Domino’s Pizza founder sues over contraception mandate

posted at 5:01 pm on December 16, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

The fight over the contraceptive angle in Obamacare, which Ed has written about extensively, is apparently far from over. It’s also going to expand past the application of the law to churches and other religious institutions. Just yesterday I related the story of how one provider explained rising costs to employees at a local small business and listed a number of women’s health services which are now mandated to be provided at no cost. Another employer – in a significantly larger enterprise – has been up in arms over one aspect of this debate all year. Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino’s Pizza, is going to court over the mandate.

Tom Monaghan, a devout Roman Catholic, says contraception is not health care and instead is a “gravely immoral” practice. He’s a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court, along with his Domino’s Farms, which runs an office park near Ann Arbor.

Monaghan offers health insurance that excludes contraception and abortion for employees. The new law requires employers to offer insurance that includes contraception coverage or risk fines. Monaghan says the law violates his constitutional rights, and he’s asking a judge to strike down the mandate.

Unlike Ed – and many others here, I’m sure – I’ve never seen this as an issue of religious freedom, particularly when it branches out to strictly secular businesses such as Monaghan’s. But it does remind us once again of the question of mandating anything in terms of the negotiations between employers and employees over their coverage, to say nothing of the specifics for one type of treatment over another. The number of mandates flying around these days are dizzying, and rather than reducing costs – ostensibly one of the chief goals of health care reform – they seem to drive them up.

Still, you can’t keep the first amendment out of this conversation entirely, as shown by Wesley Smith over at The Corner.

This isn’t about birth control, but the power of the government to bulldoze freedom of religion down to a mere freedom of worship. Regardless of one’s faith or lack thereof, all who believe in American liberty should wish Monaghan well.

This is a rather curious situation where you might find people from opposite sides of the religious spectrum finding common cause, though for very different reasons. But even for the many Americans who may not spend their time obsessing over politics and government and, perhaps, may not be particularly devout, there is a third front. That one is comprised of the folks waking up to find their insurance costs are going through the roof and asking their providers why.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Good for him…

OmahaConservative on December 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Good, every business here in the US should do the same! At least these are making their faith known and that that bhocare goes against their faith and 1st!

Good luck Tom and all others like you doing the same.
L

letget on December 16, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Unlike Ed – and many others here, I’m sure – I’ve never seen this as an issue of religious freedom, particularly when it branches out to strictly secular businesses such as Monaghan’s.

Tom Monaghan, a devout Roman Catholic, says contraception is not health care and instead is a “gravely immoral” practice.

Religious freedom applies to pizza men like Monaghan as well. It applies to everyone, not just a church.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Oooh. Pass the popcorn!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 16, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Unlike Ed – and many others here, I’m sure – I’ve never seen this as an issue of religious freedom, particularly when it branches out to strictly secular businesses such as Monaghan’s.

Speak for yourself. It’s a matter of both religious freedom and economic freedom. Mandating contraception doesn’t even come close to mandates relating to safety and the like.

BuckeyeSam on December 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM

No matter how you slice it, this is good news.

SparkPlug on December 16, 2012 at 5:12 PM

BTW: I’m glad to see this reported, but why no references to Hobby Lobby and the two or three other private firms that have taken the feds to court? This isn’t the first such lawsuit.

BuckeyeSam on December 16, 2012 at 5:13 PM

He must be rolling in dough to be able do this.

SparkPlug on December 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM

The Obama administration often uses the term “freedom of worship,” which means you can do what you want behind your house of worship’s doors, and ordain whom you want, but the minute you step out into society, it is a non-religious (albeit “multi-cultural”) world in which all discourse should be in secular terms.

I think it used “freedom of worship” in Hosanna-Tabor, and we know how that turned out. (although the employer in Hosanna was a religious high school.)

Wethal on December 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM

He must be rolling in dough to be able do this.

SparkPlug on December 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM

He already founded a university and a law school, IIRC.

Wethal on December 16, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Birth control is cheap to free. There’s no need to mandate a Catholic buy it for anyone.

txhsmom on December 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM

On the other hand we need contraceptives. We don’t want too many Papa John’s.

SparkPlug on December 16, 2012 at 5:19 PM

txhsmom on December 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM

+1

SparkPlug on December 16, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Unlike Ed – and many others here, I’m sure – I’ve never seen this as an issue of religious freedom, particularly when it branches out to strictly secular businesses such as Monaghan’s.

I couldn’t disagree more.

A business is a personal endeavor, and conducting business is just as personal as preparing food or having sex. A free market is just basic human behavior. Allowing business to be assimilated into “government” or “public square” or “secular life” the way we have was always and still is a mistake. Leaving reasonable safety requirements, reasonable protections of fundamental rights out of the question (I’m not talking about anarchy) — I should be able to conduct my business as I’d like.

There’s no such thing as a “strictly secular business” because there’s no such thing as a business without an owner. And business owners have already given away too many rights.

Consider how much of our lives this government controls, and would not otherwise control, because it has incorporated business into its structure.

We need to work our way around to the idea that my business is my business and not the government’s business.

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 5:21 PM

I’m 59 yo….WTH do I have to pay for the “right” to have birth control or anything else like it? Oh, wait, this is NOT about insurance, this is about increasing the T.A.X. Silly me….

sicoit on December 16, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Unlike Ed – and many others here, I’m sure – I’ve never seen this as an issue of religious freedom

So if you’re a religious man and create a secular business then you must enact measures through your business that expressly violate your religion?

Not quite sure I can square that circle. Religiosity doesn’t begin and end at the church doorstep.

The contraception mandate is neither morally necessary, nor socially beneficial. It erodes at public virtue and encourages promiscuity with the promise of being able to screw on someone else’s dollar. The provision, like the individual mandate itself, is of no value whatsoever.

Stoic Patriot on December 16, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Oops, hit the submit too quick.
Good for you Mr. M! Gitterdone!

sicoit on December 16, 2012 at 5:22 PM

txhsmom on December 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM

You used ‘mandate’ and have you noticed that bho/team ‘mandate’, will ‘allow’ in the way they are put into bills? mo uses that term for the food kids can eat, etc. They are saying that you will do as we say or else? If you don’t agree, we will deal with you in some form of agency that will see to it you do? This whole bunch wants the US citizens under their control in everything they do!
L

letget on December 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

SparkPlug your pizza jokes are good but you have the work on your delivery.

Frogmorton on December 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Too bad Dominoes’ pizza is worse than even frozen grocery store pizza. Their whole menu from the pizza to the sandwiches to the wings to the breadsticks are just awful. One might as well throw the food away and eat the cardboard box with some dipping sauce instead. You’d hardly be able to tell the difference. The nutrition levels would probably be higher and the chemical additives levels lower. Much lower.

Otherwise, I’d patronize his business once in awhile just in appreciation for his stand if nothing else.

Oh well. Good luck with that, Mr. Dominoes.

SD Tom on December 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM

SparkPlug your pizza jokes are good but you have the work on your delivery.

Frogmorton on December 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Bwaaaggh. Ok 30 minutes or less.

SparkPlug on December 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

He must be rolling in dough to be able do this.

SparkPlug on December 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I hear he promises to deliver his lawsuit in 30 minutes or less!

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

SparkPlug on December 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Damn.

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 16, 2012 at 5:31 PM

SparkPlug your pizza jokes are good but you have the work on your delivery.

Frogmorton on December 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Bwaaaggh. Ok 30 minutes or less.

SparkPlug on December 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Nevertheless, Spark thinks outside the box.

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Does the mandate also cover babies that survive abortions but are denied medical attention by a second doctor and will no longer grow up to have birthdays, graduations, and get married…?

Seven Percent Solution on December 16, 2012 at 5:31 PM

We need to work our way around to the idea that my business is my business and not the government’s business.

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 5:21 PM

And are your health care decisions your employer’s business? Should Quakers get a pass on paying income tax because part of it goes to pay for arms or wars?

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Like several others pointed out on this thread, a citizen’s religious freedom should not be restricted because he doesn’t work for a church or faith-based organization.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 5:40 PM

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Apples & oranges.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

And are your health care decisions your employer’s business?

No, they should be yours alone and have nothing to do with your place of work.

Should Quakers get a pass on paying income tax because part of it goes to pay for arms or wars?

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Do they enjoy police and military protection? If so, then they should pay the freight just like everyone else.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

How mentally crippled mental midgets like RINOs must be.

So, Mr. Shaw, it would be OK to – oh, let’s just say – mandate that everyone eat pork (including muslims, etc etc…), because it’s “outside” the place of worship, so it “doesn’t count” as religious freedom?!

It *that* it, Mr. Shaw?!? ** YOURS.

Czar of Defenestration on December 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

The contraception / freedom of religion issue is the wrong hill to stand on in this fight. It’s a corner case and it’s probably a losing one.

The mandate itself is immoral on many levels.

Doesn’t seem to matter much.

The organizations I work with long ago offered corporate benefits to same sex couples and they included medical coverage that cover contraception and abortion.

They are far larger than Dominos pizza and decided that it was easier to throw in the towel earlier to avoid needless hassle, then pass costs on to employees and customers in a phased approach.

They have effectively legitimized SSM AND coverage for birth control and abortions for all full time employees. And most of you are their customers one way or another.

CorporatePiggy on December 16, 2012 at 5:42 PM

SparkPlug your pizza jokes are good but you have the work on your delivery.

Frogmorton on December 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM

A bit too cheesy for me.

M240H on December 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

CorporatePiggy on December 16, 2012 at 5:42 PM

So corporations can do those things, but they should not be forced to by a mandate.
Protecting religious freedom is still a hopeful cause, as the Hosanna Tabor decision showed.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM

No matter how you slice it, this is good news.
SparkPlug on December 16, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Between Liberty U. and Domino’s it’s a toss-up on which one gets panned by the courts.

Frogmorton on December 16, 2012 at 5:51 PM

A bit too cheesy for me.

M240H on December 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I threw a couple of tomatoes at it.

VegasRick on December 16, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Between Liberty U. and Domino’s it’s a toss-up on which one gets panned by the courts.

Frogmorton on December 16, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Do we really knead all of these puns?

VegasRick on December 16, 2012 at 5:54 PM

I love Domino’s Pizza…if only there was one near my house!

NerwenAldarion on December 16, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Just make a reg exempting religious institutions from complying. They can even cite the constitution. Problem solved.

Knott Buyinit on December 16, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Do we really knead all of these puns?

VegasRick on December 16, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Yes, we dough.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 5:55 PM

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Apples & oranges.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Explain how Catholic views on contraception are somehow more important to their creed than pacifism and non-violence are to Quakers then.

Should Quakers get a pass on paying income tax because part of it goes to pay for arms or wars?

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Do they enjoy police and military protection? If so, then they should pay the freight just like everyone else.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

No, they don’t enjoy it they reject it. Their objections stem directly from their religion.

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Unlike Ed – and many others here, I’m sure – I’ve never seen this as an issue of religious freedom, particularly when it branches out to strictly secular businesses such as Monaghan’s. But it does remind us once again of the question of mandating anything in terms of the negotiations between employers and employees over their coverage, to say nothing of the specifics for one type of treatment over another.

More or less my take, too.
Two points though:
1. If the person providing the insurance believes that a particular service encourages immorality (or worse, immoral itself), they should not be required to pay for it.
2. Insurance should not be provided by employers in the first place, but purchased by the individual from a market.

Count to 10 on December 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Yes, we dough.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 5:55 PM

crust me, we don’t

VegasRick on December 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Explain how Catholic views on contraception are somehow more important to their creed than pacifism and non-violence are to Quakers then.

Quakers can request exemptions from serving in the military based on their pacifist faith.
The mandate tramples on Catholics and others whose consciences cannot allow them to offer contraceptives at no charge to their employees.
So actually Quakers are more esteemed than Catholics.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Yes, we dough.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 5:55 PM

crust me, we don’t

VegasRick on December 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Getting baked by the puns?

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Do we really knead all of these puns?
VegasRick on December 16, 2012 at 5:54 PM

We should avoid them. Some people get a “Noid” when we’re not serious on these boards.

Frogmorton on December 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Do they enjoy police and military protection? If so, then they should pay the freight just like everyone else.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM

No, they don’t enjoy it they reject it. Their objections stem directly from their religion.

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 5:56 PM

You don’t get to be a freeloader in society just because you have a particular religious belief. If they want to be exempt from these things then move to Somalia and establish a colony there. See how long it lasts. We all know that would be measured in days if not hours.

The military stands defending them and the police respond when they need them. They do enjoy that protection while taking a tinkle on the same men who defend them.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:07 PM

So corporations can do those things, but they should not be forced to by a mandate.
Protecting religious freedom is still a hopeful cause, as the Hosanna Tabor decision showed.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM

I agree.

The problem is, our society is increasingly corporatist. And they do increasingly set the tone.

Look at HotAir. Our esteemed bloggers here are all employees of a large media conglomerate, Salem. Interestingly we have not had a single article written about Salem’s stand on any of this.

CorporatePiggy on December 16, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Do we really knead all of these puns?
VegasRick on December 16, 2012 at 5:54 PM

We should avoid them. Some people get a “Noid” when we’re not serious on these boards.

Frogmorton on December 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Avoid the Noid, get sauced till your tossed and aren’t feeling so crusty.

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Explain how Catholic views on contraception are somehow more important to their creed than pacifism and non-violence are to Quakers then.

Quakers can request exemptions from serving in the military based on their pacifist faith.
The mandate tramples on Catholics and others whose consciences cannot allow them to offer contraceptives at no charge to their employees.
So actually Quakers are more esteemed than Catholics.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM

That’s pretty weak.

They both object to practices they deem to be sinful (militarism, violence, war, and contraception). The objection to the mandate is the same as the objection to taxes. Both are seen as enabling sin through financial contribution.

You yourself might think that Quakers are more esteemed but you haven’t made a case that paying taxes which contribute to a military and fighting a war are somehow different from paying for insurance which might be used to provide contraception.

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Unlike Ed – and many others here, I’m sure – I’ve never seen this as an issue of religious freedom, particularly when it branches out to strictly secular businesses such as Monaghan’s.

It’s not much of a freedom if a government bureaucrat can redefine at will just where it’s allowed to be practiced.

If a man claimed to be a devout Catholic, but operated whorehouses, you’d correctly call him a hypocrite for living contrary to his religion. But if the government requires you to do something you believe is contrary to your religion, that’s not a violation of religious freedom?

I don’t share the Catholic view of contraceptives as immoral, but I don’t have to. If it’s their religious conviction, religious freedom demands it be respected.

tom on December 16, 2012 at 6:11 PM

CorporatePiggy on December 16, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Liberty University is challenging both the employer mandat and the contraceptive mandate.

Wethal on December 16, 2012 at 6:13 PM

The problem is, our society is increasingly corporatist. And they do increasingly set the tone.

Look at HotAir. Our esteemed bloggers here are all employees of a large media conglomerate, Salem. Interestingly we have not had a single article written about Salem’s stand on any of this.

CorporatePiggy on December 16, 2012 at 6:07 PM

If you feel like it, define “corporatist.” (Snarkless request. I’m trying to understand that point of view.)

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I think the courts are going to toss this case. Obamacare is cramed down pur throats, chicago style.

Frogmorton on December 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I’d check your portfolios people. D stocks will take a hit ala Applebees, Papa john’s etc.

Making a public point has the potential to hurt investors. Fight the mandates, yes. But enough with the grandstanding.

Seriously, this is not good. Now the media-proctologists will be up this dudes wazoo. And the company will suffer.

Capitalist Hog on December 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Not weak at all. There’s a key distinction between paying taxes to the government, and being mandated to participate in something that violates one’s conscience or religious beliefs.

The former involves the government spending the collected taxes on some things that various people groups won’t agree with. That is not considered a constitutional violation. Nobody will support all of the programs the government spends the taxes on.

That’s why my analogy is apt and yours doesn’t hold water.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 6:15 PM

They both object to practices they deem to be sinful (militarism, violence, war, and contraception). The objection to the mandate is the same as the objection to taxes. Both are seen as enabling sin through financial contribution.

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

The tax pays to provide for the common defense which is in the constitution, and common sense, as well as historical reality makes clear that if that defense didn’t exist… neither would the nation.

They are freeriders.

Contraceptives really don’t have that sort of imperative. Despite what Sandra Fluke has been telling you, its possible to survive without them.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Funny sort of, how we now have to use adjectives to discuss what we mean by “Freedom”; i.e., religious, economic, etc. Just that should be sounding alarms for all of us. If the government can determine my freedom it can determine yours.

MikeA on December 16, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Despite what Sandra Fluke has been telling you, its possible to survive without them.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Not only to survive, but to prosper… perish the thought.

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Avoid the Noid, get sauced till your tossed and aren’t feeling so crusty.

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

The puns on this thread are getting oven worse than usual.

VegasRick on December 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

The puns on this thread are getting oven worse than usual.

VegasRick on December 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Seems like every other comment is Peppered with them.

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

If you feel like it, define “corporatist.” (Snarkless request. I’m trying to understand that point of view.)

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Fair question.

Large corporations serve large audiences across a vast geo-political landscape. They will, as a matter of necessity, pick their political fights very carefully.

O’Care is a perfect example of this. It is despised in some quarters, worshiped in others, and treated with ambivalence by the rest.

The path of least resistance is absolute strict adherence to the law and the minimization of exposure to legal actions. The SC has deemed the entirety of O’Care valid. The corporatist take is therefore that the issue is entirely settled. Mandates, contraception, abortion, all of it.

CorporatePiggy on December 16, 2012 at 6:20 PM

I’d check your portfolios people. D stocks will take a hit ala Applebees, Papa john’s etc.

Making a public point has the potential to hurt investors. Fight the mandates, yes. But enough with the grandstanding.

Seriously, this is not good. Now the media-proctologists will be up this dudes wazoo. And the company will suffer.

Capitalist Hog on December 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM

But didn’t we learn that taking a traditionalist or conservative stand is good for the top line with Chick-fil-A?

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Despite what Sandra Fluke has been telling you, its possible to survive without them.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Not only to survive, but to prosper… perish the thought.

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Liberals seem to have come around to the idea that we all absolutely MUST be invited into their bedrooms no matter how unwilling most of us are.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM

The path of least resistance is absolute strict adherence to the law and the minimization of exposure to legal actions. The SC has deemed the entirety of O’Care valid. The corporatist take is therefore that the issue is entirely settled. Mandates, contraception, abortion, all of it.

CorporatePiggy on December 16, 2012 at 6:20 PM

And that acts as social or political inertia. I see. Thanks.

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 6:23 PM

He must be rolling in dough to be able do this.

SparkPlug on December 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM

He already founded a university and a law school, IIRC.

Wethal on December 16, 2012 at 5:16 PM

…Monaghan used to own the Detroit Tigers and Dominos Pizza…he sold them…he has the money to fight!

KOOLAID2 on December 16, 2012 at 6:23 PM

We need to work our way around to the idea that my business is my business and not the government’s business.

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 5:21 PM

And are your health care decisions your employer’s business? Should Quakers get a pass on paying income tax because part of it goes to pay for arms or wars?

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

This has nothing to do with health care decisions. The employer isn’t making any decisions about any employee’s health care. Employees are still perfectly free to decide to use contraception. But nobody else should be required to fund it.

I’d go a lot further than this lawsuit. The mandate tramples religious freedom every time a devout Catholic employee pays premiums to provide someone else’s contraceptives for free.

As for the Quaker question, there is no way to sever military or arms or wars from your taxes. So the Quaker decision comes down to: do we live in this nation that spends money on wars and military, and therefore pay taxes, or do we leave the nation and go somewhere else?

But it’s easy to avoid violating deeply held beliefs about contraceptives. There’s no reason to require contraceptives to be provided for free. There are multiple forms of reasonably-priced contraceptives available to everyone, so why demand they be part of an insurance plan. Just how much does a condom cost, anyway?

tom on December 16, 2012 at 6:24 PM

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

You are really just saying that secular law trumps religion (which is true). The Constitution does provide defense of the nation and it also provides for equal protection which was how the mandate first became law (EEOC 2000).

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Liberals seem to have come around to the idea that we all absolutely MUST be invited into their bedrooms no matter how unwilling most of us are.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Being dragged into their bedrooms against our will is bad enough, being forced to discuss what they are doing with their genitals while there is getting genuinely offensive.

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM

The puns on this thread are getting oven worse than usual.

VegasRick on December 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Seems like every other comment is Peppered with them.

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Well, in VegasRick’s defense — They are an acquired taste. :) (Not olive us are going to enjoy them.)

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM

And that acts as social or political inertia. I see. Thanks.

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 6:23 PM

It’s our representative democracy and market forces.

It’s not pretty and it never was.

CorporatePiggy on December 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM

So actually Quakers are more esteemed than Catholics.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM

And muslims are completely exempt from obamacare.

Solaratov on December 16, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Seems like every other comment is Peppered with them.
SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Great. Now comments with toppings puns are going to sprout like mushrooms.

Frogmorton on December 16, 2012 at 6:29 PM

It’s our representative democracy and market forces.

It’s not pretty and it never was.

CorporatePiggy on December 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Free markets do serve a necessary function, it’s big corporations that are effective extensions of the federal government that will eventually trample our constitutional freedoms. Some folks will have opinions that they’re already doing so.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 6:31 PM

So actually Quakers are more esteemed than Catholics.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM

And muslims are completely exempt from obamacare.

Solaratov on December 16, 2012 at 6:29 PM

And the literally true but otherwise pathetically disgusting rational for that is that offended Catholics aren’t going to riot, blow stuff up, go on mass shooting spree’s and randomly kill innocent citizens.

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:34 PM

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

You are really just saying that secular law trumps religion (which is true).

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Sorry, but religious freedom does not trump reality. If they want to live in a fantasy world they will have to find somewhere else to do so. That does not imply that their religious freedom is being violated.

Again, free contraceptives and military defense are not equivalents.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Seems like every other comment is Peppered with them.
SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Great. Now comments with toppings puns are going to sprout like mushrooms.

Frogmorton on December 16, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Anchovies and Pineapple slices of the world arise and throw off your topping oppressors…

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Isn’t it odd that the government is mandating so many women’s procedures when women are living longer?

Cindy Munford on December 16, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Sorry, but religious freedom does not trump reality. If they want to live in a fantasy world they will have to find somewhere else to do so.
sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:34 PM

My irony meter just exploded in a small nuclear mushroom cloud.

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Free markets do serve a necessary function, it’s big corporations that are effective extensions of the federal government that will eventually trample our constitutional freedoms. Some folks will have opinions that they’re already doing so.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 6:31 PM

And, to kick the corpse once, continuing to assume the posture that business serves at the pleasure of the government puts the two into a crony capitalistic bed at the best of times, let alone what we’re seeing now with the resurgence of progressivism and Obama.

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Avoid the Noid, get sauced till your tossed and aren’t feeling so crusty.

SWalker on December 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Kenneth Lamar Noid

On January 30, 1989, Kenneth Lamar Noid, a mentally ill customer who thought the ads were a personal attack on him, held two employees of an Atlanta, Georgia, Domino’s restaurant hostage for over five hours. After forcing them to make him a pizza and making demands for $100,000, getaway transportation, and a copy of The Widow’s Son, Noid surrendered to the police.[5] After the incident ended, Police Chief Reed Miller offered a memorable assessment to reporters: “He’s paranoid.”[6] Noid was charged with kidnapping, aggravated assault, extortion, and possession of a firearm during a crime. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Solaratov on December 16, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Solaratov on December 16, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Heh – that must be why they killed the Noid!

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Why aren’t condoms covered… or are those going to be “health care” too?

MT on December 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

You are really just saying that secular law trumps religion (which is true).

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Sorry, but religious freedom does not trump reality. If they want to live in a fantasy world they will have to find somewhere else to do so. That does not imply that their religious freedom is being violated.

Again, free contraceptives and military defense are not equivalents.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:34 PM

The contraception mandate stems from an EEOC ruling made in 2000 and is based on the constitution (14th amendment). Objections to taxes based on religious grounds have their own court history. Both issues have more cases pending. Both issues involve matters of conscience, religious objections, and the state. They aren’t the same but the issues are similar.

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 6:50 PM

And muslims are completely exempt from obamacare.

Solaratov on December 16, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Which is why Liberty’s challenge might actually win.

The government cannot pick and choose among religions, and cannot, at least under U.S. v. Ballard, decide what a valid religious belief is.

Wethal on December 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM

The contraception mandate stems from an EEOC ruling…

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 6:50 PM

And Obamacare is a tax rather than a mandate.

I couldn’t care less about a court ruling.

sharrukin on December 16, 2012 at 6:55 PM

The contraception mandate stems from an EEOC ruling made in 2000 and is based on the constitution (14th amendment).

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Should Quakers get a pass on paying income tax because part of it goes to pay for arms or wars?

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

You’re the puke you normally are……

apples and oranges.

CW on December 16, 2012 at 7:00 PM

You are really just saying that secular law trumps religion (which is true).

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Not in Hosanna v. Tabor(9-0), although the employer there was a Lutheran high school.

See also cases on parochial schools Pierce), Amish home schooling (Yoder), Jehovah’s Witnesses and state slogans on license plates (Wooley) ….

Burdens on religious liberty are subject to strict scrutiny, with the government having to prove that the law is not only constitutional, but the the governemnt goal has been achieved through the narrowest possible means.

Wethal on December 16, 2012 at 7:04 PM

And are your health care decisions your employer’s business? Should Quakers get a pass on paying income tax because part of it goes to pay for arms or wars?

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

It is a question of direct action vs inderect. Quakers are not paying taxes for arms and wars, they are paying taxes for government and the government decides on such purchases. If they were required to directly purchase and give guns to soldiers themselves, it would be a free-exercise violation. They would be forced to take the action the religiously object to directly.

A better analogy would be: Should a Harri Krishna run food bank be required to provide meat?

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on December 16, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Oops should have said Title VII Civil Rights Act not the 14th. Thanks for the implied correction. (long night)

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 7:09 PM

The Constitution does provide defense of the nation and it also provides for equal protection which was how the mandate first became law (EEOC 2000).

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Hosanna-Tabor (2012, IIRC) was an EEOC case.

Wethal on December 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Oops should have said Title VII Civil Rights Act not the 14th. Thanks for the implied correction. (long night)

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 7:09 PM

The Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination based on religion, too, would help the religious argument.

The government cannot favor one religion over another, and say some are exempt, but others are not. And the First Amendment would trump a statute like the CRA.

Wethal on December 16, 2012 at 7:14 PM

I still do not understand how you can force someone to carry something in a free market. I have always said that if Birth control is such a HUGE DEAL that you need your insurance to cover it … then you should base you job decisions on that. Of course, if you judging you job prospects on something like birth control, that says a lot about you and personally, if I was a HR person and was doing the hiring, you be the last one I would want to hire for that being a big deal.

watertown on December 16, 2012 at 7:16 PM

The Constitution does provide defense of the nation and it also provides for equal protection which was how the mandate first became law (EEOC 2000).

lexhamfox on December 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I was wondering how much latina wisdom was required to get at it. :)

Here’s title seven stuff, anyone wants it:

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

Axe on December 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Hosanna-Tabor (2012, IIRC) was an EEOC case.

Wethal on December 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Thanks for the fact.

22044 on December 16, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Look at big gov pukes like Lexham….

they have no problem with government telling a private business how to run itself.

CW on December 16, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Let this be a lesson to Catholics and other groups everywhere…when you support the expansion of government for your pet project (in the case of their support of Obamacare, social justice), don’t be shocked when the train leaves the station and runs over you too.

Catholics, organizationally, wanted it and now we’re all forced to deal with the results of that short-sighted support.

The Hammer on December 16, 2012 at 7:22 PM

I wonder should we make employers pay for experimental treatment? Hell why not?

CW on December 16, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Burdens on religious liberty are subject to strict scrutiny, with the government having to prove that the law is not only constitutional, but the the governemnt goal has been achieved through the narrowest possible means.

Wethal on December 16, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Hosanna Tabor hinged on the employee being a minister. There is some debate over who qualifies as a ministerial employee, but pizza workers likely wouldn’t.

dedalus on December 16, 2012 at 7:33 PM

He must be rolling in dough to be able do this.

SparkPlug on December 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM

He could close every Domino’s tomorrow and have enough money to maintain HIS lifestyle for the rest of his life…

It will be interesting to see if he does that if he loses his challenge…

Khun Joe on December 16, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2