Senate Dems to file amicus brief against Hobby Lobby

posted at 8:41 am on January 28, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

One might think that Senate Democrats, who face an uphill battle in this year’s midterms, would tread carefully on controversial ground. The last thing they need in a cycle that is almost certain to bounce hard against them is to give Republicans another rally point in tight races. Yet 19 of the Senate Democratic Caucus have decided to join the Obama administration in its effort at the Supreme Court in defending the HHS contraception mandate:

In a brief to be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, 19 Democratic senators are siding with the Obama administration against evangelical Christian businessmen who argue that paying for their employees’ birth control, a requirement under Obamacare, violates their company’s religious freedom.

The senators—five of them women—argue in their “friend of the court” brief that the owners of the Oklahoma-based crafts store chain Hobby Lobby are not exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate simply because some forms of birth control offend their religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby’s owners, David Green and his family, are suing the federal government over the mandate, which says large employers’ insurance plans must offer birth control without co-pays or else face steep fines.

A lower court upheld the Greens’ case, ruling that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects the Greens from having to adjust their insurance plans to cover contraception for their 13,000 employees. (RFRA says the government must have a compelling reason to infringe upon an individual’s religious beliefs, and that laws that do so must be narrowly tailored.)

The case is novel because religious freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment, typically has been thought to apply to individuals, churches and other religious nonprofits—not corporations. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, siding with Hobby Lobby, said the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 , which upheld a free-speech right for corporations, conferred a right to religious expression on businesses.

Frankly, this is a political loser in a cycle that will feature in large part criticism of of the failures and restrictions in top-down government mandates. These 19 Senators have now explicitly signed themselves onto what had been an executive-branch-only effort to force business owners to violate their religious beliefs and provide free contraception and sterilization for their employees. Now they have explicitly attached themselves, and politically attached all of their colleagues, to a case that at best makes the Obama administration look autocratic and arbitrary.

What exactly is the end game here? The Court will likely uphold their Citizens United ruling, and at the same time skewer HHS for taking a radical approach to the non-problem of birth control access instead of narrowly tailoring a solution. Even if they don’t, an amicus brief isn’t going to mean much in this court case, especially at this late date. All it does is tie the HHS contraception mandate around the necks of Senate Democrats, especially those whose fates are already hanging by a thread this cycle.

Note at the bottom of the article who signed onto this effort. It’s led by Patty Murray (WA), and not one of the signatories faces a competitive election this year. Don’t expect that to stop Republicans from challenging those Democratic incumbents in Senate races this year on this effort.

 


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

The war on religion continues from the left.

Wino on January 28, 2014 at 8:44 AM

“War On Women!”

22044 on January 28, 2014 at 8:45 AM

It’s led by Patty Murray (WA), and not one of the signatories faces a competitive election this year.

Ah! The woman who was lauding the social programs of the Taliban to high school students even as the WTC was still smoldering and human remains were still being removed. Because, unlike the evil Bush administration the Taliban was building schools (terrorist training camps), hospitals (to treat the terrorists), and infrastructure (the better to fight the enemy).

She is pure evil.

Happy Nomad on January 28, 2014 at 8:47 AM

“War On Women!”

22044 on January 28, 2014 at 8:45 AM

When are conservative women going to stand up and say enough? Three elections now here in VA have been determined by rabid screeching vile harpies claiming that the GOP’s intent is to ban all abortions. It is an outright lie but not one Republican candidate has bothered challenging these claims.

Happy Nomad on January 28, 2014 at 8:49 AM

The war on individual freedom and common sense continues from the left too.

OrbeaRider66 on January 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM

The demagoguery and misinformation runs deep with this topic the feckless R’s…

MT on January 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Signatories:

Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Barbara Mikulsi (D-Md.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Where are Begich, Landrieu, Pryor, Franken, Hagan, Udall, and Merkley?

blammm on January 28, 2014 at 8:52 AM

SMH

Cuckoo

cmsinaz on January 28, 2014 at 8:52 AM

So 15 Democrat atheists have stood up to force their religion on others…

Skywise on January 28, 2014 at 8:53 AM

The other senators who signed the brief are: Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Barbara Mikulsi (D-Md.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

.
Some of the most despicable Democrats in the Senate… ever. Puke-worthy.

ExpressoBold on January 28, 2014 at 8:54 AM

One might think that Senate Democrats, who face an uphill battle in this year’s midterms, would tread carefully on controversial ground.
===============================================================

Me thinks,..they have zero political shame!!!!

canopfor on January 28, 2014 at 8:54 AM

Oh, Obamacare … the gift that keeps on giving!

Let’s go to the commercial … Video of the Sisters of the Poor and Mother Theresa juxtaposed to Sandra Fluke holding up the morning after pill…

The commercials practically wrtie themselves!

cww on January 28, 2014 at 8:55 AM

It is an outright lie but not one Republican candidate has bothered challenging these claims.

Happy Nomad on January 28, 2014 at 8:49 AM

Because the repubs don’t want to be labeled as woman haters and bigots. It really is a no win subject for them. If they say anything critical about the subject they not only get attacked by liberals but by conservatives and their own party.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 28, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Note at the bottom of the article who signed onto this effort. It’s led by Patty Murray (WA), and not one of the signatories faces a competitive election this year.

Big surprise. Nothing like making a principled stand without having to worry about your own job security. In a couple years, they’ll simply “evolve” on the issue…if the polls indicate they should.

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 8:58 AM

Yet 19 of the Senate Democratic Caucus have decided to join the Obama administration in its effort at the Supreme Court in defending the HHS contraception mandate:
=======================

So,…19 Democrats want a death sentenace on the defenceless unborn!

Must make a note, of the 19 DemSnuffationBots!!

canopfor on January 28, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Patty Murray will never have to worry about job security. She’s in a state that looks at Democratic women as Venus no matter how much of a political, social and literal hag she is.

HiJack on January 28, 2014 at 8:59 AM

and not one of the signatories faces a competitive election this year.

Hang it around all their necks. Call every democrat in the Senate a disciple of Molech to their faces.

Make them eat their own.

CurtZHP on January 28, 2014 at 9:02 AM

Our situation has truly been reduced to a battle between the Democrat Party and the citizens of our country.

Bring it. We will see you in November.

Marcus Traianus on January 28, 2014 at 9:03 AM

They’re really thuggish despots. Dictators have done this sort of thing to their citizens all through history. I wonder how the Donks rationalize it to where they still think they’re the good guys.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2014 at 9:12 AM

No surprise. These scum hate having God as competition for the loyalty of the public. If they could outright ban religion they would. Kinda like several commenter’s on this site.

njrob on January 28, 2014 at 9:15 AM

“Allowing a woman’s boss to call the shots about her access to birth control should be inconceivable to all Americans in this day and age, and takes us back to a place in history when women had no voice or choice,” Murray will say, according to prepared remarks provided by her staff.

Murray (or her staff) paraphrased: ‘Females are helpless without the government’. Pretty much exactly what Huckabee dared to point out.

Drained Brain on January 28, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Note at the bottom of the article who signed onto this effort. It’s led by Patty Murray (WA), and not one of the signatories faces a competitive election this year.

Add to that most of those Senators like to hang out in the urban sections of their states, when they’re in their states at all, and Hobby Lobby is more of a suburban/medium-sized city business. It’s not a business they or their acquaintances frequent, so it’s fair game for attacking.

jon1979 on January 28, 2014 at 9:17 AM

From this thread and others (SOTU, minimum wage, etc.), it’s pretty obvious whats going on: The Dems are doing what little they can to offset Obamacare damage with populous-appealing do-nothing tidbits before the midterms.

Tsar of Earth on January 28, 2014 at 9:17 AM

What exactly is the end game here?

Intimidation. As Ace often says, the process is the punishment. It doesn’t matter whether Hobby Lobby wins or loses, what matters is other businesses become too scared to oppose Obama.

All it does is tie the HHS contraception mandate around the necks of Senate Democrats, especially those whose fates are already hanging by a thread this cycle.

It doesn’t really matter whether the Republicans win the 2014 elections because Republicans will just cheerfully vote for just about anything the administration puts in front of them, as long as they get “their cut” to do it.

Doomberg on January 28, 2014 at 9:17 AM

0b00baCare hasn’t even gotten as bad as it’s going to get.

The ferry’s sinking and these dopes are blithely hopping on.

Akzed on January 28, 2014 at 9:20 AM

…they’re just keeping in the spirit…with the democrat convention atmosphere of over a year ago!

KOOLAID2 on January 28, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Senate Dems to file amicus brief against Hobby Lobby the First Amendment

Let’s call it like it is.

Lost in Jersey on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

Fascist-Democrats war on religion.

rbj on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

I think you have it backwards. The Senate Dems are fighting for religious freedom, while Hobby Lobby is advocating sharia-type control of employee religious belief by any corporation that cuts a paycheck.

And, since Hobby Lobby Inc. has no religious beliefs, one wonders how it’s beliefs can be offended.

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

I’m a little surprised at Brown in Ohio. I guess the liberals in Cleveland and Columbus and the college towns are screaming loudly at him, and he doesn’t face voters until 2018. What a shitehead.

Where’s Claire McCaskill? She’s not up until 2018. The guys listed in that group are among the most contemptible figures in American life these days outside of the White House. Maybe Wyden is worth two shites, but the rest aren’t worth a single shite.

BuckeyeSam on January 28, 2014 at 9:22 AM

I think you have it backwards. The Senate Dems are fighting for religious freedom, while Hobby Lobby is advocating sharia-type control of employee religious belief by any corporation that cuts a paycheck.

And, since Hobby Lobby Inc. has no religious beliefs, one wonders how it’s beliefs can be offended.

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

You are so precious – bless your heart.

gophergirl on January 28, 2014 at 9:23 AM

No Minnesota Senator – I’m shocked. No truthfully I’m shocked.

gophergirl on January 28, 2014 at 9:24 AM

I think you have it backwards. The Senate Dems are fighting for religious freedom, while Hobby Lobby is advocating sharia-type control of employee religious belief by any corporation that cuts a paycheck.

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

So it’s your contention that women are incapable of supplying their own contraception? Why would you demean women like that?

Lost in Jersey on January 28, 2014 at 9:24 AM

The other senators who signed the brief are: Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Barbara Mikulsi (D-Md.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

As Claude Rains would say, “round up the usual suspects”.

The reason they’ve signed on is simple. Their conception of government cannot tolerate any form of dissent. It’s not “patriotic” when someone dares to disagree with their dogmas.

Also, they don’t just want religion “driven from the public square”. They want it crushed and destroyed. The only religion they want to exist is worship of the Almighty State, i.e., themselves.

Of all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, I truly believe they despise the First even more than they do the Second. It has certainly given them and their ilk more grief over the last 225 years than all the rest put together.

clear ether

eon

eon on January 28, 2014 at 9:25 AM

I think you have it backwards. The Senate Dems are fighting for religious freedom, while Hobby Lobby is advocating sharia-type control of employee religious belief by any corporation that cuts a paycheck.

And, since Hobby Lobby Inc. has no religious beliefs, one wonders how it’s beliefs can be offended.

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

What a f’ing joke you fascists are. Hobby-Lobby is simply not going to pay for your contraceptives. They aren’t going into your house and demanding you live a certain way. Marxist Dear Liar is. As you are. why don’t you polish up your swastika. Because that’s who you are.

rbj on January 28, 2014 at 9:26 AM

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

Faith doesn’t stop at the church doors.

And the government’s requirement of this kind of provision is autocratic. Employees are not denied access to anything: no denial of a doctor’s appointment, no denial of a prescription provided by that doctor, and no denial of purchase from a pharmacy.

That middle class and affluent women can’t pay for their fun or get their lovers to share the cost is beyond my comprehension.

BuckeyeSam on January 28, 2014 at 9:26 AM

I think you have it backwards. The Senate Dems are fighting for religious freedom, while Hobby Lobby is advocating sharia-type control of employee religious belief by any corporation that cuts a paycheck.

And, since Hobby Lobby Inc. has no religious beliefs, one wonders how it’s beliefs can be offended.

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

Hobby Lobby not paying for someone’s birth control is “sharia-type control of employee religious belief?”

So, do you just get a morning email with talking points that you cut and paste without bothering to read?

Doomberg on January 28, 2014 at 9:26 AM

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

How, exactly, are the obviously godless Democrats “fighting for religious freedom”?

You can’t be this stupid, but just in case you are: HL isn’t telling employees what they must believe, it is saying just don’t ask me to pay for it when it violates our beliefs.

Sort of Jeffersonian if you ask me. Any honest person understands that.

But if you aren’t really this stupid, it must be that you’re a liar protecting the Marxist menace in the WH come hell or high water.

Akzed on January 28, 2014 at 9:27 AM

I am going to go against the grain on this one. Religious institutions and organizations have a case but I think a profit making business does not. Whether you like or not ACA gives the Federal government the authority to impose requirements on secular organizations. You notice they did file a FOTC brief in the Little Sisters of the Poor case. The fact that Court continued the injunction against the mandate is a good indication the will find against the government under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Note at the bottom of the article who signed onto this effort. It’s led by Patty Murray (WA), and not one of the signatories faces a competitive election this year. Don’t expect that to stop Republicans from challenging those Democratic incumbents in Senate races this year on this effort.

Drag all the dems in on this, don’t let any off the hook.

This is the dem party, I would take every single dem to task that is up for re-election and tie them to this radical view that the feds can make people give up their religious freedom, that the feds can force someone to break their faith, one of the founding pillars of our country…

Drag every dem down with this…every single one…

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 9:30 AM

I am going to go against the grain on this one.

So you’re as stupid as UR. Ok.

Religious institutions and organizations have a case but I think a profit making business does not.

Because profits are evil. We get it. Profit making businesses lose their rights because profits. When they lose money though, do they gain their rights back?

Whether you like or not ACA Resichstag Act gives the Federal government the authority to impose requirements on Jews secular organizations.

I mean, it’s the law. Whaddya gonna do?

You notice they did file a FOTC brief in the Little Sisters of the Poor case. The fact that Court continued the injunction against the mandate is a good indication the will find against the government under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Which sorta contradicts your whole point.

Akzed on January 28, 2014 at 9:33 AM

And, since Hobby Lobby Inc. has no religious beliefs, one wonders how it’s beliefs can be offended.

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Great sarcastic post, it has to be sarcastic, no one that stupid could ever actually believe what you just posted…

Oh man, that was a good one…kind of Rick Rolled us all, great funny post.

I bet some will even argue with you, not realizing that anyone who actually posted what you did and believed it would be the biggest idiot ever to post here.

HA!! Great funny post, what a riot…

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 9:33 AM

I’m hoping they get a serious b!tchslap from SCOTUS.

Ward Cleaver on January 28, 2014 at 9:33 AM

For those who think Corps don’t have a “belief” system, than that would exclude them from all laws…

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 9:34 AM

I definitely thought urby’s post was sarcastic, until I saw that it was written by urby.

You are so precious – bless your heart.

gophergirl on January 28, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Yep

22044 on January 28, 2014 at 9:35 AM

The Senate Dems are fighting for religious freedom, while Hobby Lobby is advocating sharia-type control of employee religious belief by any corporation that cuts a paycheck. urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Jerry, please describe how what UE says is true, that HL has done or said anything that comports with the accusation of his I quoted. Please. C’mon. Step up to the plate. Give us concrete examples.

Akzed on January 28, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Faith doesn’t stop at the church doors.

And the government’s requirement of this kind of provision is autocratic. Employees are not denied access to anything: no denial of a doctor’s appointment, no denial of a prescription provided by that doctor, and no denial of purchase from a pharmacy.

That middle class and affluent women can’t pay for their fun or get their lovers to share the cost is beyond my comprehension.

BuckeyeSam on January 28, 2014 at 9:26 AM

That’s the bottom-line to all this…how does mandating contraception fall under these health plans in the first place? It makes no sense.

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 9:39 AM

You are so precious – bless your heart.

gophergirl on January 28, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

I know several people at church who work for Hobby Lobby corporate. It’s an awesome business. They are VERY supportive of their employees and are always the first to reach out and help.

Is it a money-making business as opposed to a non-profit? Yes. But it’s a privately held business. If it were a publicly-held company, I could see where they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. But they’re not. A family owns the business, lock stock and barrel. They are then able to do whatever they want.

I wonder what would happen if a Muslim-owned business started saying a certain law violated their religious beliefs. Would the Dems and the White House jump to their aid and work to change the law immediately?

jedijson on January 28, 2014 at 9:43 AM

The list is a who’s who of evil senators.

sadatoni on January 28, 2014 at 9:43 AM

I don’t know, attacking the religious seems to get brownie point lately.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Typical crap-and-dash bigoted leftard thinks that refusing to pay for something for someone is the same as denying them access to it.

Hey, troll, pay for my lunch. What’s that you say? You won’t pay for my lunch? You must want me to starve.

CurtZHP on January 28, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Let me amend that. Attacking Christians seems to get brownie points lately.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2014 at 9:50 AM

I wonder what would happen if a Muslim-owned business started saying a certain law violated their religious beliefs. Would the Dems and the White House jump to their aid and work to change the law immediately?

jedijson on January 28, 2014 at 9:43 AM

To play devil’s advocate here…If you support Hobby Lobby’s owners faith-based opposition to providing these birth control mandates, you have to support any religious objection from any faith in regards to a business and it’s employees.

For example, a business owned by Christian Science faithful…who believe in prayer over medical science when it comes to health. What if they claim providing any health insurance to it’s employees violates their freedom of religion?

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Let me amend that. Attacking Christians seems to get brownie points lately.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Mmmmm…brownies…

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 9:52 AM

And, since Hobby Lobby Inc. has no religious beliefs, one wonders how it’s beliefs can be offended.

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

The owners have beliefs. And if you knew anything about liability and tax law, you’d know that incorporation is very common in family owned businesses.

Most law firms are incorporated, as well, and even a small three-person law firm can be an “LLC.”

If the women don’t agree with the philosophy of the owners, why work there? If you don’t like your employer being closed on Saturdays and working on Sundays, don’t apply for a job with a kosher deli.

Wethal on January 28, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Tim Johnson is not running for re-election, so he can do pretty much what he wants.

Wethal on January 28, 2014 at 9:56 AM

Where are Begich, Landrieu, Pryor, Franken, Hagan, Udall, and Merkley?

blammm on January 28, 2014 at 8:52 AM

How about Mark Warner? Here we go with another election-year conversion by Warner, trying to convince voters yet again that he’s a moderate.

rockmom on January 28, 2014 at 10:00 AM

I think you have it backwards. The Senate Dems are fighting for religious freedom, while Hobby Lobby is advocating sharia-type control of employee religious belief by any corporation that cuts a paycheck.

And, since Hobby Lobby Inc. has no religious beliefs, one wonders how it’s beliefs can be offended.

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

Well, of course you would think that; Obama supporters like yourself have no marketable skills or work ethic, and thus cannot get a different or better job, especially in the collapsing Obama economy.

And as you’ve described, your wife is an imbecile, who would be roaming the streets barefoot and pregnant without government or liberal white males to tell her what to do, say, and think.

So it’s really not fair to explain this to you in terms of normal people because you’re not.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2014 at 10:02 AM

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

I don’t understand. Which religion demands birth control and since when are employees barred from spending their own money on anything? I notice that the Left seems to overlook that all these little “freedoms” Obamacare mandates come at a price that they might be able to overlook but that businesses can’t. I guess they just don’t care if another employer bites the dust.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2014 at 10:08 AM

I see one can no longer have an intelligent discussion on Hot Air. Your sverage poster has the mentality of the Daily Kos or DU crowd.

jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2014 at 10:02 AM

It’s married?????

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Akzed is in no way average. You should demand that Hobby Lobby open on Sunday.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2014 at 10:12 AM

For example, a business owned by Christian Science faithful…who believe in prayer over medical science when it comes to health. What if they claim providing any health insurance to it’s employees violates their freedom of religion?

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 9:51 AM

So what if they decide not to provide any health insurance? Employees are free to work for them or not based on the wages they pay and other benefits they offer. What if they pay enough for the employees to pay for their own individual coverage? What if the employees are like-minded and also believe in prayer?

Your entire argument falls apart the same way UE’s does. Not offering something to someone is not the same as denying someone from securing it at all.

Lost in Jersey on January 28, 2014 at 10:21 AM

The case is novel because religious freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment, typically has been thought to apply to individuals, churches and other religious nonprofits—not corporations. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, siding with Hobby Lobby, said the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 , which upheld a free-speech right for corporations, conferred a right to religious expression on businesses.

Novel? Really?

Rights apply to everybody. That’s why they call them “rights.”

You would think that would be obvious.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 28, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Here’s my questions: Say the Dems ram this through by putting Scalia’s wife in a noose and threatening to pull the door unless he votes the right way.

What then? If corporations are suddenly forced to bend to the will of the government–what about big partnerships? Lots of big partnerships are law firms, employing thousands of people and paying very high wages. Should they be forced to follow this rule? I can’t see why not. Why should it matter to Sandra Fluke if her boss is a corporation or a partnership–the legal argument is clear. It doesn’t. So partnerships will be forced to comply.

But partnerships expose the owners to everything, as long as they are general partners. Full liability. There sometimes isn’t a separation of partnership and personal business, because they ARE the same thing.

If the Feds can force a partnership to violate their rights to freedom; exactly where is that line drawn? If General Partner Bob goes to church on sunday, and he happens to be wearing his line of nice dress sweaters with his logo on it, isn’t that forcing religious belief?

In other words, isn’t this a way to force individuals in all areas of the First Amendment? Because the same rational goes for Sole Proprietorships, too. If I have a business with ten employees, am I going to be forced to never go to church again because Sandra Fluke is my employee and I’m forcing religion on her? You can’t fire her either, because that would be a violation of her rights, as it were. As a Christian, you don’t get rights anymore.

Vanceone on January 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM

jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Well…Bye.

kingsjester on January 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM

For example, a business owned by Christian Science faithful…who believe in prayer over medical science when it comes to health. What if they claim providing any health insurance to it’s employees violates their freedom of religion?

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 9:51 AM

There is a word…it’s called discernment, and too often “laws” displace that word.

And too often examples are created that do not include that word.

Like the “no tolerance” laws in schools, so administrators don’t have to make decisions.

But, certainly, if a private institution says that they don’t believe in something, faithfully, they shouldn’t be forced into it.

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM

As a Christian, you don’t get rights anymore.

Vanceone on January 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM

That’s the goal. Once they rid the nation of those nasty people with principles, it’s game on for the secular humanistic utopian superstate…and it is going to be a w e s o m e!

Murphy9 on January 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM

If a kosher deli hires you, and you bring in a pork sandwich and eat it on the counter where they cut meat, you don’t think they have a right to object to that, to tell you that pork is not allowed?

Their are numerous examples that religion trumps “rights”…

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM

To play devil’s advocate here…If you support Hobby Lobby’s owners faith-based opposition to providing these birth control mandates, you have to support any religious objection from any faith in regards to a business and it’s employees.

For example, a business owned by Christian Science faithful…who believe in prayer over medical science when it comes to health. What if they claim providing any health insurance to it’s employees violates their freedom of religion?

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 9:51 AM

So what if they do? People can get other jobs and work for different companies. The principle is liberty and freedom.

The problem is, JetBoy, as a gay-sex liberal, you are terrified that other people might decide or believe something that you don’t like, and thus need government to compel them.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM

For example, a business owned by Christian Science faithful…who believe in prayer over medical science when it comes to health. What if they claim providing any health insurance to it’s employees violates their freedom of religion?

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Uh… then they shouldn’t provide health insurance to their employees and those employees can choose whether to work there without health insurance benefits or seek employment elsewhere. That’s not a difficult question at all.

Shump on January 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM

It’s married?????

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Beat me to it…

22044 on January 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

I’m a woman-last time I checked anyway-and if I needed birth control, I could buy it myself. Guess that lefty women need/ expect the government to supply them w/ everything. It must suck to be so helpless.///

annoyinglittletwerp on January 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Dems are politicizing this issue violating the 1st amendment as members of congress.

jake49 on January 28, 2014 at 10:44 AM

But, certainly, if a private institution says that they don’t believe in something, faithfully, they shouldn’t be forced into it.

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM

It’s not so much “being forced” as it is “compliance” with the rules and regs of all businesses. Look…again, I think contraception mandates like this are, at best, idiotic. But if ever there was a slippery-slope, it’s here.

It’s going to be interesting to see how the courts rule on this case. Either way, it’s going to set precedent and probably be more polarizing.

Your entire argument falls apart the same way UE’s does. Not offering something to someone is not the same as denying someone from securing it at all.

Lost in Jersey on January 28, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Like I said above, it’s not about offering or denying…it’s about an exemption of what every other company has to do based solely on the religious grounds of the company’s ownership. That leaves the door wide open for all sorts of religious objection to anything they decide upon.

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

A ton of companies are going to dump their employees entirely and pay the fine based purely on their bottom line, so I have no problem with them fighting for their principles.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2014 at 11:10 AM

I see one can no longer have an intelligent discussion on Hot Air. Your sverage (sic) poster has the mentality of the Daily Kos or DU crowd.

jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

lol

Saved. Why? Because, irony?

hawkdriver on January 28, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Like I said above, it’s not about offering or denying…it’s about an exemption of what every other company has to do based solely on the religious grounds of the company’s ownership. That leaves the door wide open for all sorts of religious objection to anything they decide upon.
JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Respectfully, the door that would become open is for other entities to have legs to fight illegitimate mandates. The idea is to fight for that as opposed to wanting all to suffer just because we have to. That is the precedent worthy here. To maximize the numbers on our side.

anuts on January 28, 2014 at 11:13 AM

For example, a business owned by Christian Science faithful…who believe in prayer over medical science when it comes to health. What if they claim providing any health insurance to it’s employees violates their freedom of religion?
JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Everyone has already whacked ya so I don’t need to add to the pile on. Mandatory insurance goes against freedom of contract. The regulations cause more employees to be forced into part-time work. Do you have any issues with that or would you rather claim your fallacious slippery slope.

The same guy who denies a real slippery slope with nonsensical homosexual unions claims a true one here. Yet he claims to be a Christian, conservative. Hilarious.

jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord…

njrob on January 28, 2014 at 11:14 AM

And, since Hobby Lobby Inc. has no religious beliefs, one wonders how it’s beliefs can be offended.

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

I would imagine like any religious or faith based entity is offended. You know? Like GLAAD or GOProud.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Like I said above, it’s not about offering or denying…it’s about an exemption of what every other company has to do based solely on the religious grounds of the company’s ownership. That leaves the door wide open for all sorts of religious objection to anything they decide upon.

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

This is only a problem when you have a vastly overreaching government. The fix, then, would be obvious.

I have to wonder if you’re not thinking of same sex marriage at this point. That’s a perfect example of the government making laws that causally trample religious freedom, but justifying it by saying, “Well, religious freedom doesn’t apply to secular organizations .”

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 28, 2014 at 11:22 AM

I am going to go against the grain on this one. Religious institutions and organizations have a case but I think a profit making business does not. Whether you like or not ACA gives the Federal government the authority to impose requirements on secular organizations. You notice they did file a FOTC brief in the Little Sisters of the Poor case. The fact that Court continued the injunction against the mandate is a good indication the will find against the government under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 9:28 AM

The distinction between secular organizations and religious organizations doesn’t really matter. The issue is the people. People don’t lose their religious freedoms because they start a business.

The left wants to limit religious freedom to bona fide churches and religious organizations. But the freedom is a personal one, not one that just belongs to a church.

Once you start down the “secular organization” path, you wind up with denying church ministries like charities and schools, because they’re separate organizations with a “secular” purpose.

In fact, that’s exactly the argument used against Catholic adoption agencies to require them to either place children with homosexuals, or stop facilitating adoptions.

The biggest danger of all is that such a philosophy lets the government define what is secular.

Many schools are secular. Many churches operate Christians schools. Some Christian schools are run by organizations of parents. The government would like to declare that any school is an organization with a secular purpose, and therefore just a secular organization. Schools that are clearly completely owned and operated by a church might be able to overcome that attempt to define them as a secular organization — though it seems unlikely under the Obama administration. But if parents from two or three churches form an organization to provide a Christian school, the government might well rule they’re a secular organization, and therefore nothing they teach can be based on religious beliefs.

This administration

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 28, 2014 at 11:35 AM

And, since Hobby Lobby Inc. has no religious beliefs, one wonders how it’s beliefs can be offended.

urban elitist on January 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM

Not really. It’s rather easy for honest people to understand how a corporation/business can be the embodiment of the personal beliefs of the founders and owners.

It is also, however, easy to understand why and how you and your type would feign ignorance on that subject – or, at least, object to it.

Normal believers in any religion just want to be left alone to live their lives in accordance with their beliefs.
Atheists, however, have a fanatical compulsion to destroy all religious belief; and force everyone to believe (or not believe, as it were) exactly as they do.

(Funny, though, that you clowns are never seen at muslim/islamist sites denigrating their beliefs. Or confronting them in public.)

Solaratov on January 28, 2014 at 11:36 AM

That leaves the door wide open for all sorts of religious objection to anything they decide upon.

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

And that is why laws like this are foolish, because having the feds force you to buy something ends up violating more than just your civil rights…your religious rights, your freedom, your right to compete.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a “mandate or law” those can be changed, what can’t be changed is our desire, our basis of existence, freedom from oppression…and forcing someone to buy something is oppressive.

The exemptions have already been seen, unions, congress, etc, are exempt from many of these laws…why? Because they know they are too restrictive and not in their best interests.

And yes it does leave the “door wide open”, which is what our founding fathers warned us about, the slow creeping of federal interference in our lives.

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 11:38 AM

jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 9:28 AM

So your argument is that freedom is based on whether you are a profit or non-profit?

The people may be the same…but it is solely based on whether the government grants you non-profit status?

That is your definition of freedom or civil rights? Whether the government gives you a 501xxx status?

Interesting, let me read through the constitution and see how often they state that…you apparently have much more knowledge about who gets freedom and who doesn’t.

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 11:42 AM

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Muslims and Christian Scientists are already exempt from obamacare. As are the Amish.

For religious reasons.

Solaratov on January 28, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Solaratov on January 28, 2014 at 11:44 AM

That’s almost funny in its irony.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2014 at 11:48 AM

It’s not so much “being forced” as it is “compliance” with the rules and regs of all businesses.

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Jetboy, you are a great guy, read that three times and tell me, how brilliant that is.

You think that a federal mandate, that carries huge fines and punishment if not followed is “compliance” and not “forced”? Really.

I have a feeling you didn’t think through your statement.

“Compliance” is just a nice word for “if you don’t do it, you will regret it”.

Of course you are not “forced” you can go to jail or go bankrupt, if you don’t comply…it’s your choice.

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Muslims and Christian Scientists are already exempt from obamacare. As are the Amish.

For religious reasons.

Solaratov on January 28, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Goodness, I did not know that…is that true?

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM

I see one can no longer have an intelligent discussion on Hot Air. Your sverage poster has the mentality of the Daily Kos or DU crowd.

jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Well, now. See, that’s the wonderful thing about Freedom. You are completely free – at liberty, so to speak – to find a forum which appeals to and satisfies your intellectual demands.
Evidently, this one does not fit your bill of particulars. Good luck with your search for one that does.
Buh Bye.

Solaratov on January 28, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Your sverage poster has the mentality of the Daily Kos or DU crowd.

jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

That would be “average”, and the average poster even on Daily Kos has spell check…really, when posting something like you did, at least double or triple read what you are going to post.

But thanks for the laugh!!

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 12:09 PM

I have a question for the JetBoys of the world. Let’s say that Obama and the Dems in congress push through a law that states “Everyone has to bow to the President and say ‘Hail, My President!’ three times a day: at 8 AM, at noon, and at 8 PM with all the children, if you have any. if you are caught not doing it, you can face up to a million dollar per occurrence fine.” Would that be a constitutional law? It applies to everyone equally. On it’s face, it is not targeted at any religion.

Would that pass your definition here? Of course religious people are harmed, but it is incidental, right? They are American citizens, so there should be some obeisance to our great President, right?

Just don’t ask Daniel what to do….

Vanceone on January 28, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Jetboy, you are a great guy, read that three times and tell me, how brilliant that is.

You think that a federal mandate, that carries huge fines and punishment if not followed is “compliance” and not “forced”? Really.

I have a feeling you didn’t think through your statement.

“Compliance” is just a nice word for “if you don’t do it, you will regret it”.

Of course you are not “forced” you can go to jail or go bankrupt, if you don’t comply…it’s your choice.

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM

On second look…I guess I wasn’t clear. When I say “compliance”, I meant only that if, for example, Michael’s Crafts has to provide contraception, then why should Hobby Lobby exclude itself from providing that same contraception?

Let me say again, I think any contraception mandate for any business is patently ludicrous anyway…it treats a baby as some medical disorder. If you don’t want a child, don’t hop in the sack. Doesn’t cost a dime.

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 12:38 PM

I have a question for the JetBoys of the world

Whoa now…there’s only one JetBoy. The world can’t handle more than one me :P

Let’s say that Obama and the Dems in congress push through a law that states “Everyone has to bow to the President and say ‘Hail, My President!’ three times a day: at 8 AM, at noon, and at 8 PM with all the children, if you have any. if you are caught not doing it, you can face up to a million dollar per occurrence fine.” Would that be a constitutional law? It applies to everyone equally. On it’s face, it is not targeted at any religion.

Would that pass your definition here? Of course religious people are harmed, but it is incidental, right? They are American citizens, so there should be some obeisance to our great President, right?

Just don’t ask Daniel what to do….

Vanceone on January 28, 2014 at 12:28 PM

How is that even close to being a valid comparison?

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Always side with the FFRF?

Murphy9 on January 28, 2014 at 12:54 PM

I am going to go against the grain on this one. Religious institutions and organizations have a case but I think a profit making business does not. Whether you like or not ACA gives the Federal government the authority to impose requirements on secular organizations. You notice they did file a FOTC brief in the Little Sisters of the Poor case. The fact that Court continued the injunction against the mandate is a good indication the will find against the government under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

jerryofva on January 28, 2014 at 9:28 AM

I know you’re getting hammered here, a bit unfairly IMHO.

The CU case already set the precedent that corporations were simply groups of individuals (same as labor unions). Not liking the ACA has nothing to do with it. Any individual, union, group, and yes, even a corporation has the right to challenge the Federal government and its “requirements” if said entity believes–for whatever reason–that the requirement is unjust. If a “profit-making business” can challenge based on First Amendment-Speech, why can’t they challenge on First Amendment-Press or First Amendment-Religion?

Maddie on January 28, 2014 at 2:01 PM

On second look…I guess I wasn’t clear. JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 12:38 PM

No, we knew what you were dancing around at once: cGoAnYtrMaAcReRpItAiGoEn.

Akzed on January 28, 2014 at 2:05 PM

To play devil’s advocate here…If you support Hobby Lobby’s owners faith-based opposition to providing these birth control mandates, you have to support any religious objection from any faith in regards to a business and it’s employees.

JetBoy on January 28, 2014 at 9:51 AM

I dunno… Can a pharmaceutical company be compelled to provide drugs used in executions because it has a moral objection to how they’re used?

Skywise on January 28, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2