Sotomayor rejects Hobby Lobby request for injunction on HHS mandate

posted at 10:31 am on December 27, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The fight against the HHS contraception mandate and to protect the freedom of religious expression reached the Supreme Court yesterday … briefly, anyway.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected an emergency request for an injunction to prevent HHS from enforcing the contraception mandate on Hobby Lobby’s Catholic owners, but even Sotomayor acknowledged that they may win on the merits when the full appeal is heard:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to block the Obama administration’s contraception mandate from taking effect.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected a request for an emergency injunction that would have shielded employers from the mandate.

The request was filed by Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts chain. The company’s Catholic owners say the contraception mandate violates their religious freedom.

Hobby Lobby might eventually win on that point, Sotomayor said, but the company didn’t meet the standard for an injunction blocking the mandate from taking effect.

Hobby Lobby and the mandate’s opponents were hoping to use this case to get the Supreme Court to block overall implementation of the mandate, which takes force next Tuesday.  In order to do that, though, they have to show that (a) the plaintiffs have a good chance of winning on the merits of their First Amendment claims, and (b) the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm without a temporary injunction.  It was on the second point that Sotomayor refused the case, at least for the moment:

“While the applicants allege they will face irreparable harm if they are forced to choose between complying with the contraception-coverage requirement and paying significant fines, they cannot show that an injunction is necessary or appropriate to aid our jurisdiction,” Sotomayor wrote in a short opinion rejecting Hobby Lobby’s request.

Sotomayor got this case because she is assigned to the 10th Circuit, where Hobby Lobby lost an appeal on the same grounds last week.  It’s hard to argue with the harm involved — defiance will cost the chain $1.3 million a day in fines.  However, HHS may not collect it immediately, even though Hobby Lobby will have to shelter the cash immediately, which will damage their ability to do business.

Expect Hobby Lobby to keep pursuing the case, and keep an eye out for emergency requests from other appellate circuits.  If one lands on the desk of Antonin Scalia or Sam Alito, the outcome could be quite different — and we may get an expedited Supreme Court argument out of it, even if it would still be preliminary.

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

Shocking.

joekenha on December 27, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Time for a Hobby Lobby Day like we did for Chic-fil-A.

itsnotaboutme on December 27, 2012 at 10:36 AM

from a person who thinks the constitution is a living breathing thing and be “molded” as needed…. not a surprise.

SOrry Hobby lobby… you did not contribute to the cause so your SOL.

watertown on December 27, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Sotomayor rejects Hobby Lobby request for injunction on HHS mandate

Well, that is explicitly why Barky McDogbitter put her on the court.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Hobby Lobby owner, David Green, is a Catholic?

Thought he was Baptist.

coldwarrior on December 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM

That’s news? She’s Obama’s puppet, what else could have been expected?

rplat on December 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Can’t argue with a “wise Latina”!

50sGuy on December 27, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Makes me wonder with this example, how much this will be cost that gets passed onto the consumers.

B&M stores will be at a huge disadvantage with this law because they need more locations + more workers to do business unlike online retailers who only need a very few locations hence a much much smaller workforce to do more sales.

watertown on December 27, 2012 at 10:38 AM

What a tool.

Red Creek on December 27, 2012 at 10:39 AM

50sGuy on December 27, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Sotomayor…making Menudo of the law, one case at a time.

coldwarrior on December 27, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Dumb Latina.

Mr. Arrogant on December 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Anyone else think alot of people are going to pissed off when their checks each week get smaller first from higher taxes and second from the increased cost of healthcare as they lose the employer match when many employers drop health care coverage? By my estimate some of my employees will end up with 30% less than they have now after having to pay for their own healthcare insurance and higher taxes. Not to mention hours will probably be cut as we head back into economic recession. Obama economics is getting ready to hurt alot of people.

Ellis on December 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Gee – it’s almost as if she’s being told what to do by her “lord and savior”.

Pork-Chop on December 27, 2012 at 10:47 AM

National Dock Workers Strike Sunday
Tax Rates rise January
AMT fix expires January
Farm subisidies end January
Mandatory spending cuts January
Obamacare implementation and taxes starting in January

Own it; low information, Obama voters…

PatriotRider on December 27, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Would be tyrants are in charge in America.

God help us.

PappyD61 on December 27, 2012 at 10:49 AM

coldwarrior on December 27, 2012 at 10:42 AM

lol – good one!!!

50sGuy on December 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM

but even Sotomayor acknowledged that they may win on the merits when the full appeal is heard:

This is conduct unbecoming. If she believes the plaintiff has a good chance of winning then they have a right to the injunction to avoid damages.

Impeach.

Skywise on December 27, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Offer the benfit, but make the deductible $4000 dollars.

44Magnum on December 27, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Are Moslems exempt from Obamacare?

Apparently, Chrisitans must be forced to be part of it.

Insurance is haraam under the rules Mohammed set up in his Koran.

Wonder what Mama Sotomayor has to say about that?

coldwarrior on December 27, 2012 at 10:59 AM

from a person who thinks the constitution is a living breathing thing and be “molded” as needed…. not a surprise.

SOrry Hobby lobby… you did not contribute to the cause so your SOL.

watertown on December 27, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Not too keen on capitalization and grammar are we? BTW, it’s “you’re” not “your”–just to point out one flaw.

Nutstuyu on December 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM

defiance will cost the chain $1.3 million a day in fines.

The injustice of it takes the breath away, doesn’t it?

Paul-Cincy on December 27, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Don’t give Roberts any ideas

Red Creek on December 27, 2012 at 11:01 AM

If liberals want free contraception for every woman in America use the tax and spend powers and provide it.

Don’t use these end arounds to promote your policies. Be upfront.

SteveMG on December 27, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Gee – it’s almost as if she’s being told what to do by her “lord and savior”.

Pork-Chop on December 27, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Of course. But big pharma and the emerging health insurance monopoly are very pleased. Who do ya think wrote Obamacare?

What a sweet deal to get the Gov’t to force people to buy something they otherwise wouldn’t, and for the Gov’t to collect taxes from fines from those who won’t sign up, provide a good excuse for the government to consolidate and access our personal information, and to provide the Gov’t and others to make money as middlemen off of the BS “exchanges”.

Not only that, they will bilk the taxpayer by charging, who knows, 300% or more higher prices for otherwise cheap contraceptives (and other things).

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 27, 2012 at 11:01 AM

****Alert ******

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson says she’s stepping down after nearly 4 years – @AP

59 mins ago from bigstory.ap.org by editor
==============================================

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/epa-administrator-lisa-jackson-resigns

canopfor on December 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Are Moslems exempt from Obamacare?

Apparently, Chrisitans must be forced to be part of it.

Insurance is haraam under the rules Mohammed set up in his Koran.

Wonder what Mama Sotomayor has to say about that?

coldwarrior on December 27, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Apparently, the abortion mandate exempts actual places of worship, i.e. temples, churches, synagogues, etc. I say this is just as “haraam” for Christians:

“Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.” 1 Corinthians 6:19

Nutstuyu on December 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Would be tyrants are in charge in America.

God help us.

PappyD61 on December 27, 2012 at 10:49 AM

FIFY.

That horse left the stall in November 2008, and escaped the barn altogether in 2012.

What I can’t figure out is how the horse set fire to the barn.

turfmann on December 27, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Sotomayor is the epitome of a cupid stunt.

She’s essentially saying that the beliefs of the owners are not as important condoms and abortion for the sluts of society. Well, I have some optimism that the HHS mandate will eventually be deemed to violate religious freedom and whores like Sotomayor and Fluke will have to buy their own damned contraception.

Happy Nomad on December 27, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Blatant conflict of interest.

RoadRunner on December 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM

canopfor on December 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Oh I would imagine that bho will find someone who is much much worse than jackson? The epa is the worse agency ever here for their total wanting to see to businesses get fined and jobs lost?
L

letget on December 27, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Obama’s “plant” at it again.

Amazingoly on December 27, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Paging Chief Lap Poodle Roberts- please pick up the Commie red courtesy phone….

oh, can’t talk now? are you still on your knees with something in your mouth?

mittens on December 27, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Hobby Lobby owner, David Green, is a Catholic?

Thought he was Baptist.

coldwarrior on December 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Fox News agrees with you (sixth paragraph):

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/20/growing-boycott-against-retail-chain-hobby-lobby-after-lawsuit-against-health/

itsnotaboutme on December 27, 2012 at 11:15 AM

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to block the Obama administration’s contraception mandate from taking effect.
==========================================================

I over head Sandra,say it was Fl*cked!
(sarc)

canopfor on December 27, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Hobby Lobby should “go Hostess” and shut their doors on December 31. This in not negotiable. Even paying the fine acknowledges the right of government to enact such legislation. To be true to their principles, Hobby Lobby cannot conduct business in this atmosphere.

It’s tough on their employees to all be thrown out of a job. But battle lines for a new Church-State showdown are being drawn. This will not be a pretty battle.

ss396 on December 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM

itsnotaboutme on December 27, 2012 at 11:15 AM

So…where did The Hill get the original statement “The request was filed by Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts chain. The company’s Catholic owners say the contraception mandate violates their religious freedom” stuff from?

coldwarrior on December 27, 2012 at 11:22 AM

In sum, Sotomayor is saying that religious expression is a collective right, not an individual one. A church can’t forcibly be made to meet the mandate, but an individual person of faith can be if he/she owns a business.

And the fine of $1.3 million a day is ludicrous. There’s this thing I read somewhere in the Bill of Rights that says, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Time for Hobby Lobby to change all full timers to part timers. Think of the additional hiring!

bbhack on December 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected an emergency request for an injunction to prevent HHS from enforcing the contraception mandate on Hobby Lobby’s Catholic owners,

This is ridiculous, as one would expect from an empathetic Latina who has no business where she is. According to Planned Parenthood, the morning after pill costs all of “between $10 and $70″, so I can’t see how anyone would declare that this minor expense would have to covered by the insurance a company offers. It’s not as if women can’t just pay for this out of their pockets.

This nation is a joke. A sick, empathetic joke.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM

ss396 on December 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Going Hostess may be the sole remaining option for Hobby Lobby.

And, local Christian churches, all across the country, can “purchase” the remainders of Hobby Lobby, to include employment contracts and set up Hobby Lobby’s locally under the roofs of local church community centers and the like.

Obama’s Government has already established that it can and will whenever it wishes pick winners and losers in the private sector…GM, Solyndra and such…and make the entire country pay for it all under the guise of “fairness” and leveling the playing field.

It is tyranny.

Nothing less.

coldwarrior on December 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Hobby Lobby should “go Hostess” and shut their doors on December 31. This in not negotiable. Even paying the fine acknowledges the right of government to enact such legislation. To be true to their principles, Hobby Lobby cannot conduct business in this atmosphere.

It’s tough on their employees to all be thrown out of a job. But battle lines for a new Church-State showdown are being drawn. This will not be a pretty battle.

ss396 on December 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I agree completely. The owners of Hobby Lobby are unambiguous about their faith and what the company stands for. It is reprehensible that some stupid corrupt whore on the SCOTUS can inject her own agenda on the objections put forth by a private enterprise. If it were not apparent, I’m very angry at the way this case was dismissed for no other reason than Sotomayor was hired to make sure Obamacare did not get the kind of legal scrutiny that it should.

Happy Nomad on December 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Comrade Justice Sotomayor merely did as her party bosses told her to do.

Quit putting out these reports that sound like these liberal/progressive black robed tyrants actually have the freedom to come up with decisions on their own.

Sonya is now in that heady environment where if she had ever gone against Obama, she would have been one of the first Supreme Court appointees to be reported as suddenly take up riding motorcycles around the country – or sky diving – where one could always have an accident.

dockywocky on December 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM

****Alert ******

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson says she’s stepping down after nearly 4 years – @AP

59 mins ago from bigstory.ap.org by editor
==============================================

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/epa-administrator-lisa-jackson-resigns

canopfor on December 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM****Alert ******

Yeah … but Richard Windsor is going to take over the agency.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 27, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Are Moslems exempt from Obamacare?

Apparently, Chrisitans must be forced to be part of it.

Insurance is haraam under the rules Mohammed set up in his Koran.

Wonder what Mama Sotomayor has to say about that?

coldwarrior on December 27, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Muslims don’t file appeals to the SCOTUS. They just blow up infidels. After all that’s the way a “religion of peace” handles
issues.

acyl72 on December 27, 2012 at 11:27 AM

This is ridiculous, as one would expect from an empathetic Latina who has no business where she is. According to Planned Parenthood, the morning after pill costs all of “between $10 and $70″, so I can’t see how anyone would declare that this minor expense would have to covered by the insurance a company offers. It’s not as if women can’t just pay for this out of their pockets.

This nation is a joke. A sick, empathetic joke.

Silly rabbit. “Insurance” does not mean insurance.

bbhack on December 27, 2012 at 11:27 AM

It’s not as if women can’t just pay for this out of their pockets.

Indeed. But let’s remember that Medicaid – both federal and state program – provides free contraception to poor women.

But for our liberal friends that’s not enough. Unless we provide free contraception to every womanregardless of need - we’re denying it to them.

Crazy, just crazy.

SteveMG on December 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Hobby Lobby should “go Hostess” and shut their doors on December 31.

ss396 on December 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Nice idea but then Sotomayer will say the case can be dismissed because Hobby Lobby no longer exists.

The socialist utopians have been playing the long game for years and have all the pieces in strategic places.

Better that Hobby Lobby go bankrupt fighting this out in court then just shut down. Or better that we do a Chic-Fil-A on them and back them up financially until they win.

Skywise on December 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM

MSNBC.com’s Distorted Headline of the Day:
“Supreme Court to companies: Yes, you have to cover contraception”

blammm on December 27, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Sotomayor.

The Roland Freisler of our time.

coldwarrior on December 27, 2012 at 11:31 AM

SOrry Hobby lobby… you did not contribute to the cause so your SOL.

watertown on December 27, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Actually – they kind of DID contribute to the cause. There were more publicly vocal Catholics who supported ObamaCare than there were who opposed it.

They were supporting that legislation – even though the instrument of their disdain was contained in it. Perhaps they should have read the bill before supporting it.

HondaV65 on December 27, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Only in a liberals warped mind can they think a business paying $1.3 million a day in fines won’t cause irreparable harm to the company.

They think all businesses are nothing more than giant piggy banks with an endless supply of money to be handed over to the government.

ButterflyDragon on December 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM

The reality is the government shouldn’t be able to force anyone to cover anything. However, I find the religious excuse rather feeble.

antisense on December 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Yes, Hobby Lobby should liquidate and shut down.
He can tell all the employees that they can get unemployment for awhile and
then ObamaCare will provide them healthcare and all the contraceptives they want.
He should also tell them that Hobby Lobby can rise from the ashes if they will
all go fight Obama…….

redguy on December 27, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I am presuming that the state in which Hobby Lobby resides does not have this in their insurance right now, or they are currently able to pick and choose specifics about their health insurance policies? and that on Jan. 1 those states have insurance companies that are going to change something in already existing policies?

I think it is probably in the area of prescription coverage…yes Co Pay, no Co pay, and prescription coverage where you might not have paid for prescription coverage before. Please stop saying Free Prescriptions, the employer and the employee are PAYING FOR THIS.

(Hey -I thought people could keep exactly the insurance that they had if they liked it…)

But anyway, this is a prescription that anyone who had Hobby Lobby insurance could have asked their doctor for on any visit, the change is that the prescription itself it is coming out of the premium. The doctors were always able to write you a prescription for birth control pills/anti-ovulants, it is just that Hobby Lobby did not know about it, or have to pay for it.

There is a strange Do as I say Power Grab at HHS. They could fix all these problems with the churches if they wanted to, but they want to be dictatorial.

A bigger question is still: why the federal government is saying Pay For this particular pill and not that one. It is too much micromanaging. And, Pay For This Size policy with these things in it because we say so. Just because.

I have two solutions: Let the employees pay the entire premium, and Hobby Lobby will not have any moral guilt. Or, Let the employees pay the premium on optional things that Hobby Lobby does not want to pay for with some other insurance company if it is a self insured business. Why does the government only feel good if the employer dollar is paying for the pill? It’s a kind of sadistic coercion if you ask me.

Fleuries on December 27, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Sotomayor rejects Hobby Lobby request for injunction on HHS mandate

…SURPRISE…SURPRISE!
…wait till JugEars appoints a couple of more!

KOOLAID2 on December 27, 2012 at 11:42 AM

He should also tell them that Hobby Lobby can rise from the ashes if they will
all go fight Obama…….

redguy on December 27, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I like the idea of driving them to do political work to keep their jobs. The unions perfected that one a long time ago.

blammm on December 27, 2012 at 11:48 AM

David Green, CEO of Hobby Lobby, is a member of an Assembly of God Church in Oklahoma City. However he supports many causes affiliated with other denominational affiliations.

Just recently he gave the Southern Baptist Convention of Oklahoma 2 million dollars to purchase a campground formerly owned by the Assembly of God. The campground is just a couple of miles from the Oklahoma Baptists Falls Creek Youth Conference Center, one of the largest Christian campgrounds in the world.

The newly acquired camp will be use for a children’s camp.

fbcmusicman on December 27, 2012 at 11:48 AM

canopfor on December 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Oh I would imagine that bho will find someone who is much much worse than jackson? The epa is the worse agency ever here for their total wanting to see to businesses get fined and jobs lost?
L

letget on December 27, 2012 at 11:14 AM

letget:

Good point,but I’m wondering what damage,that Jackson might
have done,and is now fleeing the ship,without consequences!
Just a theory!-:)

canopfor on December 27, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Speaking of Waivers…………………….

Wisconsin SeniorCare prescription drug program gets federal waiver to operate until at least 2015 – @AP

1 hour ago from http://www.therepublic.com by editor
=================================================

Wisconsin’s SeniorCare program gets federal waiver to operate until 2015 at least

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
December 27, 2012 – 9:54 am EST
***********************************

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/16a8dc1f8f2045608b0157935a048adc/WI–SeniorCare-Renewed

canopfor on December 27, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Hobby Lobby owner, David Green, is a Catholic?

Thought he was Baptist.

[coldwarrior on December 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM]

I can’t tell from a quick rummage of the Internet. He doesn’t even mention his persuasion in his long oral history, even though most of his siblings have gone into ministry. Others refer to him as a Baptist frequently, but I haven’t seen him noting it. He’s helped a lot of Christian ministries, Falwell, who’s Baptist, but also Oral Roberts, Liberty University, C. S Lewis College and that’s just a short list.

He’s certainly devout no matter which church he considers himself a member of and it seems his central aim is to foster Christianity regardless.

It a shame that the Obama Administration is persecuting him, and people like him, for his religious beliefs and very disappointing that there aren’t sufficient members of Congress willing to put a stop to this persecution.

Dusty on December 27, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I want to remind everyone that the non issue about contraception that plagued the last presidential election, all grew out of a foolish young woman’s histrionics – Sandra Fluke – who did not HAVE to buy the health insurance at Georgetown that she did not like.

But she pretended she and other women at the catholic law school were forced to take this insurance and it did not cover the list of things, boo hoo, that she was whining about in front of democrat congressional leaders.

Insurance was required to be a student at Georgetown, but Georgetown accepts ANY insurance policy with enough coverage to satisfy their requirement. Sandra Fluke and women like her, SMART enough to get into Georgetown Law school, a catholic school, sort of, did not read the policy before they bought it, nor did they make any effort to choose the insurance they really wanted from an insurance company.

Every college my many children have attended, accepts the insurance my husband has, and subtracts the fee, with the tiniest bit of effort on your part.

What a ruse.

Fleuries on December 27, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Catholics should start wearing red collars in protest as the Scots did a few centuries ago. One of the legends to where the term “red neck” came from.

Bevan on December 27, 2012 at 11:59 AM

So…where did The Hill get the original statement “The request was filed by Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts chain. The company’s Catholic owners say the contraception mandate violates their religious freedom” stuff from?

coldwarrior on December 27, 2012 at 11:22 AM

They are journalists, not fact-checkers. What do you expect from the modern press? Concern for accuracy?

They heard “contraception” and assumed prevention of conception, which Catholics oppose. They didn’t consider abortifactants and outright abortion, which many Christians (including Baptists) oppose.

iurockhead on December 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM

What I can’t figure out is how the horse set fire to the barn.

turfmann on December 27, 2012 at 11:07 AM

You might want to look at the cow instead of the horse. Take it from a Chicagoan: cows start more fires than horses.

JimLennon on December 27, 2012 at 12:08 PM

However, I find the religious excuse rather feeble.

antisense on December 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM

That’s people of faith standing up against a self-absorbed rat-eared bastard over something that many people consider immoral. I can see how with your snarky attitude you might not understand why some of us object because of our faith.

Happy Nomad on December 27, 2012 at 12:20 PM

You might want to look at the cow instead of the horse. Take it from a Chicagoan: cows start more fires than horses.

JimLennon on December 27, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Okay, now you’ve got me thinking of the cow coming up to the horse and saying…. Mighty nice barn you got here. Be a shame if something happened to it.

Happy Nomad on December 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM

David Green is an evangelical Christian, not Catholic. Another example of the lack of journalistic standards in this country. Hobby Lobby is self-insured, and objects only to paying for abortifacients, not contraceptives in general. They already pay for contraceptives. The argument against Hobby Lobby appears to be that abortifacients don’t really cause abortion. They are being told that their beliefs are invalid, basically. How long will it be before employers are required to pay for abortions, under the argument that it’s just a clump of cells? And people who oppose abortion have no right to those beliefs? Just as employers are now being told that they have no right to oppose abortifacients?

http://newsok.com/hobby-lobby-adds-powerful-voice-in-fight-against-obamacare-mandate/article/3709448

mbs on December 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM

He’s certainly devout no matter which church he considers himself a member of and it seems his central aim is to foster Christianity regardless.

It a shame that the Obama Administration is persecuting him, and people like him, for his religious beliefs and very disappointing that there aren’t sufficient members of Congress willing to put a stop to this persecution.

Dusty on December 27, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Have you ever been in a Hobby Lobby? There is no doubt about the faith of the owners. They closed on Sundays so employees have time for family and worship (that’s what the signs say). They sell stuff that is unambigously Christian. Good for them standing up for what they believe.

Happy Nomad on December 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM

As a poster above noted, I’m not sure how an entity that serves a secular purpose can claim a religious exemption.

If it was a religious institution? Fine. But a secular entity? I’m not sure that applies here.

When I say “not sure” I really mean I have no idea.

SteveMG on December 27, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Happy Nomad on December 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Yes and they also own Mardel bookstores, which sell bibles and Christian-oriented books. They follow their faith, and run their business in accordance with their principles. I admire them. I also like their stores, and shop there occasionally. I sometimes with they were open on Sundays, and know they could make a lot more money if they were. The fact that they forgo that extra income due to their faith really impresses me.

mbs on December 27, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Better that Hobby Lobby go bankrupt fighting this out in court then just shut down. Or better that we do a Chic-Fil-A on them and back them up financially until they win.

Skywise on December 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Why should they go bankrupt fighting this in court? Hostess did not go bankrupt; they settled with everyone while they still had the means to do so. Hobby Lobby should do the same. I see no gain in them throwing away their resources at something as iffy as this. It is far better stewardship to make as equitable settlement with their employees as they can, rather than throwing away $1.3-million per day until there is nothing left, and everybody loses.

Suspend business on January 01, and possibly make one shot at getting this overturned (depending on their assessment of probably success). If that one shot fails, then dissolve the company.

ss396 on December 27, 2012 at 12:32 PM

SteveMG on December 27, 2012 at 12:27 PM

I don’t believe anyone with a moral objection to killing a human being should be forced to do so in this country, or to pay for it, or participate in it. In the eyes of the Greens, abortifacients kill human beings, and they are being forced to provide the means to kill those human beings. That is not a fringe belief, it is widely held in this country.

mbs on December 27, 2012 at 12:33 PM

I don’t believe anyone with a moral objection to killing a human being should be forced to do so in this country, or to pay for it, or participate in it

Well, that’s what pacifists say about their taxes going to pay for national defense.

The question is whether the Constitution allows the government to do this not whether you or I find it unacceptable. There’s lots of things I find moral offensive that the Constitution permits.

Again: I’m not sure how a secular business can claim a religious exemption here. Freedom of conscience has its limits too.

SteveMG on December 27, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Would be tyrants are in charge in America. …
PappyD61 on December 27, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Would be Tyrants are in charge in America.

FIFY!

belad on December 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM

I thought Sotomayor was a “wise Latina” who would rule with more empathy than crusty old White men.

OxyCon on December 27, 2012 at 12:51 PM

SteveMG on December 27, 2012 at 12:41 PM

I don’t know, I may not be smart enough to articulate the difference, but it does seem to me that paying taxes to provide for a national defense is different than paying for abortions, or abortifacients. And when the draft was still in effect, certain people were exempt from military service based on religious grounds, and soldiers drafted to serve in the military were allowed to serve in non-combatant roles based on their religous beliefs. So our government has a history of providing religous exemptions to individuals, not just churches.

mbs on December 27, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Again: I’m not sure how a secular business can claim a religious exemption here. Freedom of conscience has its limits too.

SteveMG on December 27, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Nice way to skew the debate. Hobby Lobby is not asking for a “religious exemption” nor is it strictly a freedom of conscience issue. The debate is if the freedom of religion can be curtailed by executive fiat. Keep in mind, this was not a law passed by Congress. This was the rat-eared bastard pandering to stupid women.

Happy Nomad on December 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM

mbs on December 27, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Your comment works for me.

DaveDief on December 27, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Any union can get an instant exception yet a business can’t, what else is new.

Bishop on December 27, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Expect Hobby Lobby to keep pursuing the case, and keep an eye out for emergency requests from other appellate circuits. If one lands on the desk of Antonin Scalia or Sam Alito, the outcome could be quite different — and we may get an expedited Supreme Court argument out of it, even if it would still be preliminary.

Don’t worry, ladies–John Roberts will save the day, like he did last June. After listening to Sandra Fluke, the Trojan whore.

Steve Z on December 27, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Nice way to skew the debate.

Hobby Lobby says that its religious freedom is being abridged by being forced to cover contraception for its employees. They are seeking an exemption for a law that applies to other businesses. They are citing the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause.

How is that “skewing” anything?

But it’s not a religious institution; it’s a secular business.

SteveMG on December 27, 2012 at 1:11 PM

But it’s not a religious institution; it’s a secular business.

SteveMG on December 27, 2012 at 1:11 PM

The way I see it, Sotomayor id trying to make an individual right a collective one. Churches are exempt, but an individual person of faith and/or personal conscience must pay into the grand scheme.

Liam on December 27, 2012 at 1:21 PM

But it’s not a religious institution; it’s a secular business.

SteveMG on December 27, 2012 at 1:11 PM

It is a privately owned company, owned by individuals of faith. Are you saying there should not be a religious exemption for individuals of faith? Why not?

mbs on December 27, 2012 at 1:24 PM

One’s freedom of religion should not be compromised because one doesn’t work for a church or faith-based organization.

When it’s truly an individual right, it deserves to be protected if it doesn’t harm the rights of others – which free contraception or other drugs do not measure up to.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 1:27 PM

But it’s not a religious institution; it’s a secular business.

SteveMG on December 27, 2012 at 1:11 PM

You skew it by attaching the request for exemption to the company (like a school or hospital affiliated with a religious denomination). The company’s owners object because of their faith. It is an entirely different objection. It is even different than a pharmacist who has to dispense contraception found to be immoral by their faith. It’s an important debate.

And, I’ll repeat. The HHS mandate did not rise out of the legislative process. This is the rat-eared bastard compelling individuals to violate their faith through executive order. I’m sure that even you will admit that this is not a good way to establish sweeping public policy.

Happy Nomad on December 27, 2012 at 1:34 PM

When it’s truly an individual right, it deserves to be protected if it doesn’t harm the rights of others – which free contraception or other drugs do not measure up to.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I think it is time for those of us on the right to become bitter clingers. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. The Bill of Rights includes freedom of religion but does not include the right to free contraception.

Why a worthless partisan whore like Sotomayor can get away with upholding the HHS mandate at this point is beyond belief.

Happy Nomad on December 27, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I believe the long term game plan is to destroy private businesses and the middle class. The govt. will tax and regulate them to death.

Hobby Lobby will have no choice; rather than pay the millions in
fines, they can opt out of providing healthcare for their employees. Which is the government’s goal all along.
Goverment control of all healthcare. The lefties can still control their base by providing it to them for “free”, and still control the middle class by reducing their economic power to fight the system.

If one agrees that money is some form of power, then stripping the middle class of its power is the lefties main goal.

Conversely, they are paying for votes from the lower class by giving them free or nearly free housing, clothing, food, healthcare, dental care, cell phones, school breakfasts, lunches, laptops, etc. They are paying the lower class to stay in their class. If they grumble about still being “poor” they will throw
some free gadget their way to make them happy. Or, even better,
let them know that the “rich” have to pay more in order to pay for their free stuff. Their envy of the rich is greater than their
desire to work hard and be the masters of their own financial destiny. And, of course, one can always sell illegal cigarettes,
booze, drugs or prostitution to pick up some pocket change.

Don’t ask me how we get out of this mess – I have no clue!

Amjean on December 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM

For you people who sat home and didn’t think voting for Romney was a good idea, pay attention and pray that the conservative wing of the court stays healthy for 4 years. Liberals in charge, can pass enough crazy laws but, without a court that’s willing to deal with them in an unbiased manner, we’ll lose our constitution faster than you will ever be able to imagine. Had Romney been elected, it wouldn’t have made a difference who retired, now it makes a huge difference.

As far as the court goes, when is the last time one of the liberals sided with the conservatives on an important issue? Roberts completely ignored the conservatives on Obamacare. I can’t imagine any liberal being willing to take the heat Roberts did for his decision. If anyone makes the Supreme Court political it’s the Democrats and liberals, and they are certainly all willing to gut the constitution since they believe, as Obama does, it is short-sighted and doesn’t provide the government with enough power.

bflat879 on December 27, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Catholics voted for Obama. And, many socons pouted and stayed home.

You had your chances already to stop this. Too late to do anything about it now.

Moesart on December 27, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Actually – they kind of DID contribute to the cause.

HondaV65 on December 27, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Oh look – here’s the Obama voter.

kim roy on December 27, 2012 at 1:51 PM

For you people who sat home and didn’t think voting for Romney was a good idea, pay attention and pray that the conservative wing of the court stays healthy for 4 years.

bflat879 on December 27, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Oh no, to hear some of our “conservative” friends here tell us Romney was no different at all from Obama. Voting for one is like voting for the other.

He didn’t INSPIRE them. He didn’t give them a REASON to vote for him. He didn’t CAMPAIGN well.

Here it comes. Enjoy. And pray very very hard that one of the right leaning judges doesn’t drop of a heart attack or something because another Wise Latina or idiot like the other one is coming.

kim roy on December 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I think it is time for those of us on the right to become bitter clingers. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. The Bill of Rights includes freedom of religion but does not include the right to free contraception.

Why a worthless partisan whore like Sotomayor can get away with upholding the HHS mandate at this point is beyond belief.

Happy Nomad on December 27, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I completely agree.
By the way, I missed you on the Moran thread a couple of weeks ago. There was some pretty good banter about him & NOVA politics.

22044 on December 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM

but even Sotomayor acknowledged that they may win on the merits when the full appeal is heard:

By then it will be too late, Hobby Lobby and others will be out of business. But that’s the point, isn’t it? Lets just get the problematic companies and ministries out of the way first.

quiz1 on December 27, 2012 at 2:21 PM

another Wise Latina or idiot like the other one is coming.

The next nominee will make the Wise Latina look downright conservative.

quiz1 on December 27, 2012 at 2:23 PM

The next nominee will make the Wise Latina look downright conservative.

quiz1 on December 27, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I’d put my money on Holder. Seriously.

kim roy on December 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I’ve read on here people advocating that HL fight or just close its doors. Why do either? Why don’t they just start accepting cash and paying their employees in cash and then letting the Feds do what they may? This country has become unrecognizable. When are companies (and individuals for that matter) going to start standing up against these criminals?

air_up_there on December 27, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Speaking of Lobby’s…………….

Citigroup among 5 banks fined $4.48 million to settle claims they used bond funds to pay lobbyists – @BloombergNews

3 mins ago from http://www.bloomberg.com by editor
===============================================

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-27/finra-fines-five-banks-including-citigroup-goldman-on-lobbying.html

canopfor on December 27, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Someone upthread mentioned forcing them to make their employees go part time. This helps barky as well, they will have to hire that many more employees thereby lowering unemployment. All part of the plan. IMHO

D-fusit on December 27, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Are you saying there should not be a religious exemption for individuals of faith? Why not?

It depends on the exemption. Obviously a priest can’t be drafted or a church required to let non-believers become members. Et cetera, et cetera.

However, if someone doesn’t want to get vaccinated because of his or her religious views we don’t allow it. Similarly, if someone doesn’t want their child to have surgery because of religious views we don’t allow that either. If a Muslim cab driver doesn’t want to allow a seeing eye dog in his cab we say, sorry.

And believers must pay taxes even if they believe the money is being used to promote views they hate. E.g., Medicaid contraception, war.

Religious freedom like all of our rights have limits.

As I’ve stated above, it is unconstitutional to require a religious institution (like Georgetown University) to violate its beliefs UNLESS there’s a compelling state interest.

However, there must be limits on secular entitities – like businessess – and their exercise or religion.

Whether the Obama Administration/HHS has crossed those limits here is the question.

I don’t know.

SteveMG on December 27, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2