Hobby Lobby opponents: Supreme Court probably legalized xenophobia, racism

posted at 2:01 pm on June 30, 2014 by Noah Rothman

The left has been… animated in their objections to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case which declared the mandate in the Affordable Care Act which forced employers to provide employees with abortifacients drugs over their religious objections to be a violation of the law.

In spite of what many have characterized as the narrow and tailored ruling by the Court, some political and legal observers have determined that the ruling is a step toward the legalization of discrimination.

One of the more creative arguments in this direction was submitted by NPR’s legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. On Monday, she suggested that the Court has created a legal pathway for employers to discriminate against their employees on the basis of race, sexual orientation, and even national origin.

Totenberg summarized Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote a concurring opinion in favor of the decision to strike down the mandate: “Don’t worry,” she said. “As long as I’m here, the floodgates won’t open and it won’t be hundreds and hundreds, and thousands and thousands of companies saying ‘Why me?’”

She went on to say that a future Court could rule that it was legal to not hire based on sex if the employer asserted that it violated their religious belief. “Or cases involving gays and lesbians,” she added. “Or cases involving people from different foreign origins. It’s just not clear.”

Federal Equal Opportunity Employment laws are clear that discrimination based on those guidelines is already prohibited. Furthermore, given that the decision was intentionally narrowly tailored to apply only to emergency contraceptives, as opposed to, say, vaccines, it seems unlikely that Totenberg’s nightmare scenario could materialize.

For his part, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley said on CNN on Monday that this decision the “flip side” to Citizens United; one extended speech rights to corporations, and this ruling extends religious freedom to some corporations. He added that decisions like that which prohibited an Arizona baker from refusing to provide his service to same-sex couples must now be revisited.

It would seem to me that failing to provide an employee a narrow set of health coverage benefits and flatly refusing to provide a service to a customer based on their identity are dramatically different situations. It seems like a stretch, but there is no doubt that emotions are running hot today.


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

Bad week for Dear Leader and it’s only Monday….

d1carter on June 30, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Been gone a few days. Who is this Noah Rothman guy, and what has he done with Erika?

NOMOBO on June 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Noah is our new pro-amnesty, pro-legalization, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage “conservative” blogger. Not to be confused with HotAir’s former liberal blogger, Dianne Feinstein.

will77jeff on June 30, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Well Presstitutes, don’t ya just love the smell of Napalm in the morning?

Missilengr on June 30, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Stompyfoot……..rant off.

d1carter on June 30, 2014 at 3:21 PM

What’s next, blaming Climate Change for the SCOTUS decision making?

Cherokee on June 30, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Next will be blaming climate change for the invasion of illegals, all attempting to escape the life threatening summer temps in Central Ameica. Part of the 2 bill Obumbles will request will be going for immediate installation of central air and swimming pools at detention and holding centers, and ice-cold Kool Ade to be served on tap.

hawkeye54 on June 30, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Ahem. Let’s get our facts correct, shall we? The Arizona baker did NOT “refuse service”. What the baker refused was to make a WEDDING CAKE celebrating something that went against his religious beliefs. What next Noah, can I force the Muslim or Jewish deli to stock pork because *I* want it and I refuse to shop elsewhere to get it?

MistyLane on June 30, 2014 at 3:22 PM

It is no surprise that Republicans have sided against women on this issue as they have consistently opposed a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions. Republicans have also blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would bring us closer to the promise of equal pay for women. In the wake of this dangerous precedent set by the Supreme Court, Democrats in Congress will continue to fight on the issues of importance to women and their families.

Debbie, you mindless, left wing dolt . . . they haven’t side against women, they have sided with the unborn. Can your pea sized brain understand the difference?

rplat on June 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM

More fun

BIRMINGHAM, AL (WBRC) -

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted EWTN a temporary injunction that bars the federal government from imposing a $35,000 a day fine on the network.

EWTN Global Catholic Network is facing either a $35,000 a day or $12 million a year fine for refusing to comply with the Affordable Care Act that mandates employers cover contraceptives for employees.

The deadline to comply with this ACA provision is midnight on Monday, June 30.

The injunction was not necessarily granted because of Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Hobby Lobby. However, EWTN officials believe the SCOTUS ruling helps their case.

An EWTN spokeperson said they are “extremely pleased” with the Supreme Court’s decision about Hobby Lobby.

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM

S/b in quotes

BIRMINGHAM, AL (WBRC) -

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted EWTN a temporary injunction that bars the federal government from imposing a $35,000 a day fine on the network.

EWTN Global Catholic Network is facing either a $35,000 a day or $12 million a year fine for refusing to comply with the Affordable Care Act that mandates employers cover contraceptives for employees.

The deadline to comply with this ACA provision is midnight on Monday, June 30.

The injunction was not necessarily granted because of Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Hobby Lobby. However, EWTN officials believe the SCOTUS ruling helps their case.

An EWTN spokeperson said they are “extremely pleased” with the Supreme Court’s decision about Hobby Lobby.

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM

More leftist heads esploding.

But, oaf is busy with his pen.

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 3:31 PM

So, the Left made conservative companies spend millions of dollars sue to do things they could already do, and now they have millions less to spend on electing conservative candidates.

And that’s a win?

The Left is attacking conservatives individuals and companies all over the country using the IRS, EPA, HHS, etc.

faraway on June 30, 2014 at 3:31 PM

So, the Left made conservative companies spend millions of dollars sue to do things they could already do, and now they have millions less to spend on electing conservative candidates.

faraway on June 30, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Remind me not to hire you as a CPA…certainly not handling anything to do with budgets…

right2bright on June 30, 2014 at 3:37 PM

For his part, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley said on CNN on Monday that this decision the “flip side” to Citizens United; one extended speech rights to corporations, and this ruling extends religious freedom to some corporations. He added that decisions like that which prohibited an Arizona baker from refusing to provide his service to same-sex couples must now be revisited.

It would seem to me that failing to provide an employee a narrow set of health coverage benefits and flatly refusing to provide a service to a customer based on their identity are dramatically different situations. It seems like a stretch, but there is no doubt that emotions are running hot today. </blockquote

Really, Noah? Identity? Have you ever bought the Left's thinking, lock, stock and barrel!

You cannot see the religious liberty connection between business owners who object to the killing of unborn babies because it violates Christian teaching and business owners who object to participating in events that violate Christian teaching on marriage?

INC on June 30, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Blockquote > was deleted above. This is my comment:

Really, Noah? Identity? Have you ever bought the Left’s thinking, lock, stock and barrel!

You cannot see the religious liberty connection between business owners who object to the killing of unborn babies because it violates Christian teaching and business owners who object to participating in events that violate Christian teaching on marriage?

INC on June 30, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Ahem.

Never, ever, let someone from the Left even think of using the “discrimination” argument, when they support some of the worst kind of racial discrimination in our society, namely government coerced racial discrimination in the form of state and federal sponsored racial preferences in hiring, contracting and university admissions.

gkissel on June 30, 2014 at 3:49 PM

NPR is a form of welfare. Take Nina Totenberg – no talent, couldn’t get a job with a major network, fugly as hell and she’s making millions with PBS.

bw222 on June 30, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Do you suppose that Salem will realize that hiring Noah was a major mistake and cut him loose or stick us in the eye as they so often do? My guess is the latter.

bw222 on June 30, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Bad week for Dear Leader and it’s only Monday….

d1carter on June 30, 2014 at 3:16 PM


Bummer.

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2014 at 4:02 PM

It is no surprise that Republicans have sided against women on this issue as they have consistently opposed a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions. Republicans have also blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would bring us closer to the promise of equal pay for women. In the wake of this dangerous precedent set by the Supreme Court, Democrats in Congress will continue to fight on the issues of importance to women and their families.

This is more stupidness from the Left. Republicans and the Supreme Court do not side against women making their own health care decisions. They can make them all that they choose to do. What has been said is that government can not make employers pay for all of those choices. In some cases, women may have to pay for certain choices that they choose to make. Or, the federal government can pay for them.

Techster64 on June 30, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Noah is the ultimate passive aggressive pseudo-republican blogger (by no definition is he a conservative). He spews the left’s propaganda, then, almost as an aside, says ‘aren’t they ridiculous.’

AmeriCuda on June 30, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Bummer.

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Totenberg once wished aloud that Jesse Helms (or one of his family members) contract the HIV/AIDS virus. It seems the left could have found a better spokesperson than this hateful little maggot.

zoyclem on June 30, 2014 at 4:07 PM

It seems like a stretch, but there is no doubt that emotions are running hot today.

…looking and listening to Ninja Totenberg…no…nope…nothing hot…and no emotion for me!

JugEarsButtHurt on June 30, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Birth control pills are available at the local drugstore for about $9.00/month, or about 3 cents/day. Rubbers are also widely available.

I challenge the left to show just one person who is barred from ACCESS to contraception by this decision.

LASue on June 30, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Aren’t the “morning after” pills available over the counter with no restrictions on age? Must be expensive.

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2014 at 4:15 PM

I’m always amazed how leftists in the public eye consistently have that cold,sour,empty,’dead inside’ look and presence in their face and eyes .
It’s scary.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on June 30, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Birth control pills are available at the local drugstore for about $9.00/month, or about 3 cents/day. Rubbers are also widely available.

I challenge the left to show just one person who is barred from ACCESS to contraception by this decision.

LASue on June 30, 2014 at 4:12 PM

That’s not the point. The point is that they must be paid for by others, preferably one’s employer, or government, but certainly not out of their own pockets. What kind of justice is it for people to be forced to bear the financial burden, no matter how small, of their own responsibility in preventing pregnancies anyway?

/SNARK

hawkeye54 on June 30, 2014 at 4:22 PM

I’m always amazed how leftists in the public eye consistently have that cold,sour,empty,’dead inside’ look and presence in their face and eyes .
It’s scary.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on June 30, 2014 at 4:22 PM

It’s simply because they are cold, sour, empty and dead inside.

Midas on June 30, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Why are we Republicans/conservatives so against killing babies? We really need to get with the infanticide program. /sarc

NewyoricanInTheSouth on June 30, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Here is a prediction: by the end of the week Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid will introduce legislation repealing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Bank on it.

senor on June 30, 2014 at 4:29 PM

I’m always amazed how leftists in the public eye consistently have that cold,sour,empty,’dead inside’ look and presence in their face and eyes .
It’s scary.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on June 30, 2014 at 4:22 PM

It’s par for the course with death-worshipers.

ebrown2 on June 30, 2014 at 4:40 PM

While the left says that this is a slippery slope to all sorts of imaginary discrimination terrors, look at what a ruling in favor of the administration could have led to. If religous freedom does not check the government from demanding that you aid in aborting babies when you feel it is a mortal sin, could not the government say that the Catholic practice of only allowing single men to become priests is discriminatory? Could not the Federal Government bureaucrats declare that the Church must hire women priests and married men? Could it not declare that not allowing women in minnions is discriminatory? Do Churches illegally discriminate against atheists when hiring ministers? What area of religious freedom would remain if this ruling had gone the other way?

KW64 on June 30, 2014 at 4:52 PM

While the left says that this is a slippery slope to all sorts of imaginary discrimination terrors, look at what a ruling in favor of the administration could have led to. If religous freedom does not check the government from demanding that you aid in aborting babies when you feel it is a mortal sin, could not the government say that the Catholic practice of only allowing single men to become priests is discriminatory? Could not the Federal Government bureaucrats declare that the Church must hire women priests and married men? Could it not declare that not allowing women in minnions is discriminatory? Do Churches illegally discriminate against atheists when hiring ministers? What area of religious freedom would remain if this ruling had gone the other way?

KW64 on June 30, 2014 at 4:52 PM

A ruling in the administration’s favor would only say that for-profit entities aren’t practicing religion. All of your examples relate to not-for-profit entities.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 4:54 PM

“I think he [Jessse Helms] ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” -Nina Totenberg

Akzed on June 30, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Hey Nina, from the bamster to McCain “We won, you lost”

Goodie on June 30, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Bad week for Dear Leader and it’s only Monday….

d1carter on June 30, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Depends on perspective.

The bus before the one I usually take home was over ten minutes late so I actually got home earlier than usual. Not great if you were expecting to take that bus but great for me!!!!

Religious freedom and the right not be enslaved by unions was defended today. A pretty good week so far.

Happy Nomad on June 30, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Here is a prediction: by the end of the week Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid will introduce legislation repealing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Bank on it.

senor on June 30, 2014 at 4:29 PM

That’s just the way the Dems celebrate July 4th.

Happy Nomad on June 30, 2014 at 5:08 PM

Totenburg has been the leader of the far left DC commie loons for a long time. She was the one who insisted Anita Hill make stuff up to attack Clarence Thomas. She is an equally ugly person,inside and out!

devan95 on June 30, 2014 at 5:10 PM

All of your examples relate to not-for-profit entities.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 4:54 PM

All of his examples relate to citizens.

GWB on June 30, 2014 at 5:12 PM

All of his examples relate to citizens.

GWB on June 30, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Really? So the corporations can vote when they become 21? And how are they “born” in the US.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:19 PM

A ruling in the administration’s favor would only say that for-profit entities aren’t practicing religion. All of your examples relate to not-for-profit entities.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 4:54 PM

The Catholic Church and its related entities have indicated that they may have to cease some of their operations because of ACA mandates that violate their principles regarding contraception. The government has made the claim that these related activities do not have a religious exemption because they serve a broader public than just Catholics. Had Hobby Lobby been made subject to these mandates, that might clear the way for the government argument that any entity that serves the public has no religious exemption from the ACA rules. I think this ruling suggests the Church is going to be in a stronger position.

KW64 on June 30, 2014 at 5:25 PM

You realize that these libs are wailing and gnashing their teeth because now some babies will cling to life in the womb a few more days or possibly weeks longer, before being destroyed.

THEY CANNOT ABIDE LIFE BECAUSE THEY ARE DEATH. You, jim56, you are an agent of death. That’s all you are. It’s not about freedom, your screeching. Freedom is about life, and you are DEATH.

disa on June 30, 2014 at 5:27 PM

A ruling in the administration’s favor would only say that for-profit entities aren’t practicing religion. All of your examples relate to not-for-profit entities.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 4:54 PM

They’re all still made up of people, who should not lose their rights regardless of how they are organized. What difference does profit or nonprofit make that is so significant? Why should a nonprofit be privileged over a for-profit on this *fundamental* right?

Buck Farky on June 30, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Really? So the corporations can vote when they become 21? And how are they “born” in the US.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:19 PM

OMG you are so hung up on that distinction. People make up corporations, they don’t lose their rights when organized as such, the corporation is an extension of themselves and their rights carry through.

Buck Farky on June 30, 2014 at 5:37 PM

In spite of what many have characterized as the narrow and tailored ruling by the Court, some political and legal observers have determined that the ruling is a step toward the legalization of discrimination.

While the term slippery slope gets used far too often, this actually is an example.

The court has done an amazing an unprecedented thing- it has conferred on a legal entity the ability to hold religious views. That is an amazing thing, much more so than the previous conferring of free speech rights to a legal entity.

For almost all intents a corporation is now utterly superior to a human being. It has all the same rights, and very few responsibilities (those are passed off to the individual serfs that are within the corporation).

While the ruling may have been narrowly applied it was obviously made to grow, after all if corporations can have religious beliefs then the court will not want to be forced to defend an arbitrary limit on the threshold of when a corp is too big. It will instead expand those rights, maybe slowly, maybe quickly, to encompass all corporations regardless of size. That coupled with this decisions explicit statement that corps, unlike people, can ignore laws they disagree with on religious grounds, is nothing short of revolutionary.

On the plus side the SCOTUS did just make single payer 10x more likely. So there’s a small upside.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 5:38 PM

OMG you are so hung up on that distinction. People make up corporations, they don’t lose their rights when organized as such, the corporation is an extension of themselves and their rights carry through.

Buck Farky on June 30, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Running a business is a voluntary activity. If you choose to do it you may have to give up some rights. That’s a choice you make. If you don’t like it you can always choose not to do it.

Today the SCOTUS said, “nah just ignore the law if you don’t like it.”

There’s no way that doesn’t lead to companies claiming an inherent right to pollute, to destroy endangered habitat, to ignore safety regs, and on and on. The hands are officially in the cookie jar.

Buckle up.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Ms Totenberg really fancies herself.

formwiz on June 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Supreme Court probably legalized xenophobia, racism

The Constitution says these things were never illegal.

Ronnie on June 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Running a business is a voluntary activity. If you choose to do it you may have to give up some rights.

Why?

Which rights?

You offer little other than just another embracing of fascism….

Athos on June 30, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Buckle up.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Do you mind if I sip the sweet nectar of your heart-felt tears? I mean, I think I’d feel pretty upset too if the court ruled that I couldn’t compel my mortal enemies to fund the murder of innocent life, but since it is my mortal enemy whose ox was gored, I’m feeling pretty scheudenfantastic right now, and I just wanted to say that I really appreciate you saving me the trip to HuffPo to begin my feast.

Immolate on June 30, 2014 at 5:55 PM

The totalitarian leftist busybodies had a bad day. Which is a good day for America

Whitey Ford on June 30, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Just swinging by here to catch up on all the SCOTUS goings-on. Boy, the libs on other blogs are apoplectic about the Hobby Lobby decision. I’m reading comment after comment complaining about how the “right wing” once again got its way. Are they kidding?! Let me see, this country has rapidly lurched left in the last 6 years by legalizing pot in many states, legalizing gay marriage, unfettered illegal immigration, Obamacare, etc.

What a bunch of hypocrites! These libs praise corporations that have a so-called “conscience” when it comes to green policies against using our natural resources for energy, social policies that force people out of the workplace who disagree with gay marriage (Brendan Eich of Mozilla, for example), policies that support divestment from Israel, and many more. Yet, it is not okay for a corporation to have a “conscience” by not subsidizing the murdering of the unborn. Unbelievable.

KickandSwimMom on June 30, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Why?

Which rights?

You offer little other than just another embracing of fascism….

Athos on June 30, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Well for one if you feel like your religion requires you not to conform with business regulation then you forgo that right to your religious views.

At least in a sane world. In the majority opinion however religion is a get out of jail free card for companies, even though it’s not for actual people.

Kind of weird.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Do you mind if I sip the sweet nectar of your heart-felt tears?

Immolate on June 30, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Feel free, just remember you celebrated it when it goes bad.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 6:14 PM

What a bunch of hypocrites! These libs praise corporations that have a so-called “conscience” when it comes to green policies against using our natural resources for energy, social policies that force people out of the workplace who disagree with gay marriage (Brendan Eich of Mozilla, for example), policies that support divestment from Israel, and many more. Yet, it is not okay for a corporation to have a “conscience” by not subsidizing the murdering of the unborn. Unbelievable.

KickandSwimMom on June 30, 2014 at 6:08 PM

That’s not a conscience, that’s a theocratic impulse. The Green family decided to force their religious views on their employees and the SCOTUS said “Cool, bro!” No one was going to force the greens to use plan B pills or IUDs. Their religious conscience was never threatened in the slightest. Rather it was the religious rights of the employees that was threatened by their employers. But the right celebrates the squashing of those rights, because of course only entrepreneurs are really human, amirite? Workers are basically nothing more than taker who should be made to worship whatever the blessed makers tell them to worship.

The best thing now would be an aggressive push to unionize hobby lobby. Clearly the management regards their employees as serfs, let’s give the workers some power to push back.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Buckle up.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Do you not see the inconsistencies in this scam of law. Why all the extensions , waivers and carveouts. Why is a company forced to provide health insurance if they have 50 employees yet if they have 49, they don’t?

Some people are more equal than others.

Your premise places the blame on businesses that must follow UNCONSTITUTIONAL clauses in a law, not on the fascists that create the laws.

can_con on June 30, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Obviously you neither read or understood the SCOTUS decision…or even understand the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Forming a business in a closely-held corporation (or LLC, SP) doesn’t mean one loses their Constitutional rights or the fundamental right to operate their business in the manner they see fit and according to their values, morals, or religious beliefs. One does not become a lesser class citizen when they create / form a for-profit business.

As I posted on another thread, a ‘plain English’ analysis of the SCOTUS decision clearly addresses your invalid argument…

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a federal law that prohibits the government from imposing a substantial burden on someone’s ability to practice his religion unless that burden advances an important government interest and does so in the least restrictive way possible. The Court started by considering and rejecting the federal government’s argument that, because they are for-profit corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga could not even rely on RFRA to challenge the mandate. That contention, the Court observed, would require the companies to choose between two unpalatable options: “either give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits, available to their competitors, of operating as corporations.”

Such a choice was not necessary, in the Court’s view, for several reasons. First, RFRA was intended to apply very broadly, and the purpose of protecting corporations is to protect the rights of the people associated with the corporation. Second, another federal law – the Dictionary Act – specifically includes “corporations” in its definition of “person,” and there is no reason to think that Congress intended anything else for RFRA. Third, and the government’s suggestion notwithstanding, for-profit corporations can indeed exercise religion: the government concedes that non-profit corporations do so, and for-profit corporations aren’t all that different – they can have goals other than making money and in fact do “support a wide variety of charitable causes.” Here the Court dismissed the government’s argument that Congress wouldn’t have wanted RFRA to apply to for-profit corporations because it would be too hard for courts to figure out exactly what the religious beliefs of a corporation with lots of shareholders are. It would be relatively rare, the Court posited, for a large publicly traded company like IBM to rely on RFRA in the first place, but – in any event – that is not a problem for the companies in this case, which are “each owned and controlled by members of a single family” whose sincere religious beliefs have never been questioned.

Athos on June 30, 2014 at 6:24 PM

This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom, which is the bedrock of the First Amendment. Any time someone is forced to act against that imperative, it should be deemed unconstitutional. If the government is going to force Catholic employers to provide certain medical services that violate the basic tenets of Catholicism, does that not “open the floodgates” to people who want to force people who strongly object to any practice, on religious grounds, not only to accept it, but finance it as well? How is it possible to see this as anything other than unconstitutional? It flies in the face of logic.

College Prof on June 30, 2014 at 6:25 PM

The Catholic Church and its related entities have indicated that they may have to cease some of their operations because of ACA mandates that violate their principles regarding contraception. The government has made the claim that these related activities do not have a religious exemption because they serve a broader public than just Catholics. Had Hobby Lobby been made subject to these mandates, that might clear the way for the government argument that any entity that serves the public has no religious exemption from the ACA rules. I think this ruling suggests the Church is going to be in a stronger position.

KW64 on June 30, 2014 at 5:25 PM

I think they’re going to be in a weaker position. The Supreme Court noted with approval the “opt out” for religious organization (which requires certification for an exemption).

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:29 PM

That’s not a conscience, that’s a theocratic impulse. The Green family decided to force their religious views on their employees and the SCOTUS said “Cool, bro!” No one was going to force the greens to use plan B pills or IUDs. Their religious conscience was never threatened in the slightest. Rather it was the religious rights of the employees that was threatened by their employers. But the right celebrates the squashing of those rights, because of course only entrepreneurs are really human, amirite? Workers are basically nothing more than taker who should be made to worship whatever the blessed makers tell them to worship.

The best thing now would be an aggressive push to unionize hobby lobby. Clearly the management regards their employees as serfs, let’s give the workers some power to push back.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Say what? I don’t even know where to start with this word salad of a post.

KickandSwimMom on June 30, 2014 at 6:31 PM

The Green family decided to force their religious views on their employees and the SCOTUS said “Cool, bro!” No one was going to force the greens to use plan B pills or IUDs.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 6:19 PM

That’s one of the more vapid ‘justifications’….

The Greens objected to the Federal Government, under penalty of massive fines, mandating that their company needed to pay for and make available to their employees 4 abortifacients that the ownership had a religious objection towards providing – citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as their right to decline to pay for those abortifacients.

SCOTUS agreed that they had the right under their religious beliefs to not be forced to provide and pay for 4 abortifacients.

Any HL employee who wants an abortifacient is free to go out and buy their own abortifacient, or purchase an individual health insurance policy that would provide abortifacients. No employee lost something that they had before. To declare otherwise or say that the Greens are forcing their religious views on employees is little more than incredibly dishonest.

Athos on June 30, 2014 at 6:31 PM

That’s not a conscience, that’s a theocratic impulse. The Green family decided to force their religious views on their employees and the SCOTUS said “Cool, bro!” No one was going to force the greens to use plan B pills or IUDs.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Hobby Lobby is not forcing their male and female employees to have sexual intercourse. If the women don’t want to get pregnant, and the men don’t want to create pregnancies, they don’t have to have sex.

TigerPaw on June 30, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Tlaloc is a moron who doesn’t get that not subsidizing a thing is different from banning its private usage.

Why should the Greens have to pay for baby-killing drugs on the health insurance policy they sponsor and pay at least half the freight on? They should not. The Supreme Court just ruled they do not.

The ruling tells employees nothing more than: If you want the baby-killing kind of contraception, just leave the Green’s money out of it.

BKennedy on June 30, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Feel free, just remember you celebrated it when it goes bad.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 6:14 PM

I always do, and it always does. Our time upon this mortal coil is of no limited significance though, which makes it all a lot easier to cope with.

Immolate on June 30, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Say what? I don’t even know where to start with this word salad of a post.

KickandSwimMom on June 30, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Ask him for his solution. Ask him several times. But don’t expect him to answer you or your questions. And prepare to be insulted, belittled, name-called …

Alien on June 30, 2014 at 6:57 PM

It’s illegal to refuse to hire gay people?? Damn, I didn’t know that, I’ve been refusing to hire them for years, haha.

Dollayo on June 30, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Why is it that everyone sees this decision as somehow “granting a right”, and doesn’t recognize it as “limiting a power”?

Seems to me that the Court ruled FAR too narrowly.

flyovermark on June 30, 2014 at 7:20 PM

I’m always amazed how leftists in the public eye consistently have that cold,sour,empty,’dead inside’ look and presence in their face and eyes .
It’s scary.
Dr. Carlo Lombardi on June 30, 2014 at 4:22 PM

It’s called demon possession.

Nutstuyu on June 30, 2014 at 7:21 PM

SCOTUS gave all employees the right not to buy contraception on religious grounds, whether they are white women, black women, Hispanic women, or Asian women, or … men. How is that racist?

Or, they could get it if they’re willing to pay for it. At any drug store in this big free country.

Steve Z on June 30, 2014 at 7:38 PM

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Don’t mess with Mother Angelica and the nuns at EWTN. ;)

Wethal on June 30, 2014 at 7:49 PM

I think they’re going to be in a weaker position. The Supreme Court noted with approval the “opt out” for religious organization (which requires certification for an exemption).

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:29 PM

The Court noted they weren’t actually ruling on the opt-out because that issue is coming up in the Little Sister of the Poor case. The Sisters won’t sign the certification because it means they’re ok’ing someone else to provide abortifacient contraceptives in their name.

Wethal on June 30, 2014 at 7:52 PM

The ‘liberal’ left. Classy as always:

http://twitchy.com/2014/06/30/fuk-you-left-wingers-want-to-burn-down-hobby-lobby-after-scotus-win/

LegendHasIt on June 30, 2014 at 7:54 PM

And tolerant of others belief systems too.

LegendHasIt on June 30, 2014 at 7:55 PM

I think they’re going to be in a weaker position. The Supreme Court noted with approval the “opt out” for religious organization (which requires certification for an exemption).

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:29 PM

The Court noted they weren’t actually ruling on the opt-out because that issue is coming up in the Little Sister of the Poor case. The Sisters won’t sign the certification because it means they’re ok’ing someone else to provide abortifacient contraceptives in their name.

Wethal on June 30, 2014 at 7:52 PM

True, but they’d look pretty stupid to strike the opt out down in 9 months. They’d have their words here thrown back at them.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 8:13 PM

Furthermore, given that the decision was intentionally narrowly tailored to apply only to emergency contraceptives, as opposed to, say, vaccines…

What’s the difference between these two things????????????

Tom_Shipley on June 30, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Does anyone remember the runup to the vote for Obamacare? It was being held up by Bart Stupak and his small group of Pro Life Democrats. I believe the contraceptive mandate was originally in Obamacare but taken out to get Stupak’s group on board. Then a few weeks or months later Obama inserts it back in with administrative fiat.

This is all you need to know about Obama’s ethics. How moronic it is to trust a word that comes out of his lying serpentine mouth.

chadlands on June 30, 2014 at 8:46 PM

True, but they’d look pretty stupid to strike the opt out down in 9 months. They’d have their words here thrown back at them.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 8:13 PM

They would be examining the opt-out in the actual case or controversy presenting the opt-out issue rather than just a dictum comment. Courts often make comments that are not in any way binding on a future opinions.

They all have lifetime appointments. They don’t care if their words are thrown back at them.

Wethal on June 30, 2014 at 8:55 PM

What’s the difference between these two things????????????

Tom_Shipley on June 30, 2014 at 8:31 PM

One stops the development of an unborn human being, and the other stops the development of a virus?

Wethal on June 30, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Please pass the popcorn.

OregonCon on June 30, 2014 at 9:36 PM

That cover picture is supposed to be someone named Nina, but it looks like a man in drag to me.

Techster64 on June 30, 2014 at 10:23 PM

Honey, It’s called “individual rights” and “personal responsibility.” Grow up.

MN J on June 30, 2014 at 10:29 PM

I didn’t know they were ever illegal. Musta missed that.

mojo on June 30, 2014 at 10:30 PM

That is one ugly woman. Think Barney Rubble with a wig, come to life.

Jaibones on June 30, 2014 at 11:19 PM

Hillary Clinton says that the Hobby Lobby decision was, “deeply disturbing.”

As we all know, the physical “need” for contraception is entirely voluntary. No one “catches” pregnancy by touching a door handle, or by having someone sneeze in their general direction. Geese and other avians do not “carry” the pregnancy germ. The only way someone could become “involuntarily pregnant” would be as a result of rape or some form of sexual assault, which was not in any way an issue when it came to the Hobby Lobby case.

And as we all also know, anyone, by right, can purchase contraception, of whatever kind, virtually anywhere they want in America, including “Plan B.”

Nevertheless, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, it is “pretty expensive” according to formerly “dead broke” Hillary. Now, it might be a little more expensive in any particular case, especially, one might think, when the type of contraception any person chooses to use can be dictated by them, i.e., any employee, as a requirement to be placed on their employer.

But let’s face it — contraception is NOT expensive. It is relatively cheap for an employed person to purchase for themselves! Hillary Clinton is lying.

However, according to Hillary, EVERY EMPLOYER in America should be forced, pursuant to federal law, to pay for any employee’s contraception, or pay for coverage for such contraception, as may be demanded by any one (and potentially ALL) of said employees.

She believes the Obama Administration “regulation” mandating that should somehow trump the First Amendment Constitutional rights of any employer! Based on what, one wonders?!!

According to Hillary, that should hold true, even when, in an extremely limited way, the form of “contraception” to be purchased has been conclusively established to be violative the employer’s Constitutionally-based religious convictions, in the context of a law which her husband signed,and which did not directly contain any such provision!!

And she wants to be President? She wants to swear to uphold our Constitution?

If there is anyone who is now, and always has been “deeply disturbing” that person is Hillary Clinton.

Trochilus on July 1, 2014 at 12:41 AM

Do you suppose that Salem will realize that hiring Noah was a major mistake and cut him loose or stick us in the eye as they so often do? My guess is the latter

.bw222 on June 30, 2014 at 4:01 PM

There isn’t a smidgen of conservatism in this Noah. Far as I can tell, he was brought in as a diversity checkmark. Much like campuses telling a Christian organizatikns that them must allow a Wiccan or an atheist to run for office — waiting for the 1st lawsuit by some transgendered freak to sue the org for voting their principles and not electing the mutilated deviant.

Dump Noah already.

AH_C on July 1, 2014 at 1:29 AM

The LA Times has 10 articles on this already — which pretty much proves Noah’s headline claim. From their articles, however, I would say that Noah has missed a few — the misogyny card has been played, the denial of rights card has been played, and the “five males” card has also been played.

The last one was played by none less than Harry Reid, whom, last I looked, had forced this legislation on the rest of us, and had NOT undergone a sex change operation.

unclesmrgol on July 1, 2014 at 2:13 AM

There is no slippery slope to freedom, folks. Giving government more power never ends well, but that’s not what this is about and all you weepers and gnashers of teeth know it damn well.

gryphon202 on July 1, 2014 at 7:21 AM

Will we ever be able to defund NPR. What a bunch of nitwits.

RdLake on July 1, 2014 at 8:00 AM

That’s not a conscience, that’s a theocratic impulse. The Green family decided to force their religious views on their employees and the SCOTUS said “Cool, bro!” No one was going to force the greens to use plan B pills or IUDs. Their religious conscience was never threatened in the slightest. Rather it was the religious rights of the employees that was threatened by their employers. But the right celebrates the squashing of those rights, because of course only entrepreneurs are really human, amirite? Workers are basically nothing more than taker who should be made to worship whatever the blessed makers tell them to worship.

The best thing now would be an aggressive push to unionize hobby lobby. Clearly the management regards their employees as serfs, let’s give the workers some power to push back.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 6:19 PM

This is so stupid from top to bottom, it is amusing.

Let’s unpack the idiocy to see if you can be made to learn something.

That’s not a conscience, that’s a theocratic impulse.

OK. So a private citizen refusing to pay for something is a theocratic impulse? Interesting. Please explain how refusing to pay for something is a theocratic impulse. I’d love to see your “reasoning”.

The Green family decided to force their religious views on their employees and the SCOTUS said “Cool, bro!” No one was going to force the greens to use plan B pills or IUDs.

So, my not paying for something you want is forcing my religious views on you? Again, please explain your “reasoning” for this “thought”.

Their religious conscience was never threatened in the slightest.

so you get to decide what my religious conscience tells me? Or the gov’t gets to decide that? Please explain where religious freedom falls into your fascist view of religious freedom. Again, please explain your “reasoning” for this “thought”.

Rather it was the religious rights of the employees that was threatened by their employers.

Again, you believe that my refusing to pay for something you want threatens your religious freedom? The new religious freedom is for you to demand I pay for something for you?

Is that really what you are claiming? Are you really this stupid?

But the right celebrates the squashing of those rights, because of course only entrepreneurs are really human, amirite? Workers are basically nothing more than taker who should be made to worship whatever the blessed makers tell them to worship.

that we support someone not paying for something that offends their religious conscience (as defined by them, not your) means all of their employees (who are free to work elsewhere or purchase their own abortificants) are not really human?

Again, please explain your reasoning here. I’d love to see the “thought process” that ends with the above conclusion.

The best thing now would be an aggressive push to unionize hobby lobby. Clearly the management regards their employees as serfs, let’s give the workers some power to push back

Again, someone not paying for something that offends their religious conscience (as defined by them, not your) means they regard their employees (who are free to work elsewhere or purchase their own abortificants) are serfs?

Again, please explain your reasoning here. I’d love to see the “thought process” that ends with the above conclusion.

Nothing you have argued has any basis in fact or logic. You just sputter a lot of nonsense emotion that does not even make sense.

Your argument is that a workers religious freedom is threatened if their employer does not pay for something you believe the employer should pay for.

Please, take some time to think about that before responding. Is it really your argument that I must pay for whatever you want or else you don’t have religious freedom? Is that truly your concept of religious freedom?

It is stunning to me how wildly ignorant and unable to grasp logic the left is these days. To argue that religious freedom = getting free stuff is absurd.

Monkeytoe on July 1, 2014 at 8:56 AM

Fake outrage for two weeks just long enough to forget about:
Benghazi
VA
IRS
Immigration
Hillary’s money
Ect..ect..ect..

jaywemm on July 1, 2014 at 10:01 AM

NPR is the Nationalist Public Relations arm of the Government, sanctioned by the FCC, and has had the ability to change young minds of mush for years via Sesame Street.

It is time to give them the Big Bird and do not turn them on any more. Let your children watch the Roadrunner. The will learn about gravity, the fittest win, innovation is the basics of patenting and inventing things that make our jobs easier, and many more. Watch and learn.

MSGTAS on July 1, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Totenberg is a legend in her own mind. Unfortunately, we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing her lunacy.

ultracon on July 1, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Emotional, knee-jerk reply from the typical uniformed libiot.
Other than this post being complete nonsense, it fails to recognize the hypocrisy as well.
Example) The Greens did not start a business to solely be responsible for everyone’s sexual health, although they’ve been quite generous in meeting their employees needs over the years in this regard. ( btw; I have yet to hear one Hobby Lobby employee claim that their va-ja-ma-thingie was being neglected due to restrictive BC options.). Their position on certain types of contraception they disapprove of does not affect other businesses such as Wal-Mart, CVS, Boeing, etc. (The ruling has clarified that.). Yet this pustulating glob of stupidity feels their belief system does not count (because corporations acting corporationingly or something..) and they should be forced into providing life-snuffing drugs which they morally oppose.
This champion of everyone’s rights to all things, mostly freebies, would stifle the rights of those it disagrees with. It would crush dissent in any form and would push for a hostile takeover of their business and others it finds objectionable, all while claiming this/these companies are infringing upon the rights of others.

This laboratory experiment gone horribly awry fails to understand that those employees may choose to work somewhere else or purchase those drugs themselves – and those drugs will most likely be subsidized by the gov’t taxpayer anyway or are already available under Title X..

But reason, freedom, liberty, and that pesky Constitution be damned. Let the hypocrisy flow like pizz through Reid’s Depends.

Freedom in any form is subjective to the loopy left.
Knee-jerk, emotional, misguided, and potentially hostile actions by themselves or through their Great God Gubmint’ is the only option. That calcified deposit which rests between their shoulders cannot be corrected IMHO.

StubbornGreenBurros on July 1, 2014 at 10:23 AM

I went to Hobby Lobby yesterday, the employees were celebrating the win for them.

Christians tend to like to work for other Christians, and most workers at Hobby Lobby fully support the contraceptives Hobby Lobby offers them

And if they don’t, they can get Obamacare to pay for the rest. That’s what Kennedy’s Concurrence said.

petunia on July 1, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Weren’t the Blue Dogs pulled this thing through promised there would never be funding of fetal murder?

How easily we forget.

maevio on July 1, 2014 at 12:48 PM

You cannot see the religious liberty connection between business owners who object to the killing of unborn babies because it violates Christian teaching and business owners who object to participating in events that violate Christian teaching on marriage?

What about the Amish business owner that denied service to the visiting soldiers who said they were about to do a tour in Vietnam or the Buddhist business owner who denied service to a sports hunter or the Mormon business owner who denied service to the non-Mormon.

So the Amish or Buddhist business owners who objected to participating in events that violated their religious teaching on MURDER is allowed to deny the soldiers or the sports hunter service for fear that their goods and/or services would be used to aid the soldiers and the hunter in committing MURDER.

Do they not have as much right? If not why?

What about the Mormon, that was operating a for profit business, yet denied service, (the selling of magical Mormon underwear), to the openly non-Morman?

JustTheFacts on July 1, 2014 at 11:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3