Open thread: SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby/Conestoga

posted at 10:01 am on March 25, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Arguments have already gotten underway at the Supreme Court as we post this, but it’s not too late for a recap. SCOTUSblog has its own roundup, so be sure to trek there if you want the blow-by-blow. (Audio from the arguments will come out on Friday.) We’ve covered the issue for more than two years, and Hot Air readers have a clear idea what our take on the case itself will be.

National Journal’s Sam Baker outlines the three possible directions this could take:

When the Justice Department has lost on the threshold question of corporate rights, it has always lost on the underlying challenge to the contraception mandate. Any time an appeals court decided that a company or its owner could exercise religion, it went on to find that the birth-control mandate at least seems likely to violate that religious freedom. And so the only way the administration has ever won on the mandate itself is to close the door before a court even gets there—which could prove hard to do before the Supreme Court.

The biggest hurdle for the mandate’s challengers is the marquee question of whether they can practice a religion. In one of the cases before the Supreme Court this week, a cabinet-making company called Conestoga challenged the mandate as an affront to the beliefs of its owners, the Hahn family. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, siding with the Justice Department, said the corporation and the people who own it are two different entities.

“Since Conestoga is distinct from the Hahns, the Mandate does not actually require the Hahns to do anything. All responsibility for complying with the Mandate falls on Conestoga,” the court wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts likes to keep the high court’s rulings as narrow as possible on most big issues. He looks for ways to minimize the Court’s footprint by avoiding the biggest question—which, in this case, would be whether corporations are protected by the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause.

There’s a reasonably clear way for him to do that here: Avoid the question of whether corporations are people, and focus on whether—in these specific cases—people are their corporations.

Both Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are closely held companies, controlled entirely or almost entirely by their owners. The libertarian Cato Institute suggested in a supporting brief that because these two companies are controlled by their owners, the Court could rule in their favor without setting a broader precedent that corporations in general can practice religion.

CBS frames this as reproductive rights versus religious liberty:

For Christian conservatives, the cases represent the threat of government overreach.

“This case will decide whether a family gives up their religious freedom when they open a family business,” Lori Windham, a senior counsel for the Becket Fund, which is representing Hobby Lobby, told CBS News. “The question here is whether the Green family can be forced to do something that violates their deeply held religious conviction as a consequence of the new health care law.”

Reproductive rights advocates, meanwhile, consider the notion that some businesses could pick and choose which contraception methods to cover “out of touch [and] out of line,” Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro Choice America, told reporters.

Contraception is “integral with our economic security and our ability to hold jobs for our lifetime,” Hogue said. “We’ve had enough of this idea our reproductive health is somehow separate from our economic well being… Our bodies are not our bosses’ business.”

The two cases, however, have implications that go well beyond the so-called “wars” on women or religion. If Hobby Lobby and Conestoga prevail, it would prompt “a fundamental shift in the understanding of the First Amendment,” David Gans, the civil rights director for the Constitutional Accountability Center, told CBS News.

Both of these miss one particular point, though. For individuals or for corporations, the government can only intrude on constitutionally-protected rights for a compelling state interest. Hobby Lobby/Conestoga can point to the August 2010 CDC study that shows even without forcing employers to pick up the tab for contraception, 99% of sexually active women who wished to avoid pregnancy between 1980 and 2008 used contraception to do so. Access is such a non-issue that the CDC doesn’t even bother to address it. Furthermore, Hobby Lobby already offers coverage for 16 forms of birth control, only refusing to cover those that the owners consider abortifacients rather than contraception.

The Washington Post’s editorial board attempts to make the “compelling interest” case:

One goal was to provide adequate coverage to women. A panel of independent experts — not liberal ideologues in Congress — determined that assuring access to a range of birth control products to all women, not just those who could afford it, would convey major public health benefits. It’s true that some non-compliant plans here and there were grandfathered in — but they will phase out, making the rule comprehensive.

Under U.S. law, corporations get substantial privileges, such as limits on owners’ financial liability. Now, they have been asked to take on responsibilities, such as providing decent health-care coverage, with the aid of massive tax subsidies. Not every American of every creed will be comfortable with reasonable, general rules that extend across the marketplace — requiring vaccinations, say, or prohibiting discrimination against women in the workplace. But it’s not feasible for a corporation to easily opt out of any generally beneficial law that happens to offend its owners. That is a principle vital to maintaining a functional, pluralistic democracy.

If the goal was “assuring access,” then the CDC’s study should say mission accomplished. Thus, there is no compelling government interest in forcing businesses to provide birth control for free, no more than there is for forcing them to provide food, groceries, or heating oil for free for their personal use, either. Businesses are free to do so if they wish now, but they should be free to choose not to do so if their values oppose it.

Will the Supreme Court agree? I suspect they will, since the lack of compelling state interest is the quickest and cleanest hack through the Gordian knot of the RFRA, First Amendment, and corporate personhood this mandate creates. But that’s what we’ll see today, and what we’ll find out some time in June.

Update: Be sure to read Gabriel Malor’s political and legal briefs at AoSHQ. Here’s his conclusion in the latter:

The government simply misstates the businesses’ and owners’ objection. Yes, for religious reasons they oppose the use of contraception. They also oppose covering it in their health care plans and it is this very coverage that the government is now mandating. That is the burden and it is indisputably substantial, since failure to provide the objectionable coverage will result in crippling fines. The government’s attempt to distract the court with claims that the businesses solely object to the use of contraception requires the high court to simply disregard the actual stated objection of the businesses. …

I will conclude with a prediction based only on their briefs (and this comes before argument): the businesses will win. There is a key difference between a political argument and a legal argument that the government seems to have forgotten here. To win in politics, you take the other side’s worst arguments and hammer that. To win in a legal argument, however, you must take the other side’s best arguments and tear that down. Here, the government’s brief doesn’t directly address the businesses’ arguments, preferring instead to take a rambling trip through concepts like piercing the corporate veil, “attenuation,” and ERISA lawsuits. By contrast, the businesses focus directly on the question at issue: does RFRA protect them. It’s a telling difference.

There’s a lot more, so be sure to read it all.


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 3 4 5

What religion is against paying overtime? What religion is against child labor laws? What religion is against workplace safety regulations?

Unless there is a religion that subscribes to these beliefs, these questions have no bearing on this decision.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM

But whatever beliefs a religion does subscribe to, you support that being reason to absolve them of following a particular part of a law or regulation? You would put no constraints on that?

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM

If contraception is okay, is Viagra than have to be supplied?

right2bright on March 25, 2014 at 11:34 AM

I know what you meant, but to be absolutely clear, I meant ALL pleasure pills.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Or make everyone a “contractor”. I get paid a lump sum every month for services, no benefits, no withholdings. It’s up to me to pay for my own stuff.

Nutstuyu on March 25, 2014 at 11:37 AM

I’m not familiar with how that setup works but it sounds like it would work.
the person would then bargain for their own benefits independent of what anyone else gets too I would suspect.

dmacleo on March 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM

but it should have been “logical” (I thought) for Chief Justice Roberts to have voted against the ACA in 2012.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Count on the azzhole to do it again, to vote against the constitution.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 11:37 AM

If he does, I’ll volunteer to color in the wanted poster. I got some new scented markers yesterday.

Nutstuyu on March 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM

So is there, or isn’t there, a law that requires overtime to be paid?

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Yes. Is it in the Constitution some where? Because I think Religious liberties are? Which means that a court can force a business to pay overtime for certain employees with nothing specific in the Constitution, and run right over the top of Religious Liberty that is actually in the Constitution. Seems like the Constitution doesn’t really mean anything doesn’t it?

Thanks for playing.

oldroy on March 25, 2014 at 11:42 AM

If contraception is okay, is Viag*a than have to be supplied?

right2bright on March 25, 2014 at 11:34 AM

The mill ate my comment…must be that pill…

I know what you meant, but to be dang sure, I meant ALL pleasure pills.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 11:42 AM

The biggest hurdle for the mandate’s challengers is the marquee question of whether they can practice a religion. In one of the cases before the Supreme Court this week, a cabinet-making company called Conestoga challenged the mandate as an affront to the beliefs of its owners, the Hahn family. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, siding with the Justice Department, said the corporation and the people who own it are two different entities.

“Since Conestoga is distinct from the Hahns, the Mandate does not actually require the Hahns to do anything. All responsibility for complying with the Mandate falls on Conestoga,” the court wrote.

this is the most ridiculous logic ever. in what way does this make any sense at all?? a corporation obviously can’t do anything on its own- it is controlled by the owners’ decisions. it’s sad that i even have to explain that at all because it’s so obvious. that is some really f’ed up logic they used there. *facepalm*

Contraception is “integral with our economic security and our ability to hold jobs for our lifetime,” Hogue said. “We’ve had enough of this idea our reproductive health is somehow separate from our economic well being… Our bodies are not our bosses’ business.”

what?? if your bodies are not your bosses’ business, why must those bosses pay for your birth control? it’s none of their business. pay for it yourself.

Sachiko on March 25, 2014 at 11:42 AM

But whatever beliefs a religion does subscribe to, you support that being reason to absolve them of following a particular part of a law or regulation? You would put no constraints on that?

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM

If that law goes against their Constitutional rights – absolutely.

oldroy on March 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Or you could be like Obama and just change the law ilegally to benefit you and the democrats politcally.

At least Hobby Lobby is following the law to get it changed.

gophergirl on March 25, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Thread winner on page one. Impressive.

Did you understand what she was referencing, verbaluce?

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 11:03 AM

This.

This.

Is what the heart of democracy is.

itsspideyman on March 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM

I urge you all to read the book of Maccabees. The government told the Maccabees that they should eat just this teeny weeny bit of pork. All refused. All 7 brothers were killed one-by-one in front of their mother, who was then killed herself. Regarding a tiny piece of pork, a politician might ask “What difference does it make?” The Maccabees thought that disobeying God’s law did make a difference. I hope Hobby Lobby closes down if they lose.

Yankee Doodle on March 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM

If I chose to live in Philly, and applied for a part time
job at Reading Terminal Market, at the Moroccan Eatery there,
and they do not serve Meat. BUT, I want them to start serving
Cheese Steaks, because they’re quite tasty, you see.

Should they have to start doing that??

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 11:27 AM

And you accuse me of making specious arguments?
Ha.
Your analogy ain’t analogous.

(And now I’m hankering for a cheese steak…)

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

verbsoutofbalance = no answers for or to no body no how no time

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

So to clarify your position – the contraception/religious liberty argument is moot for you – because you see it that oppose any requirement to offer/provide health insurance at all…correct?

And come on…save me the ‘I love liberty and you don’t!’ line.
You’re free to run around naked in the hills and seek some utopian hunter-gatherer paradise if you want.
Send us a post card…if you can swallow the indignity of such an oppressive and fascist societal necessity as a postal service.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Religious liberty is one route to take and it’s one of several rights infringed here.

Why do you find it hard to argue that our modern bureaucracy has strong fascistic characteristics?

You can’t because it’s now become a basic tenet of liberal thought and policy: the state not only has the authority to but should force private enterprises into being participants in and implementors of state policy. You won’t just push a policy that provides birth control to the public directly – say at the post office – but instead you make private institutions do your dirty work for you with their own money.

You also seem unable to articulate the limits of government.
You claim that a corporation doesn’t have rights but can’t explain why unions and media outlets have freedom of speech.

And we both know that if the IRS was attacking liberals as it does conservatives you’d be talking about fascism too. We both know that if it was a GOP policy forcing companies to purchase guns and ammo for their employees (the state’s interest in reducing crime) you’d be talking fascism too.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

I’m not familiar with how that setup works but it sounds like it would work.
the person would then bargain for their own benefits independent of what anyone else gets too I would suspect.

dmacleo on March 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Its referred to as a “1099 employee”. Google IRS Form 1099. They are independent contractors who are not “managed” in any way by the company.

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

But whatever beliefs a religion does subscribe to, you support that being reason to absolve them of following a particular part of a law or regulation? You would put no constraints on that?

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM

obama puts NO constraints on his pen. What give him the right to exempt more than half of the land from obama’care’?

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 11:45 AM

I’m not familiar with how that setup works but it sounds like it would work.
the person would then bargain for their own benefits independent of what anyone else gets too I would suspect.

dmacleo on March 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM

The contractor model probably wouldn’t work with HL – employment law generally stipulates that work requirements for a contractor must be much looser than that of an employee.

22044 on March 25, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Better question: Why does the government close on Sunday?

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM

hahahahahaha

The Federal government should force every Fed worker to work on Sundays until ObamaCare has met it’s sales quota.

How about some legislation on that?

faraway on March 25, 2014 at 11:45 AM

verbsoutofbalance = specious arguments

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 25, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Liberals: We want you out of our bedroom…but you have to pay for our bedroom activities…

right2bright on March 25, 2014 at 11:45 AM

But whatever beliefs a religion does subscribe to, you support that being reason to absolve them of following a particular part of a law or regulation? You would put no constraints on that?

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM

There is a difference between workplace rules (to promote safety) and workplace benefits (to promote a social agenda).

Tater Salad on March 25, 2014 at 11:46 AM

(And now I’m hankering for a cheese steak…)

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

It might improve brain-functions. Of course it’s analogous. Same as the Minn. St. Paul Muslim cabbies and grocery-store workers, who refuse to take alcohol or sell bacon, and get away with it.

Is that “just another culture” or religious freedom?

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 10:51 AM
It does not work that way Verbie as those we elect still have to, or should have to, obey the Constitution. Don’t like the Constitution, elect folks that will change it the correct and legal way.

From a strict Constitutional basis I would think that Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. would prevail against Sebelius. The Tenth Circuit concluded in its opinion that Hobby Lobby stores, Inc v. Sebelius; that a for-profit corporation does have Article III standing. Additionally a for-profit corporation has rights under the Free Exercise Clause and the (RFRA). The Tenth Circuit held that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and that this First Amendment protection extends to corporations. The Tenth Circuit viewed the Free Exercise Clause to be more comprehensive than just being a personal guarantee available only to persons; thus, extending the Free Exercise Clause to corporations. They did cite Citizens United v. FCC.

Now on a political and personal basis, who knows what the SC will do with this case.

HonestLib on March 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Verbs…..posted once more because we should be discussing the above in connection with the Hobby Lobby case, and not all the other unrealted stuff you keep bringing up.

HonestLib on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

but I’m hopeful that the court is indeed able to properly consider Constitutional rights….that people have them – not entities and corporations.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Mmm, think of the implications of this.

Newspapers and TV stations, book publishers and internet services- all corporations and entities, who, under veraluce’s version of the Constitution could denied the right to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech and free press.

Any government could, theoretically, say that individuals do not lose their right to free speech and in fact could exercise their right to be a free press as individuals, simply not as a corporate entity.

Anyone with a computer printer and a ream of paper can be “press”, correct? Bloggers can still write what they please, correct It isn’t explicitly or necessarily a corporate function.

I can visualize an argument that reporters and bloggers remain free to create what ever stories they like, but that their business employers can be restricted from using their resources to publish stories the governments deems not to be in their best interests. The right to be and to create a free press as individuals has not been abridged, but corporations who do not have have First Amendment rights can be restricted.

No First Amendments right for corporations? There may be a larger agenda here than just ACA.

Pless1foEngrish on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

EVERY (all inclusive, no exceptions) . . . . . privately business … IS … “the faith of it’s owners.”

listens2glenn on March 25, 2014 at 11:26 AM

-Then what stops the Greens from next arguing that the laws prohibiting discrimination against employees on the basis of religion are also a violation of their religious rights? Aren’t they going to argue that it’s important to their faith that their employees practice the Greens’ religion and have the same beliefs as the Greens?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Contraception is “integral with our economic security and our ability to hold jobs for our lifetime,” Hogue said. “We’ve had enough of this idea our reproductive health is somehow separate from our economic well being… Our bodies are not our bosses’ business…….”

……except when the law requires the employer to ensure the penile insertion event is as stress-free as I want it to be. Its my bosses’ responsibility to ensure I have a happy, healthy sex life”

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Better question: Why does the government close on Sunday?

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Excellent!

Christmas…in fact, every holiday is an act of some kind of faith, belief in whatever is celebrated.

So as a repute of all acts of faith, no holiday’s for government workers.

Let’s see how well that works…

right2bright on March 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Nothing but the free market should dictate what they do.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM

.
But whatever beliefs a religion does subscribe to, you support that being reason to absolve them of following a particular part of a law or regulation? You would put no constraints on that?

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM

.
We support THAT as being a valid, legitimate, reason for striking the law/regulation from the books, or otherwise making it “null and void”.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM

If Hobby Lobby, (whatever that is), goes out of business, will it go to heaven because it was an evangelical christian?

antisense on March 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Better question: Why does the government close on Sunday?

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM

…or when a few snowflakes fall…

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM

-Then what stops the Greens from next arguing that the laws prohibiting discrimination against employees on the basis of religion are also a violation of their religious rights? Aren’t they going to argue that it’s important to their faith that their employees practice the Greens’ religion and have the same beliefs as the Greens?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Nothing. Non discrimination laws are of course unlawful due to the first amendment right of free association.

Welcome to freedom.

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Not really. If the decision-making authority of the business owner doesn’t include conscience protections for people of faith….why would they deliberately and intentionally choose to put themselves in a position where they are forced to violate their conscience and their religious beliefs?

At best, if Hobby Lobby loses, they’ll stop offering health insurance. Lots of people will be worse off for it if they do.
At worst, if QHBP requirements hold, Hobby Lobby might have to pay back fines, at which point I think they probably will close their doors.

lineholder on March 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM

–So how is it a violation of the Greens’ religious beliefs to sell the company to another company or entity who do not share the Green’s beliefs?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Pless1foEngrish on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Can I point to the above post and blame the premature and un-proofread nature of the posting on my cat walking across my keyboard? No?

Pless1foEngrish on March 25, 2014 at 11:51 AM

The company remains closed on Sundays in order to allow employees time for worship and to spend time with their family. Hobby Lobby donates more than 10 percent of its income each year to charity.
 
http://www.hobbylobby.com/assets/pdf/40years/40years.pdf

 
Their freedom to do both of these should end, right verbaluce?

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 11:51 AM

… but it should have been “logical” (I thought) for Chief Justice Roberts to have voted against the ACA in 2012.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Ah, yes. I have decided that Just-us Roberts was coerced. Can’t prove it, of course, but what he did was totally unexpected by all and can’t be explained otherwise, IMO. I will always believe that the WH had a hand in that decision.

jffree1 on March 25, 2014 at 11:52 AM

“We’ve had enough of this idea our reproductive health is somehow separate from our economic well being… Our bodies are not our bosses’ business.”

Anyone else see a pattern between these fanatics and SSM-fanatics?

“Stay out of my affairs until I demand that you be intimately entrenched in my affairs–and pay for it or celebrate it or both!”

BuckeyeSam on March 25, 2014 at 11:53 AM

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM

.
We support THAT as being a valid, legitimate, reason for striking the law/regulation from the books, or otherwise making it “null and void”.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM

That’s not what I asked.
‘a law’…not ‘the’.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:53 AM

At best, if Hobby Lobby loses, they’ll stop offering health insurance. Lots of people will be worse off for it if they do.

lineholder on March 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM

This is what Obama wants. Get enough voters who oppose ObamaCare onto the exchanges, so that it becomes nearly impossible to repeal the law.

I was talking to a guy the other day, who confessed to signing up for Obamacare, despite being opposed to it. He’s retired, and his health insurance was something like $900/month (thanks to ObamaCare). Through the exchange, his insurance was less than $300/month (probably what it would have cost if ObamaCare was never signed into law). So, he signed up for insurance through the exchange. We got to talking, and realized that if enough people like him ended up getting insurance through the exchanges, that you would have a lot of people who, on one hand oppose ObamaCare, on the other, risked seeing their insurance costs jump up because they would no longer receive a subsidy. In reality, if ObamaCare was repealed, his insurance shouldn’t jump up to $900/month, but there would be enough fear mongering from the left, and through the media, to make people take pause.

It’s just like everything else. Force enough people onto the government dole, and it becomes next to impossible to make the program go away.

HarryBackside on March 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM

So how is it a violation of the Greens’ religious beliefs to sell the company to another company or entity who do not share the Green’s beliefs?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:50 AM

It isn’t a violation of their faith. It’s their choice of whether they sell the business or close the doors.

lineholder on March 25, 2014 at 11:55 AM

EVERY (all inclusive, no exceptions) . . . . . privately business … IS … “the faith of it’s owners.”

listens2glenn on March 25, 2014 at 11:26 AM

.
-Then what stops the Greens from next arguing that the laws prohibiting discrimination against employees on the basis of religion are also a violation of their religious rights? Aren’t they going to argue that it’s important to their faith that their employees practice the Greens’ religion and have the same beliefs as the Greens?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

.
Yes, . . . . . and I say “let them.”
.
An “unregulated”, capitalist, market driven economy would solve most such ‘conflicts’.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Aren’t they going to argue that it’s important to their faith that their employees practice the Greens’ religion and have the same beliefs as the Greens?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Well, why don’t you wait to find out…since I doubt that will be any argument that they would project.

That is a straw man from liberals…where did you see they were going to do that? Oh, I see, you made it up.

You don’t know much about the Greens…just like Chic fil a and most other “Christian” owned operations, they don’t care what religion you are, they care about the quality of service and respect you provide the customers…and they don’t want to pay for something that they don’t believe in.
Walk into a Hobby Lobby, ask what kind of “pressure” the employees are under regarding their beliefs…then you can come back and apologize for being so stupid.

right2bright on March 25, 2014 at 11:56 AM

jffree1 on March 25, 2014 at 11:52 AM

“Welcome to Chicago.This town stinks like a whorehouse at low tide.” ~ The Untouchables

Roy Rogers on March 25, 2014 at 11:56 AM

If Hobby Lobby, (whatever that is), goes out of business, will it go to heaven because it was an evangelical christian?

antisense on March 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Corporations don’t die, they become dissolved.

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 11:57 AM

–So how is it a violation of the Greens’ religious beliefs to sell the company to another company or entity who do not share the Green’s beliefs?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:50 AM

If the owners or shareholders are stupid enough to NOT take the highest bid, then they can sell to anyone they want, or should, if the land were free.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 11:57 AM

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:53 AM

If you get a chance verbaluce, would you mind answering rogerb’s question from yesterdays thread. I’d like to close the tab.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 11:58 AM

If Hobby Lobby, (whatever that is), goes out of business, will it go to heaven because it was an evangelical christian?

antisense on March 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM

No, but the unemployed join your socialist/commie Hell.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Breaking News @BreakingNews
Supreme Court seems divided, after arguments, over whether employers’ religious beliefs can free them from contraceptive mandate – @AP

Flora Duh on March 25, 2014 at 11:58 AM

-Then what stops the Greens from next arguing that the laws prohibiting discrimination against employees on the basis of religion are also a violation of their religious rights? Aren’t they going to argue that it’s important to their faith that their employees practice the Greens’ religion and have the same beliefs as the Greens?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

So you can’t tell the difference between an employer forcing you to do something as a condition of employment and the government forcing the employer to buy something for you?
You can’t tell the difference between forced participation (Hobby Lobby funding abortions) and liberty (employees paying for their own abortions)?

Again, Hobby Lobby isn’t preventing it’s employees from purchasing any birth control they want or even getting an abortion. Hobby Lobby just doesn’t want to pay for it because of their religious convictions. The employee’s are not seeing ANY loss of freedom.

Again, Hobby Lobby is not imposing anything on it’s employees – much less imposing it’s religion on it’s employees.

Hobby Lobby just wants it’s own rights to be protected from government infringement.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Aren’t they going to argue that it’s important to their faith that their employees practice the Greens’ religion and have the same beliefs as the Greens?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Go fill out an application for a job at your local mosque. See how far you get in HR if you’re not Muslim.

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM

If you get a chance verbaluce, would you mind answering rogerb’s question from yesterdays thread. I’d like to close the tab.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 11:58 AM

No. No. Verby has made it perfectly clear the he/she is exempt from answering past questions. “Off-topic…blah, blah… blather… blather”

oldroy on March 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM

It isn’t a violation of their faith. It’s their choice of whether they sell the business or close the doors.
 
lineholder on March 25, 2014 at 11:55 AM

 
They employ 18,000 people+ and who knows how many they support indirectly (manufacturing, shipping, contractors, etc.).
 
Imagine if they just closed the doors and let communities, employees, and the media know exactly what Obama did to force them take that action. They clearly have adequate faith and convictions to do it, not to mention the money to say “We’re done. Here’s why.”

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM

You don’t know much about the Greens…just like Chic fil a and most other “Christian” owned operations, they don’t care what religion you are, they care about the quality of service and respect you provide the customers…and they don’t want to pay for something that they don’t believe in.
Walk into a Hobby Lobby, ask what kind of “pressure” the employees are under regarding their beliefs…then you can come back and apologize for being so stupid.

right2bright on March 25, 2014 at 11:56 AM

–That’s because the current laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion and require companies to reasonably accomodate employees’ religious beliefs. If the Greens prevail in a broad ruling, then companies can start effectively requiring employees to practice the owners’ religious beliefs.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Breaking News @BreakingNews
Supreme Court seems divided, after arguments, over whether employers’ religious beliefs can free them from contraceptive mandate – @AP

Flora Duh on March 25, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Shocking, there is gambling going on…in Casablanca.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Is that “just another culture” or religious freedom?

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

It will be interesting to see how these cases play into the persecution of photographers and bakers unwilling to branch out into gay weddings.

Happy Nomad on March 25, 2014 at 12:01 PM

And you accuse me of making specious arguments?
Ha.
Your analogy ain’t analogous.

(And now I’m hankering for a cheese steak…)

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

They don’t serve Meat, because of Religious beliefs.
How is that a Specious argument??

I’d say my point is pretty damn close to the conditions under
which Hobby Lobby finds itself, no?

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Roy Rogers on March 25, 2014 at 11:56 AM

Indeed. I put nothing past them after seeing how they work over the last five years.

jffree1 on March 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Go fill out an application for a job at your local mosque. See how far you get in HR if you’re not Muslim.

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM

–Churches and many religiously-affiliated entities are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion and are allowed to require employees to practice the employer’s religion (or at least comply with some of the employer’s belief). Red herring.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM

If the Greens prevail in a broad ruling, then companies can start effectively requiring employees to practice the owners’ religious beliefs.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:01 PM

How so? What do you mean “effectively”?

oldroy on March 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM

What religion is against paying overtime? What religion is against child labor laws? What religion is against workplace safety regulations?

Unless there is a religion that subscribes to these beliefs, these questions have no bearing on this decision.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM
.

But whatever beliefs a religion does subscribe to, you support that being reason to absolve them of following a particular part of a law or regulation? You would put no constraints on that?

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM

.
We support THAT as being a valid, legitimate, reason for striking the law/regulation from the books, or otherwise making it “null and void”.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM
.

That’s not what I asked.
‘a law’…not ‘the’.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:53 AM

.
My fault.

We support THAT as being a valid, legitimate, reason for striking the ANY law/regulation from the books, or otherwise making it them “null and void”.
.
Reposting what I just said to jim56 :

An “unregulated”, capitalist, market driven economy would solve most such ‘conflicts’.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2014 at 11:55 AM

listens2glenn on March 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Is the government ‘fascist’ because it requires business to pay overtime?
Because of child labor laws?
Because of workplace safety regulations?

I won’t be surprised if you answer ‘yes’.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 10:59 AM

The situations are not analogous. In your instances, government is telling the business to refrain from a practice/action. In the Hobby Lobby case, the government is force the business to partake in a practice/action. Wiser heads have pointed out the current anti-liberty ‘progressive’ irony that you’re relying on; “That which is not prohibited is required.”

Ricard on March 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Hobby Lobby just wants it’s own rights to be protected from government infringement.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM

–So, again, how is Hobby Lobby (as opposed to its owners) practicing religion?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Does my boss have to buy me condoms?

These women with signs that read, “My contraception is not my bosses business”, I don’t get the argument. If it’s not, why does the boss have to pay for it?

Buy your own birth control, no one is stopping you. Especially considering birth control pills, etc. are not required to avoid pregnancy.

Meremortal on March 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Another thought………how come The Obama Administration and related HHS will just not give a “real” exemption for religious organizations. I do understand that HHS has given a new narrow definition of what is a religious organization and that would also have to be address.

This religious exemption would only affect one million or so employees, thus not really important in the whole scheme of things. Also, many exemptions have already been granted by the Obama Administration. What is the reason for The Obama Administration not granting a religious exemption that will not have any effect on the implementation of The ACA? What am I missing? Verbs, any ideas?

HonestLib on March 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM

It will be interesting to see how these cases play into the persecution of photographers and bakers unwilling to branch out into gay weddings.

Happy Nomad on March 25, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Like muslim taxi drivers refusing passengers who’ve been drinking, or Muslim barbers refusing to cut the hair of homosexuals.

Can’t wait for the MSM to pick sides in the latter.

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Imagine if they just closed the doors and let communities, employees, and the media know exactly what Obama did to force them take that action. They clearly have adequate faith and convictions to do it, not to mention the money to say “We’re done. Here’s why.”

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Yeah, they could. I’m not sure that they would, but they could. They have every right to do so.

It’s really too bad that Liberals don’t seem to be willing to consider the part that conscience protections play for business owners who are also people of faith. In that regards, the implications of this case are far-reaching indeed, in practically every industry across America.

lineholder on March 25, 2014 at 12:06 PM

-Then what stops the Greens from next arguing that the laws prohibiting discrimination against employees on the basis of religion are also a violation of their religious rights? Aren’t they going to argue that it’s important to their faith that their employees practice the Greens’ religion and have the same beliefs as the Greens?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Nothing should stop them from arguing whatever they want to argue. Why do you hate free speech?

Midas on March 25, 2014 at 12:06 PM

If you get a chance verbaluce, would you mind answering rogerb’s question from yesterdays thread. I’d like to close the tab.
 
Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 11:58 AM

 
Is that the one asking the difference between an ingrown toenail and an aborted fetus and why the mother patient should be “made aware” of how her abortion is disposed of? That one? Or a different one?
 
I lose track.

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Go fill out an application for a job at your local mosque. See how far you get in HR if you’re not Muslim.

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM

.
–Churches and many religiously-affiliated entities are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion and are allowed to require employees to practice the employer’s religion (or at least comply with some of the employer’s belief). Red herring.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM

.
I already stated that “EVERY private business … IS … the faith of it’s owners”.
.
It’s not a “red herring”.

listens2glenn on March 25, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Churches and many religiously-affiliated entities are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion and are allowed to require employees to practice the employer’s religion (or at least comply with some of the employer’s belief). Red herring.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM

I’ll need a link, if you please.

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Can’t wait for the MSM to pick sides in the latter.

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Or gay hairdressers refusing to cut someones hair because thye don’t support gay marriage.

oldroy on March 25, 2014 at 12:07 PM

jffree1 on March 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM

They say Everybody can get got to. I agree, that’s what happened to Roberts.

Roy Rogers on March 25, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Corporations don’t die, they become dissolved.

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 11:57 AM

H/T for that response. Wish I would have thought of it. All those classes in business law down the drain after all these years!

HonestLib on March 25, 2014 at 12:09 PM

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 12:07 PM

; ) Nope the one I linked. Not like verbaluce fleas or anything.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 12:10 PM

–That’s because the current laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion and require companies to reasonably accomodate employees’ religious beliefs. If the Greens prevail in a broad ruling, then companies can start effectively requiring employees to practice the owners’ religious beliefs.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:01 PM

This is utter nonsense.
You can’t be this dense.

The Greens are not claiming they can do anything they want to someone else based on their religious beliefs they’re saying they can’t be forced by other parties (the government) to infringe their own religious beliefs.

The Greens are claiming – correctly – that the government cannot force them to violate their beliefs. They are not saying they can force others to adhere to their beliefs.

Why can’t liberals make this simple distinction. How does not forcing a corporation to pay for your abortion get turned into the corporation dictating your religious beliefs and practices to you?

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:11 PM

If you get a chance verbaluce, would you mind answering rogerb’s question from yesterdays thread. I’d like to close the tab.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Hi Bmore –
You can go ahead and close it.
I offered plenty from my view.
You’re free to do with or without as you wish.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM

–That’s because the current laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion and require companies to reasonably accomodate employees’ religious beliefs. If the Greens prevail in a broad ruling, then companies can start effectively requiring employees to practice the owners’ religious beliefs.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:01 PM

I know that you have problem with religious liberty, but you overlook a very simple fact: If you don’t want to conform, find another place of employment.

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM

POLITICO @politico
#Breaking: SCOTUS Justices skeptical of administration position on for-profit companies and contraceptive rule

Flora Duh on March 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM

And to think I thought only the right liked to use force to insure a preferable outcome.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Speaking of, we’ve got a really informative 1968 vs. 2014 minimum wage discussion that ground to a halt for some strange reason in case anyone sees stoic patriot passing through.

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM

But whatever beliefs a religion does subscribe to, you support that being reason to absolve them of following a particular part of a law or regulation? You would put no constraints on that?

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM

I think the RFRA restrictions should be followed. If the government needs to override a person’s deeply held religious beliefs, it must be because there is a compelling government interest and the only way that government interest can be accomplished.

(a) In General: Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person–

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) Judicial Relief: A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Please note, every Dem Senator that opposes the RFRA and its application to this case either voted for it or wasn’t in the House/Senate when passed.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM
gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Please read this:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117144/hobby-lobby-ruling-could-end-anti-discrimination-laws-we-know-them.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:14 PM

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Okay, but I have to be honest with you, it just wasn’t that hard a question.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Hobby Lobby just wants it’s own rights to be protected from government infringement.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM

–So, again, how is Hobby Lobby (as opposed to its owners) practicing religion?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Well the corporation closes on Sundays to allow time for worship and family. They pay a corporate tithe. They operate purposely to live according to Christian principles. And forcing the corporation to pay for abortions violates those principles.

Religion is not something you do in a church. It’s something you live.

And religious freedom isn’t the only right being violated here.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:15 PM

–So, again, how is Hobby Lobby (as opposed to its owners) practicing religion?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:04 PM

It’s called fundamental property/ownership rights; Hobby Lobby is an extension of the owners and there is no ‘Hobby Lobby’ apart from its owners. It exists because of the owner’s efforts, decisions, and applications of their rights, just like the family business I grew up in.

Ricard on March 25, 2014 at 12:15 PM

My boss should be required to pay my water bill because I will die within days if I don’t have water.

This is much more serious than pregnancy, which can be avoided with or without birth control abortificients.

Meremortal on March 25, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Why can’t liberals make this simple distinction. How does not forcing a corporation to pay for your abortion get turned into the corporation dictating your religious beliefs and practices to you?

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Because for many liberals, that is what they would want to have happen…in other words, they see no reason for the government to dictate beliefs and practices to a corporation and having that corporation in turn dictate those beliefs and practices to their employees.

Athos on March 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Flora Duh on March 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM

That doggone Constitution gets in the way of Liberals every time.

kingsjester on March 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM

–They do not have the right to hire, fire or promote on the basis of an employee’s or potential employee’s religion, sex and race, among other factors. That’s a violation of federal law since the 1960s.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM

–Churches and many religiously-affiliated entities are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion and are allowed to require employees to practice the employer’s religion (or at least comply with some of the employer’s belief). Red herring.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Midas on March 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM

BobMx:

. Are there any exceptions to who is covered by Title VII’s religion provisions?

Yes. While Title VII’s jurisdictional rules apply to all religious discrimination claims under the statute, see EEOC Compliance Manual, “Threshold Issues,” http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html, specially-defined “religious organizations” and “religious educational institutions” are exempt from certain religious discrimination provisions, and a “ministerial exception” bars Title VII claims by employees who serve in clergy roles.

Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

This exception is not limited to religious activities of the organization. However, it only allows religious organizations to prefer to employ individuals who share their religion. The exception does not allow religious organizations otherwise to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Thus, a religious organization is not permitted to engage in racially discriminatory hiring by asserting that a tenet of its religious beliefs is not associating with people of other races.

Ministerial Exception: Courts have held that clergy members generally cannot bring claims under the federal employment discrimination laws, including Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This “ministerial exception” comes not from the text of the statutes, but from the First Amendment principle that governmental regulation of church administration, including the appointment of clergy, impedes the free exercise of religion and constitutes impermissible government entanglement with church authority. The exception applies only to employees who perform essentially religious functions, namely those whose primary duties consist of engaging in church governance, supervising a religious order, or conducting religious ritual, worship, or instruction. Some courts have made an exception for harassment claims where they concluded that analysis of the case would not implicate these constitutional constraints.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html.

–Now I gotta get back to work.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM

There’s a big difference between the religious Peyote case and this one, and why that one could have been argued to threaten the rule of law and not this one.

The Peyote case was to allow citizens of the United States to use a controlled substance. Thus the object itself was illegal and controlled. But there is no question that not providing people with birth control is legal. I do it all the time.

The Exorbitant Care Act sets up a means of distribution of services, one of those being birth control. Observing Hobby Lobby’s right of conscience doesn’t affect anything more than the distribution of services and doesn’t comprise an unlawful act granted special exemption for religious reasons.

It’s a no-brainer to slice between the use of Peyote and the non-distribution of a legal substance, where the law simply forces one to be an agent of distribution.

Axeman on March 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Please read this:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117144/hobby-lobby-ruling-could-end-anti-discrimination-laws-we-know-them.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Nothing. Non discrimination laws are of course unlawful due to the first amendment right of free association.

Welcome to freedom.

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Your only slow by 25 minutes.

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM

*You’re

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 12:18 PM

–That’s because the current laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion and require companies to reasonably accomodate employees’ religious beliefs. If the Greens prevail in a broad ruling, then companies can start effectively requiring employees to practice the owners’ religious beliefs.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:01 PM

No, it’s because you made it up, just admit it, or show me where you have any indication that will happen.

And this is not a “broad ruling” this, and stay focused–try to stay focused, about whether the government can force you to pay for something that is not anything but a “luxury” for someone elses private use. It is a very specific ruling, having nothing to do employee hiring, but about forcing a business to buy something that is not in their best interest. If the government deemed it to be in my best interest for you to pay my mortgage, you agree to that? You think that is okay?

Where did you see anything about overturning discrimination laws? Could you point that part of the argument out to me?

Or…post something you actually have facts for…

right2bright on March 25, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Or…post something you actually have facts for…

right2bright on March 25, 2014 at 12:18 PM

These twits have nothing but poo-flinging and hoping something sticks. If it doesn’t, the next post will simply be more poo – might not even be remotely consistent with the last handful of poo they flung, but it won’t matter. It’s all they’ve got.

Midas on March 25, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Religion is not something you do in a church. It’s something you live.

And religious freedom isn’t the only right being violated here.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:15 PM

And Hobby Lobby hardly keeps the faith of their owners a secret. My brother jokes that he didn’t know that Jesus was a scrapbooker.

Happy Nomad on March 25, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Please read this:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117144/hobby-lobby-ruling-could-end-anti-discrimination-laws-we-know-them.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:14 PM

I wish it would. Anti-discrimination laws are bad for society.

And that article mentions one of the big reasons why – Elane photography a “corporation” which is really just a photographer doing business lost her right of free speech. If she were a progressive the liberals would be wetting themselves about the state stopping “speaking truth to power” and all the rest of it. But she didn’t want to photograph a gay wedding so the state can stomp on her face all it wants.

But it wont end anti-discrimination laws. For one thing the courts have already ruled that religious freedom doesn’t allow you to discriminate against someone’s race. The courts have not ruled that religious freedom is absolute. Hobby Lobby is only concerned with whether or not a corporation has religious liberty rights – it’s not an expansion of those rights.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:22 PM

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Read the liberal rag article again…and you will see the Hobby Lobby case is separate and technically different from the other…focus and don’t get confused by the shiny objects.

Hobby Lobby has nothing to do with overturning or changing discrimination laws…it has to do with forcing them someone to comply with a belief they don’t believe in.

If you didn’t believe in abortion, the killing of babies, would you want to be forced into paying for an abortion?

If you are honest you would say no…the pursuit of happiness applies to business owners…and not supplying free contraceptives for women is not denying happiness to them, since for the cost of a Starbucks coffee they can get all they need.

right2bright on March 25, 2014 at 12:23 PM

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Okay, but I have to be honest with you, it just wasn’t that hard a question.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 12:14 PM

That has nothing to do with it.
I’m just getting more selective on who I do and do not engage with…
out of respect to the threads and the site.
Odd how those that you’d think wouldn’t want to engage with me at all…yet obsessively do.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:23 PM

They passed this law, dontcha remember, by promising no gov’t funded abortions.

Just sayin’.

maevio on March 25, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5