Domino’s Pizza owner wins injunction on birth control mandate

posted at 10:21 am on January 2, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

We had this in headlines a couple of days ago, but many probably missed it over the holidays. It’s enough of a departure from other recent decisions that it’s worth posting here, and I have a feeling we could use a little good news on a bad day.

The devoutly Catholic founder of Domino’s filed this lawsuit on behalf of an office park he owns in Michigan, not Domino’s Pizza, but the suit is one of more than 40 brought against the federal government to prevent religious owners of secular businesses from being forced to violate their religious beliefs under the birth control mandate.

A federal judge has ordered a temporary halt on the Obama administration’s birth-control coverage policy for Tom Monaghan, the Catholic billionaire who founded Domino’s Pizza.

Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff issued the decision Sunday, less than two days before the policy would have taken effect and exposed Monaghan to fines for non-compliance.

“Plaintiff has shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion,” Zatkoff wrote.

“The government has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its actions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. … This factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motion.”

Hobby Lobby, on the other hand, has lost its fights for an injunction, both at lower levels and in an emergency plea to the Supreme Court. Hobby Lobby plans to defy the law, which could cost the company up to $1.3 million per day in fines as of yesterday.

“They’re not going to comply with the mandate,” said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Hobby Lobby. “They’re not going to offer coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in the insurance plan.”

“The family operates 514 Hobby Lobby stores in 41 states and employ 13,240 people,” according to reporting. But for how long?

But hey, no one’s saying you can’t be Catholic or Christian, guys. Just don’t get any ideas about starting a business.

Update: Just a note, in response to a comment. I was distinguishing between evangelical Christians/Protestants and Catholics in the above sentence because their objections on the issue of birth control, specifically, are doctrinally different. They’re pretty much indistinguishable on the morning-after pill and religious freedom in the case of this mandate, however, which is why you see Hobby Lobby’s evangelical owners and Monaghan fighting on the same side, and thank goodness. I should have said evangelical Christians or Protestants to avoid implying Catholicism precludes Christianity, which obviously I don’t believe.


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

One (relatively) small victory for Christian believers.

I guess it’s better than none.

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM

But hey, no one’s saying you can’t be Catholic or Christian, guys. Just don’t get any ideas about starting a business.

I marked the most important part.

Archivarix on January 2, 2013 at 10:27 AM

But hey, no one’s saying you can’t be Catholic or Christian, guys. Just don’t get any ideas about starting a business.

That could be a quote from Iranian dictator Machmood AckMyDumbJihad.

itsnotaboutme on January 2, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Hobby Lobby plans to defy the law

Something tells me that our intellectual betters aren’t going to be so hot about “civil disobedience” this time around.

Shut up and stop hating women!!

CDeb on January 2, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Not to detract with a minor point, but:

But hey, no one’s saying you can’t be Catholic or Christian, guys. Just don’t get any ideas about starting a business.

I never really understood why there’s a tendency in our culture to have “Catholic” distinct from “Christian.”

NorthernCross on January 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM

I said this in the headlines:

What does it matter? ObamaCare is still law of the land and Obama was re-elected.

BigGator5 on January 2, 2013 at 10:31 AM

NorthernCross on January 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Yeah. Catholics are Christians.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 2, 2013 at 10:32 AM

…good!…T.M. has money…and I’m glad he’s putting it again…to good use!

KOOLAID2 on January 2, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Not to detract with a minor point, but:

But hey, no one’s saying you can’t be Catholic or Christian, guys. Just don’t get any ideas about starting a business.

I never really understood why there’s a tendency in our culture to have “Catholic” distinct from “Christian.”

I was only distinguishing in this post because the objections of evangelicals and Catholics on the issue of birth control, specifically, are doctrinally different, though they’re pretty much indistinguishable on the morning-after pill and religious freedom in this case. I should correct and specify evangelical Christians. Was not at all implying Catholics aren’t Christians.

Mary Katharine Ham on January 2, 2013 at 10:37 AM

I said this in the headlines:

What does it matter? ObamaCare is still law of the land and Obama was re-elected.

BigGator5 on January 2, 2013 at 10:31 AM

It is indeed the law of the land. Now we have to wait and see how far the courts will allow the law to encroach on individual rights.

NorthernCross on January 2, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Not really a fan of Dominos pizza but my kids swear by it so I will continue to be a customer. This dude is going to get targeted by those sensitive and peaceful lefties, so do your part to help him out if you can.

Bishop on January 2, 2013 at 10:39 AM

But hey, no one’s saying you can’t be Catholic or Christian, guys. Just don’t get any ideas about starting a business.

In this case your right to practice your faith interferes with that constitutional right to birth control. You know, it is right there in the bill of rights…right next to the right to privacy…my right to have you pay for me to privately use birth control.
/

STL_Vet on January 2, 2013 at 10:40 AM

BigGator5 on January 2, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Was a time when the King’s Law was the law of the land…and George III was hell bent on keeping it that way.

Why should we permit King Obama to try the same?

coldwarrior on January 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM

I was only distinguishing in this post because the objections of evangelicals and Catholics on the issue of birth control, specifically, are doctrinally different, though they’re pretty much indistinguishable on the morning-after pill and religious freedom in this case. I should correct and specify evangelical Christians. Was not at all implying Catholics aren’t Christians.

Mary Katharine Ham on January 2, 2013 at 10:37 AM

.
Hello … Spanish Inquisition ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 10:44 AM

So as long as your company is listed on the S&P you can get an exemption? Sounds about right.

Illinidiva on January 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Was a time when the King’s Law was the law of the land…and George III was hell bent on keeping it that way.

Why should we permit King Obama to try the same?

coldwarrior
on January 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM

.
To too many Americans, “liberty” means freedom from responsibility.

If they believe “King Obama” (government) will take care of them, why shouldn’t they?

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I never really understood why there’s a tendency in our culture to have “Catholic” distinct from “Christian.”

NorthernCross on January 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM

A better distinction is between Catholics & Protestants, or even Catholics, Protestants, and evangelicals.
Although there are evangelicals who are also Catholics or Protestants.
And there are Christians in all three groups.

22044 on January 2, 2013 at 10:49 AM

It is indeed the law of the land. Now we have to wait and see how far the courts will allow the law to encroach on individual rights.

NorthernCross on January 2, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Sotomayer basically said, in refusing to hear a case on this matter last week, that a church can’t be forced to comply with the mandate but an individual can despite personal religious convictions. In other words, the way I see it, she’s saying that religious freedom is a collective right, not an individual one. It sounds like the debunked argument that the Second Amendment applies to a militia but not to individual persons.

Liam on January 2, 2013 at 10:50 AM

When Domino’s pizza reinvented its product a couple of years ago, the new pizza was much better.

I’m probably sticking with Papa John’s and smaller pizza places, but hopefully Domino’s keeps getting plenty of business.

22044 on January 2, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Sotomayer basically said, in refusing to hear a case on this matter last week, that a church can’t be forced to comply with the mandate but an individual can despite personal religious convictions. In other words, the way I see it, she’s saying that religious freedom is a collective right, not an individual one. It sounds like the debunked argument that the Second Amendment applies to a militia but not to individual persons.

Liam on January 2, 2013 at 10:50 AM

That’s pretty much how I read it, as well as the fallacious arguments posted by supporters of the decision on Twitter.

22044 on January 2, 2013 at 10:52 AM

I never really understood why there’s a tendency in our culture to have “Catholic” distinct from “Christian.”

As a Catholic, I’m always distinguishing Catholicism from Protestantism, especially Evangelical/Fundamentalist denominations. As The Hammer said, there are important doctrinal differences.

JetBoy on January 2, 2013 at 10:53 AM

But hey, no one’s saying you can’t be Catholic or Christian, guys. Just don’t get any ideas about starting a business.
I marked the most important part.

Archivarix on January 2, 2013 at 10:27 AM

When they ask you to pay the fine, hold your press conference and close the business…

Khun Joe on January 2, 2013 at 10:54 AM

As a Catholic, I’m always distinguishing Catholicism from Protestantism, especially Evangelical/Fundamentalist denominations. As The Hammer said, there are important doctrinal differences.

JetBoy on January 2, 2013 at 10:53 AM

.
Can you say “Jesus Is Lord”?

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Can you say “Jesus Is Lord”?

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

This isn’t the final answer, but John 10:27 comes to mind.

22044 on January 2, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Hello … Spanish Inquisition ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Let me know when you meet a Catholic who was involved in the Inquisition. You’re much more likely to meet a non-Catholic Christian who was/is a Klansman. That said, no reasonable person would say that you’re not a Christian based someone else’s wrongdoing.

NorthernCross on January 2, 2013 at 11:02 AM

I was only distinguishing in this post because the objections of evangelicals and Catholics on the issue of birth control, specifically, are doctrinally different, though they’re pretty much indistinguishable on the morning-after pill and religious freedom in this case. I should correct and specify evangelical Christians. Was not at all implying Catholics aren’t Christians.

Mary Katharine Ham on January 2, 2013 at 10:37 AM

There is no easy way to make this distinction. I would suggest Catholics and Protestants would be your best option. Many Protestants do not oppose birth control, but agree with the Catholic church on religious freedom and opposing abortifacients. However, there are Protestants that speak out against birth control. The term evangelical is not a sufficiently unique identifier to help you.

STL_Vet on January 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM

22044 on January 2, 2013 at 10:52 AM

There was a case in CA about twenty years ago, where the owner of a building refused to rent an apartment to a gay couple because of her religious convictions; she didn’t want that kind of thing going on under her roof. After the couple won their lawsuit, the judge also ordered the woman to post flyers all over her property telling of the ‘sin’ of her alleged bigotry.

I can easily foresee the concept of individual rights going by the wayside in favor collective rights, where the individual will always be considered a criminal or at least made into some other defendant in a court of law.

Liam on January 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Hobby Lobby press conference:

“We will not be forced by the federal government to do this, so we have decided to shutter our corporation. 13,000 people will lose their jobs thanks to the current administration.”

Bishop on January 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Can you say “Jesus Is Lord”?

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

.
This isn’t the final answer, but John 10:27 comes to mind.

22044
on January 2, 2013 at 10:59 AM

.
I’m missing your point (that’s not necessarily your fault, either).

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM

I’m missing your point (that’s not necessarily your fault, either).

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM

tbh I’m missing your point…

Can you say “Jesus Is Lord”?

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

JetBoy on January 2, 2013 at 11:09 AM

I’m missing your point (that’s not necessarily your fault, either).

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Nobody’s fault but mine…if there’s any fault.
My attempt to add to the discussion about who is a Christian, not necessarily a direct response to you.
Is that helpful?

22044 on January 2, 2013 at 11:10 AM

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 10:44 AM

.
Let me know when you meet a Catholic who was involved in the Inquisition. You’re much more likely to meet a non-Catholic Christian who was/is a Klansman. That said, no reasonable person would say that you’re not a Christian based someone else’s wrongdoing.

NorthernCross
on January 2, 2013 at 11:02 AM

.
It was a lame (apparently) attempt on my part, at being humorous.

My sincerest apologies for any insult you may have felt.

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Hello … Spanish Inquisition ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Holy memories of Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell, BATMAN!

timberline on January 2, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Maybe the owner if Dominos should be the new Speaker of the House!

He obviously has more cajones of steel than Boo-Hoo Boehner!

pilamaye on January 2, 2013 at 11:17 AM

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM

.
Nobody’s fault but mine…if there’s any fault.
My attempt to add to the discussion about who is a Christian, not necessarily a direct response to you.
Is that helpful?

22044
on January 2, 2013 at 11:10 AM

.
Yes.

It was my conclusion some years ago that anyone can claim to be a Christian.
Being able to say “Jesus Is Lord” became my litmus test, because non-Christians are very uncomfortable with that three-word statement.

I did get SauerKraut’ to type it up, though.

He was (is?) as openly an atheist as we have here.

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:20 AM

I never really understood why there’s a tendency in our culture to have “Catholic” distinct from “Christian.”

NorthernCross on January 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM

My Orthodox Christian wife would take a dire offense at your statement.

Archivarix on January 2, 2013 at 11:21 AM

It was a lame (apparently) attempt on my part, at being humorous.

My sincerest apologies for any insult you may have felt.

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:11 AM

No biggie. I know you didn’t mean anything by it, just as I know that MKH was absolutely not implying that Catholics aren’t Christians.

But back on topic, does anyone know how religiously devout business owners in other western countries with comprehensive government health care programs coped with issues like this?

NorthernCross on January 2, 2013 at 11:24 AM

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:20 AM

You…

annoyinglittletwerp on January 2, 2013 at 11:24 AM

tbh I’m missing your point…

Can you say “Jesus Is Lord”?

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

JetBoy on January 2, 2013 at 11:09 AM

.
See preceding comment, above.

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:20 AM

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:27 AM

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:20 AM

You…

annoyinglittletwerp on January 2, 2013 at 11:24 AM

.
ME ? !

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Yes.

It was my conclusion some years ago that anyone can claim to be a Christian.
Being able to say “Jesus Is Lord” became my litmus test, because non-Christians are very uncomfortable with that three-word statement.

I did get SauerKraut’ to type it up, though.

He was (is?) as openly an atheist as we have here.

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Interesting…sounds like we agree.

22044 on January 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM

ME ? !

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Uh huh. LoL

annoyinglittletwerp on January 2, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Sotomayer basically said, in refusing to hear a case on this matter last week, that a church can’t be forced to comply with the mandate but an individual can despite personal religious convictions. In other words, the way I see it, she’s saying that religious freedom is a collective right, not an individual one. It sounds like the debunked argument that the Second Amendment applies to a militia but not to individual persons.

Liam on January 2, 2013 at 10:50 AM

So then it follows that while “women” have the right to abortion, an individual “woman” doesn’t?

Say, while, we’re at it, how does a gazillion bureaucrats spying on you, and the FBI breathing down your health-neck comply with Roe Vs. Wade’s established right to “Privacy” with your doctor? Just asking those “principled” Obamacare feminists out there.

Don L on January 2, 2013 at 11:43 AM

So, does the injunction won by Dominos also defer compliance by Hobby-Lobby? I would think it does. Does anyone know for sure?

Dusty on January 2, 2013 at 11:47 AM

I have a question: if a business entity is entitled to free speech under the 1st am., how can it not be entitled to freedom of religious beliefs, under the same?
Someone help me out. Am I looking at this question from the wrong direction? I am, of course, thinking of Citizens United. Does it apply in this instance?

jffree1 on January 2, 2013 at 11:55 AM

The story headline is incorrect. Tom Monaghan no longer owns Domino’s Pizza. He sold it to Bain Capital some time ago and they still own a big chunk of it. The injunction is for his Domino’s Farms Corp which is a property management firm in Michigan.

stukinIL4now on January 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM

The decision in favor of Dominos’ complaint is from a Federal District Judge. Unless the complaints were issued in the same district, they can be held distinct from one another. Even if within the same district, if there is enough of a difference in the manner of the complaint, the decision wouldn’t automatically attach to the other case.

There is much more to be done on this issue, to be made a nation-wide precedent applicable to all. In reality, it should require no work at all for the judicial branch to recognize and rebuff the unconstitutional nature of this “mandate”, and terminate it on a prima facia basis. So far have we come from the values upon which we were founded.

Freelancer on January 2, 2013 at 12:12 PM

jffree1 on January 2, 2013 at 11:55 AM

That’s easy: The officers of a corporation have right to spend company money as they see fit, but they do not have the power to impose their religious beliefs on their workers.

I know that sounds cheap and convoluted, but that’s how liberals are. I’m sure a dyed-in-the-wool liberal could make a better case than a cynical Conservative like me.

Liam on January 2, 2013 at 12:12 PM

[jffree1 on January 2, 2013 at 11:55 AM]

That’s a reasonable question.

What’s absurd is what appears to be the courts’ decisions are based on individual waivers from compliance with the law. Monaghan received a personal, temporary, reprieve from the law with the expectation that he might receive a personal, permanent exemption from the law.

This essentially means that one needs to apply to the government for special dispensation from laws based on religious grounds and the government will consider whether you are religious enough to be granted a waiver with the possibility that a court may find differently, if you appeal to them to weigh your reasons. Only those who follow the process, causing all manner of costs involved, in the hope to be added to the government registry of persons exempted from the law.

Just skipping past this process being merely outrageous, it is, in itself, an unconstitutional burden on religious freedom, and a process of defining the length, width and bread of this bill of attainder.

It also seems to be skating right into the issue of state establishment of religion. I just can’t decide whether established place is one of freedom or imprisonment.

Dusty on January 2, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Hello … Spanish Inquisition ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on January 2, 2013 at 10:44 AM

I didn’t expect them.

Dunedainn on January 2, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Avoid the Noid(tm), Obama edition.

MelonCollie on January 2, 2013 at 12:51 PM

“but they do not have the power to impose their religious beliefs on their workers.”
Liam on January 2, 2013 at 12:12 PM

My reply to liberals:
But the employers are not seeking to impose their beliefs on anyone. They are merely asking not to have to pay for a service/product which goes against their own beliefs. The employee is free to pay for that service/product themselves and still remain employed so I don’t see how their rights have been infringed by the employer… at all.

Dusty on January 2, 2013 at 12:27 PM

One should not have to apply to the gov. for a waiver (or license) to exercise a right granted under the constitution. I agree that the entire process, set up by the ACA, is outrageous.
SCOTUS should end this, once and for all, by declaring the insurance requirement unconstitutional but, after the “tax” ruling on the mandate by Justice Roberts, I am not overly hopeful. I never expected to see us on such a slippery slope in my lifetime.
Thanks for your well thought out reply.

jffree1 on January 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM

NorthernCross on January 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Yeah. Catholics Mormons are Christians.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 2, 2013 at 10:32 AM

??

Nutstuyu on January 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM

I never really understood why there’s a tendency in our culture to have “Catholic” distinct from “Christian.”

NorthernCross on January 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM

This goes back to the reformation. Many, if not most, Evangelicals regard Roman Catholicism as, at best, nominally Christian. It doesn’t take much reading in the RCC catechism to see why that opinion is of long standing.

Quartermaster on January 2, 2013 at 12:59 PM

So, does the injunction won by Dominos also defer compliance by Hobby-Lobby? I would think it does. Does anyone know for sure?

Dusty on January 2, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Only if they’re in the same federal court district.

Nutstuyu on January 2, 2013 at 1:02 PM

This goes back to the reformation. Many, if not most, Evangelicals regard Roman Catholicism as, at best, nominally Christian. It doesn’t take much reading in the RCC catechism to see why that opinion is of long standing.

Quartermaster on January 2, 2013 at 12:59 PM

There’s also a lot of hard feelings from the colonial era; entire family trees had to flee their home nations due to persecution from state-run churches, or places where a single denomination basically ran the state.

MelonCollie on January 2, 2013 at 1:22 PM

??

Nutstuyu on January 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM

I’m Catholic, and my Calvinist husband regards me(faith-wise) as a sister-in-Christ.
Catholics were the ORIGINAL Christians. ‘On the rock I will build my Church…’ St. Peter was the first pope.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM

I never really understood why there’s a tendency in our culture to have “Catholic” distinct from “Christian.”

NorthernCross on January 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Catholics consider themselves Christian. Many Protestants do not consider Catholics Christian.

cptacek on January 2, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Also, I hope Hobby Lobby stands by its guns and refuses. If they have to, shut down the stores. Easy for me to say, I know.

cptacek on January 2, 2013 at 1:34 PM

My reply to liberals:
But the employers are not seeking to impose their beliefs on anyone. They are merely asking not to have to pay for a service/product which goes against their own beliefs. The employee is free to pay for that service/product themselves and still remain employed so I don’t see how their rights have been infringed by the employer… at all.

jffree1 on January 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Ah, but by not wanting to pay that part of the employees’ mandated health care for religious reasons, they are imposing their religion on others. See how easily that works?

Of course I agree with you entirely, but liberals running this dog-and-pony show don’t. So they’ll come up with anything to be right and stick to it no matter how solid the reasoning against it. Being liberal, to them, means never being wrong about anything, ever.

Liam on January 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM

That’s easy: The officers of a corporation have right to spend company money as they see fit, but they do not have the power to impose their religious beliefs on their workers.

I know that sounds cheap and convoluted, but that’s how liberals are. I’m sure a dyed-in-the-wool liberal could make a better case than a cynical Conservative like me.

Liam on January 2, 2013 at 12:12 PM

A company such as Hobby Lobby is privately owned. They’ve imprinted their religious beliefs throughout the organization and make no secret of it. But you are missing the point. It isn’t about imposing the Green family’s religious beliefs on people who work the cash register at a craft store. The question is that if the Green family’s faith holds that certain types of contraception are murder, does the government have the right to make them be a party to the crime? Keep in mind, nobody is saying that a worker at Hobby Lobby can’t get contraception (it is already part of their health plan) but the mandatory inclusion of certain things is a violation of their religious freedom.

Happy Nomad on January 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Only if they’re in the same federal court district.

[Nutstuyu on January 2, 2013 at 1:02 PM]

I don’t know that it is the case the injunction applies across the Court District, since I haven’t found the decision so as to read it.

This one, the Korte case in the 7th District, doesn’t read as though the injunction applies across the 7th District, but only to Korte.

Dusty on January 2, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Ah, but by not wanting to pay that part of the employees’ mandated health care for religious reasons, they are imposing their religion on others. See how easily that works?

Liam on January 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM

You’ll have to show me where in the Constitution it says that women have a right to free aborticants. Because I can show you where is says Congress shall make no law that abridges religious freedom. Telling an employer to pay for the killing of children seems pretty much over the line. And many employers don’t make the moral distinction the Green or Monaghan families do. That doesn’t make their objections any less relevant or compelling.

Happy Nomad on January 2, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Happy Nomad on January 2, 2013 at 1:50 PM

I agree with you on all counts of both your posts. But we know that the Left is going to twist the Constitution if not outright ignore it like they are. The religious-freedom clause is quite clear but liberals will call it an ‘imposition’ if an individual invokes it against a liberal precept. And libs are expert at playing that game, with far too many judges going along with them.

I simply illustrated how libs will frame a debate, define terms and conditions to achieve a desired result while paying lip service to the Supreme Law of the Land: the Constitution.

Crap like this is partly why I never became a lawyer.

Liam on January 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM

And nobody’s saying you can’t be a Christian, just don’t try running a hospital.

Non-profit hospitals v. the Leviathan

PattyJ on January 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM

And nobody’s saying you can’t be a Christian, just don’t try running a hospital.

Non-profit hospitals v. the Leviathan

PattyJ on January 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Oh! You can be a Christian running a hospital. Just leave your faith in the locker room or, better yet, just keep it in the church. In any case, don’t you dare bring it with you into the workplace! It’s part of the way the left wants us all to abandon our faith and comply with their view of the world.

Happy Nomad on January 2, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Oh! You can be a Christian running a hospital. Just leave your faith in the locker room or, better yet, just keep it in the church. In any case, don’t you dare bring it with you into the workplace! It’s part of the way the left wants us all to abandon our faith and comply with their view of the world.

Happy Nomad on January 2, 2013 at 2:21 PM

…similarly, you can be a scientist: just don’t use facts to refute the politically-imposed theory imposed by the left without proof.

This is why nobody is surprised that when a Liberal falls in a hole his first inclination is to sue the hole!!!

landlines on January 2, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Not to detract with a minor point, but:

But hey, no one’s saying you can’t be Catholic or Christian, guys. Just don’t get any ideas about starting a business.

I never really understood why there’s a tendency in our culture to have “Catholic” distinct from “Christian.”

I was only distinguishing in this post because the objections of evangelicals and Catholics on the issue of birth control, specifically, are doctrinally different, though they’re pretty much indistinguishable on the morning-after pill and religious freedom in this case. I should correct and specify evangelical Christians. Was not at all implying Catholics aren’t Christians.

Mary Katharine Ham on January 2, 2013 at 10:37 AM

In common usage, Catholic would not be considered as distinct from Christian so much as a more specific instance of Christian

It’s similar to using the generic masculine in English when you’re not referencing either gender specifically.

My suggestion for phrasing would be “Catholics or other Christians.” Not that you wouldn’t get people complaining about that phrase, either, but you can’t please everybody.

tom on January 2, 2013 at 3:19 PM

ALT, I think you’re awesome, and I always say stick to your guns, which you clearly do, in all manner of speaking.

With no ill will intended, I must respectfully disagree. Peter was no pope, and when we get to Heaven I trust he’d tell you so himself. The “rock” upon which Christ built his church would never be a human, that’s completely in opposition to everything else presented in Scripture. It was the unashamed statement of faith in Him as the Christ, Peter’s belief, that is the “rock”. That is the bedrock of every single person’s salvation, therefore the foundation of Jesus’ church.

I know many catholics whom I gladly declare are Christians. I know many who claim the names of various groups and denominations whose claim to Christianity I would strongly question. And vice versa. But I am the judge of no one’s faith. We each stand or fall before Him who is the only true Judge. The labels used here will have no meaning in Heaven. At the Seat of Judgement, He will not say, “Well done, though good and faithful {insert human-created label here}”.

We make a grave mistake here if we permit the government to distinguish between religious organizations regarding application of laws such as this. To permit one group to have an exemption because they are Catholic, with a stricture against contraception, then deny the same exemption to another group because they are not Catholic, means that the government has become the arbiter of reasonable conscience, which is purely unconstitutional by the First Amendment. It is tyranny by any definition.

Freelancer on January 2, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Catholics were the ORIGINAL Christians. ‘On the rock I will build my Church…’ St. Peter was the first pope.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Well, that’s certainly what Catholics claim, but that doesn’t make it so. The Catholic church can easily be distinguished from the early church in that the early church had no pope, no abbots, no monasteries, no “veneration” of Mary, no requirement of celibacy, and a multitude of other differences. The first pope certainly was not Peter, since the office didn’t even exist. The practice of elevating the bishop of Rome above other bishops also did not exist for the first few centuries of the church, and was highly controversial when first asserted.

As for “on this rock will I build my church,” Jesus was clearly referring to himself. If there’s any doubt on that subject, a careful reading of the second epistle written by Peter himself should make it clear. (1 Peter 2:4-8)

4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Not that I expect you to agree, but I believe Catholicism properly is best dated to around 300 AD, with the understanding that they claim to be exactly the same as the early church before then, but that not everyone accepts that claim. I don’t, for example, because so many of the defining characteristics of Catholicism were absent from the early church.

tom on January 2, 2013 at 3:59 PM

first off let me start by saying i hope everyone here had a verry merry Christmas a happy Hannukah , a joyous Kwanzaa or a happy Festivus whichever you might prefer, I hope your New year will be amazing and that you remain safe in the trials to come. ( and on a side note i want to apologize for being absent of late , Christmas was a very busy season for me both at home and Business wise.)

Now on to the topic at hand i just wanted to clear something up to such an extant as i can since it is only my opinion after all. Christianity is by definition i believe ” Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour” therefore ANYONE who believes in HIM and rests his soul in His loving hands is a Christian , only those who do not believe in Christ Jesus as savior are non Christian types , therefore Catholics , Evangelicals , Protestants etc are ALL Christians.

katee bayer on January 2, 2013 at 4:17 PM

If only Dominos would start selling pizza, I might consider patronizing them.

SickofLibs on January 2, 2013 at 7:49 PM

It doesn’t take much reading in the RCC catechism to see why that opinion is of long standing.

Quartermaster on January 2, 2013 at 12:59 PM

HUH? In the Catechism — which is rooted both in Tradition and Scripture (note that NOTHING in Tradition conflicts with Scripture), necessary information for the proper interpretation of Scripture is provided. If one takes the Protestant perspective and looks at Luther’s Great Catechism, one can see immediately the relationship between catechisms in general and proper Christian behavior. We Catholics do a similar thing with our Catechism — or at least those of us who aren’t just nominally Catholic try to do so.

Having an informed conscience is essential for the proper observance of Christianity.

For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates that laws which are unjust must, of necessity, be disobeyed. In other words, rendering unto God must always supercede rendering unto Caesar — even when it hurts.

We see this basic principle being performed by non-Catholics such as those people running Hobby Lobby as well. It’s not a concept which is easily grasped by those who put observance of secular law high on their list of must-do’s, but there it is.

unclesmrgol on January 2, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Well, that’s certainly what Catholics claim, but that doesn’t make it so. The Catholic church can easily be distinguished from the early church in that the early church had no pope, no abbots, no monasteries, no “veneration” of Mary, no requirement of celibacy, and a multitude of other differences. The first pope certainly was not Peter, since the office didn’t even exist. The practice of elevating the bishop of Rome above other bishops also did not exist for the first few centuries of the church, and was highly controversial when first asserted.

The office did exist, and Peter occupied it. All other disciples deferred to him. The two Popes who followed him, Linus and Clement, are both mentioned in Scripture.

As for the other bishops attempting to improve their own authority, that is part of what led to schism, and, ultimately, to the Muslims almost taking Vienna, and certainly taking Constantinople. Thankfully, not every bishop thought this way — we’ve have few Cardinal Wolseys in our history, who have put their love of temporal power before that of God.

You might want to look at the writings of Clement, who castigates the Corinthians on the subject of schism.

unclesmrgol on January 2, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Shop at Hobby Lobby on January 5. Let’s Chick-Fil-A them!

http://christiannews.net/2013/01/02/christians-stand-with-hobby-lobby-as-company-faces-fine-of-1-3-million-daily-for-defying-obamacare/

Mean Granny on January 3, 2013 at 9:40 AM