big a hypocrite as they are.

        • ksting

          Us people who Christians a group you say you are part of? Next off you cannot disprove anything I said just repeat it. I as a working member had a 401k it was invested in many areas. There might have been a few areas it was invested in that I would not have approved of. Does that make me a sinner. As far as I know, no it does not. They have a right to their beliefs and the Supreme Court also agreed. Next I can tell from your talking that you do not believe in Christian beliefs. So keep trying to pass yourself off as one on the net it does not work.

    • ksting

      By the way who cares if it is a store and not a church. Do you mean that everyone that starts a business has to do it under certain standards and forget about their religious beliefs. You know that most stores are open on Sunday does that mean all stores have to be open on Sunday. Shoot maybe some employees prefer to work on Sunday so that store has to be open so that they can work. No a person has the right to operate their business upon their religious beliefs.