The left loses their minds over Hobby Lobby decision

posted at 12:41 pm on June 30, 2014 by Noah Rothman

I imagine the horrified shrieks that rose from the streets outside the Supreme Court on Monday as the decision in the Hobby Lobby case began to filter out into the crowd of liberal observers was reminiscent of those poor souls who watched helplessly as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire claimed the lives of 146 young, female garment workers.

In fact, the similarities are eerie. It seems that liberal commentators have convinced themselves that, just as was the case in 1911, the courts and the country have deemed women to be of lesser value than their male counterparts. The distinction between these two eras, of course, is that while that argument could be supported in 1911, it exists only in the heads of progressives in 2014.

NBC News journalist Pete Williams, an accomplished reporter who is not prone to indulge in speculation, went out of his way to insist repeatedly that the Court’s decision in this case was a narrow one. He noted that the decision extends only to the specific religious objections a handful of employers raised about providing abortifacients (as opposed to contraceptives). Williams added that Justice Anthony Kennedy allowed in his concurring opinion that the federal government can pay for and provide that coverage if employers would not.

The Federalist published a variety of other observations about this ruling which indicate that it was narrowly tailored to this specific case. The Court ruled that Hobby Lobby and other employers could not simply drop health coverage in order to avoid mandates. This decision does not apply to other government mandates like those requiring employers cover vaccinations. Finally, if the will of the public in the form of an electoral mandate creates a groundswell of support for a government-funded program which provides access to abortifacients, then that would be perfectly constitutional.

Williams’ MSNBC colleagues nodded along and, when asked for their contribution, proceeded to display none of this NBC reporter’s caution.

“I think we’ve seen a real goal post-moving here,” MSNBC.com’s Irin Carmon said. “We may say it is a narrow ruling because Taco Bell and Wal-Mart can’t opt out, but it is still an enormous expansion of corporate rights and of the refusal from the laws that are passed to create benefits for everybody.”

“The larger doctrinal implication here is potentially significant,” MSNBC host Ari Melber agreed. “For the first time, the Court is going and taking the First Amendment rights that we’ve seen long established for certain corporate entities and extending them to the religious idea.”

“Just because it was only restricted to women’s health access doesn’t mean that it doesn’t create a devastating precedent which says that women’s health care should be treated differently,” Carmon added. She added that the Republican Party is the biggest beneficiary of today’s ruling. “So, the context of this is an all-out assault on access to contraception and access to other reproductive health care services.”

HotAir’s Karl has accumulated some of the best examples of liberal “schadenfreude,” as he’s dubbed it, in which the left utterly and intentionally misconstrues the scope of this ruling. Incidentally, their reaction also helps to service what appears to be a widely shared victimhood fantasy.

We’ve seen indications that the left believes this decision is a prelude to theocracy:

We’ve seen liberal journalists and commentators rending garments over the implications of this ruling which exist only in their own minds:

Even poor SCOTUS Blog, an organization which merely reports the news out of the Supreme Court, has endured an torrent of misdirected liberal outrage:

BrY-RuMCQAAhpl6

Finally, and expectedly, we’ve seen liberal politicians stoking ire, generating enthusiasm, and soliciting donations:

And this, via John Podhoretz’s inbox:

BrYwx8aIcAE-hJo

It is interesting that there seems to be more outrage over this decision from the left than there was when the Court struck down dated portions of the Voting Rights Act. Though that decision had much farther reaching legal and political implications, this is the issue that has captured the passions of the left.


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 5 6 7 8

Don Palmer ‏@donnie_palmer 34m

Let’s be clear #SCOTUS upheld a constitutional right with #HobbyLobby decision, this is not an attack on women!

davidk on June 30, 2014 at 5:43 PM

No. The Supreme Court got it wrong. For profit corporations of any type (closely held or publicly traded or in between) can’t practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

So the State can mandate that a closely-held for-profit corporation or business run by devout Muslims can be forced to provide, and pay for, pork products to any of it’s employees who wish to have free pork products?

They lose their rights and liberty to not only operate their business, but to do so within their own morals and values, simply because you and the State say that those who build, and operate a for-profit entity lose their rights?

And that’s not totalitarianism or fascism?

It’s amazing you survived the ‘horrors’ of the Citizens United decision….

Athos on June 30, 2014 at 5:43 PM

JohnD13 on June 30, 2014 at 5:29 PM

 
No. The Supreme Court got it wrong. For profit corporations of any type (closely held or publicly traded or in between) can’t practice religion.
 
jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

 
So you disagree with their morals and politics, then.

rogerb on June 30, 2014 at 5:44 PM

So you disagree with their morals and politics, then.

rogerb on June 30, 2014 at 5:44 PM

The only ones that count are Jimbo’s… and all of those who share his morals, values, and ideology. The rest? meh…..

And he also desires for violence against those who don’t share his fascist morals, values, and ideology…

…but doesn’t he look good in his brown shirt?

Athos on June 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM

I am sure these whacked out libtards have absolutely no problem with sex selective abortions.

It is a personal choice to kill that mass of female tissue in preference to the mass of male tissue.

txdoc on June 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Hobby Lobby provides sixteen different kinds of contraceptives.

Women are so neglected.

davidk on June 30, 2014 at 5:49 PM

16 different kinds of contraception just wasn’t enough for the grievance mongers. Waaaaaaaa! Waaaaaaaa!

Whitey Ford on June 30, 2014 at 5:51 PM

The four drugs they did not want to provide are not contraceptives.

davidk on June 30, 2014 at 5:51 PM

For jim56 (skip to 2:11)

22044 on June 30, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Here is an idea for you libs: The fringe benefits negotiated in private relationship between a family company and an individual who chooses to work for that company are really none of your business.

Whitey Ford on June 30, 2014 at 5:52 PM

I am sure these whacked out libtards have absolutely no problem with sex selective abortions.

It is a personal choice to kill that mass of female tissue in preference to the mass of male tissue.

txdoc on June 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM

When they find that elusive “gay gene” will the left be down with gay-driven abortions?

davidk on June 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM

For profit corporations of any type (closely held or publicly traded or in between) can’t practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

So that would imply that a non-profit or not-for-profit corporation CAN practice religion, right?
Or do you still just not understand what you’re spouting?

dentarthurdent on June 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM

No. The Supreme Court got it wrong. For profit corporations of any type (closely held or publicly traded or in between) can’t practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

They aren’t practicing religion. You just believe that getting things for free is a religion because it’s the core of your belief system.

Chuck Schick on June 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM

So you disagree with their morals and politics, then.

rogerb on June 30, 2014 at 5:44 PM

He’s THE “more equal pig”.

dentarthurdent on June 30, 2014 at 5:55 PM

I’m hoping for a series of “unfortunate” accidents to happen to Hobby Lobby stores and the Greens.

jimbo 56 on June 30, 2014 at 1:16 PM

Define “accidents” for us.

Take your time.

Del Dolemonte on June 30, 2014 at 5:34 PM

I confidently predict jim56 will ignore you. He is not a courageous, responsible, or good person. Not to mention that he’s stupid, really stupid, and arrogant, too lol

non-nonpartisan on June 30, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Poor Jim’s 39 year old girlfriend is still working the register at HL and is too stupid to figure out how to by the meds to kill their unborn child. Jim -I hope you get what you wished on HL but 10 x over .

CW on June 30, 2014 at 5:55 PM

My friendly Arts and Crafts store is Michaels; it just went public.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:33 PM

So it was a closed corporation before it went public? You shopped at a closed corporation store?

Is a store that “went public” better than a store run by people who hold strong religious beliefs?

Most importantly of all:

What if Michaels doesn’t have something that you need to finish a project, and Hobby Lobby does?

Alien on June 30, 2014 at 5:56 PM

I confidently predict jim56 will ignore you. He is not a courageous, responsible, or good person. Not to mention that he’s stupid, really stupid, and arrogant, too lol

non-nonpartisan on June 30, 2014 at 5:55 PM

You certainly don’t encourage engaging the trolls, but you have no problem commenting on their stupidity.

I like it. Please don’t stop.

Alien on June 30, 2014 at 5:58 PM

I guess where America is losing this is that now our laws are saying what we MUST do, not restricting us from what we CANNOT do.

Under “Classic” America:

Mormons could NOT marry multiple wives.

Muslims could NOT behead apostates.

Romans could NOT crucify Christians.

Businesses could NOT discriminate against minorities.

I have no problems with any of those. Those were laws that said “you can enjoy your freedoms, there are just some things that are against our societal norms, so you can’t practice those here.”

But now, “Progressives” are getting into a whole territory of affirmative laws, where I am starting to not recognize America:

Bakeries MUST bake Gay Wedding Cakes.

Doctors MUST provide abortion services.

Christians MUST pay for abortions.

Muslims MUST serve pork dishes.

Jews MUST eat lobster.

Christians MUST bow down to the state and declare it first before God.

I’ve lost track – which ones of those haven’t happened (yet) ???

JohnD13 on June 30, 2014 at 6:00 PM

All of this cr@poli because HL had to fight FOR the ‘privilege’ to NOT be fined out of existence !!
They fought for (and won, thank God) the ‘right’ to KEEP coverage other than those FOUR products, AND to keep their doors open, continuing to provide the jobs, and the employees’ benefits !!

Why is this so hard to understand ???

The world is upside down.
Good Lord, help us all !!

pambi on June 30, 2014 at 6:02 PM

In our culture, birth control is only an excuse to advance a hedonistic life-style. A ticket to satisfy the boredom of an irresponsible society.

HueMoss on June 30, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Here’s why they’re losing their minds:

The decision enables them to continue to believe what just isn’t so about conservatives. The news today made it just too easy for them to self-fuel their preconceived, emotional arguments. They felt good feeling bad. They were able to convince themselves anew that conservatives hate women. It doesn’t matter that this just ain’t true; all that matters is that they can convince themselves that they’re right. To them, today’s news confirmed the mentality of perpetual struggle, which fuels their entire political ideology. The perception that it persists is necessary for them even to exist, as a movement.

brentspolemics on June 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM

For profit corporations of any type (closely held or publicly traded or in between) can’t practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

So that would imply that a non-profit or not-for-profit corporation CAN practice religion, right?
Or do you still just not understand what you’re spouting?

dentarthurdent on June 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Yes. My understanding is that most churches are non-profit corporations.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM

So it was a closed corporation before it went public? You shopped at a closed corporation store?

Is a store that “went public” better than a store run by people who hold strong religious beliefs?

Most importantly of all:

What if Michaels doesn’t have something that you need to finish a project, and Hobby Lobby does?

Alien on June 30, 2014 at 5:56 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes. Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Yes. My understanding is that most churches are non-profit corporations.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM

But not all non-profit corporations are churches, or have anything at all to do with religion.
So can the owners of a non-profit corporation that is NOT a church practice religion?

That’s the problem – you just don’t even understand the terminology you’re spouting.

dentarthurdent on June 30, 2014 at 6:12 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes. Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet.
jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

*eyeroll*

pambi on June 30, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

You’re such a baby. Pathetic.

CW on June 30, 2014 at 6:14 PM

From a SCOTUSBlog ‘plain English’ analysis of the Hobby Lobby ruling….

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 6:15 PM

Poor Jimmy got burned today…now tell us what you wish on HL…be brave little boy. Be brave.

CW on June 30, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Yes. My understanding is that most churches are non-profit corporations.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM

The Hobby Lobby is not practicing religion. That’s the fallacy of their argument.

Chuck Schick on June 30, 2014 at 6:15 PM

The reason the left is losing their minds over this decision is they desire to force Christians to pay for abortions. It isn’t enough that abortion is legal, and the government gives taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood and the state governments let abbatoirs like Gosnell’s clinic go uninspected for years. No, they want to force a Christian to give their own money directly to an abortion provider. If they could, they would make Christians to stand in the public square and kill the babies with their own hands. They are evil, to the core.

bonnie_ on June 30, 2014 at 6:16 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby

Sure you don’t.

CW on June 30, 2014 at 6:16 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes. Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

You might want to have her stop shopping there. That accident you’re hoping for could hit any moment now.

Chuck Schick on June 30, 2014 at 6:17 PM

The Hobby Lobby is not practicing religion. That’s the fallacy of their your argument.

Chuck Schick on June 30, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Fixed

Chuck Schick on June 30, 2014 at 6:18 PM

I’m hoping for a series of “unfortunate” accidents to happen to Hobby Lobby stores and the Greens.

jimbo 56 on June 30, 2014 at 1:16 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes. Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Does your wife share in your “hoping” for a series of “unfortunate accidents” at the Hobby Lobby store where she shops? Just wonderin’…

tanked59 on June 30, 2014 at 6:18 PM

So it was a closed corporation before it went public? You shopped at a closed corporation store?

Is a store that “went public” better than a store run by people who hold strong religious beliefs?

Most importantly of all:

What if Michaels doesn’t have something that you need to finish a project, and Hobby Lobby does?

Alien on June 30, 2014 at 5:56 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes. Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Jim, why couldn’t you answer my questions? Except for the last one … that one was purely for the comedy value.

But now it does bring up the corollary question, “So, if your wife had a project and only Hobby Lobby had what she needed to complete it, would her project look like something from a swap meet?”

Alien on June 30, 2014 at 6:19 PM

The reason the left is losing their minds over this decision is they desire to force Christians to pay for abortions. It isn’t enough that abortion is legal, and the government gives taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood and the state governments let abbatoirs like Gosnell’s clinic go uninspected for years. No, they want to force a Christian to give their own money directly to an abortion provider. If they could, they would make Christians to stand in the public square and kill the babies with their own hands. They are evil, to the core.

bonnie_ on June 30, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Yep.

Guys like Jim feel if they’re going to kill their own kids…they’d rather have others pay for it-and they have a sense of safety in numbers as well. Scum. Evil as well. Jim …you will see hell.

CW on June 30, 2014 at 6:20 PM

No. The Supreme Court got it wrong. For profit corporations of any type (closely held or publicly traded or in between) can’t practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Oh well. Go tell you’re Muslim buddies not carrying fares with alcohol.

hawkdriver on June 30, 2014 at 6:29 PM

your

hawkdriver on June 30, 2014 at 6:30 PM

At least NOW, HL can continue to stay open, and …..

” … pay their full-time employees a minimum of $14 an hour. That is nearly double the national average for minimum wage. The hourly wage for part-time employees is also $9.50.
“We are very fortunate to be able to increase hourly wages for our employees, because we know our company would not be successful without the great work they do each day in our stores across the nation,” said the CEO and founder David Green.”
http://youngcons.com/when-you-find-out-how-much-hobby-lobby-pays-their-employs-tell-every-liberal-you-know/

That’s the ONLY thing they’d HAD TO FIGHT for !!!

pambi on June 30, 2014 at 6:39 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes. Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Then why does your wife shop there? Seriously, why? You obviously have a problem with Hobby Lobby. I mean you wished serious accidents on them, but your wife shops there. Does she spend too much money there? Is that what this is all about?

The bottom line is that the Hobby Lobby is not practicing religion as you state. They are refusing to pay for abortion inducing drugs for their employees, that’s it, plain pure and simple. The owners of the Company do not believe in abortion and they refuse to be forced by the Federal Government to pay for abortion inducing drugs for their employees. It’s pretty simple actually.

To some on the Left it is always, and will always be about killing babies. Get over it and pay for it your friggin self if you want to kill your unborn children.

Johnnyreb on June 30, 2014 at 6:40 PM

No. The Supreme Court got it wrong. For profit corporations of any type (closely held or publicly traded or in between) can’t practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

So, you think the local halal market or kosher deli would sell me a nice hunk of pork loin if I insisted they are not allowed to practice their religion in their company?

dentarthurdent on June 30, 2014 at 6:42 PM

This is the most feigning outrage I ever saw before.

@ cjnkira You ruled against working people today, especially women, today.

And what is Hobby Lobby? Working people, with enough of a conscience not to pay for Abortifacients, even through employers. Abortion medicine is murder and I’m glad a corporation actually recognized that. Obligatory call for revolution taken out.

The Nerve on June 30, 2014 at 6:42 PM

No. The Supreme Court got it wrong. For profit corporations of any type (closely held or publicly traded or in between) can’t practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

So…how is it that a ‘for profit’ can’t practice religion but a ‘non profit’ can?

Ricard on June 30, 2014 at 6:49 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes. Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

So using your warped leftist mentality, can I assume your wife looks like the kind of trailer park trash that hangs out at swap meets?

Just asking.

Walter L. Newton on June 30, 2014 at 6:51 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes. Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

I mean, she brought you home, right?

(…sorry…couldn’t resist…)

Ricard on June 30, 2014 at 6:53 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes. Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet where I purchase all my clothing.
jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

hawkdriver on June 30, 2014 at 6:54 PM

The weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth on NPR and the other moonbat outlets has been sweet, sweet music to my ears today.

Eat it, Libtards.

EA_MAN on June 30, 2014 at 6:55 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes. Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

I mean, she brought you home, right?

(…sorry…couldn’t resist…)

Ricard on June 30, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Shazam.

slickwillie2001 on June 30, 2014 at 7:03 PM

We live with millions of two year olds who should not have access to voting, TV news cameras, or social media.

SupplyGuy on June 30, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Except for my sculpting supplies, which I beg them to stock, I buy every last bit of art material I use at Hobby Lobby.

hawkdriver on June 30, 2014 at 7:11 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

I’m hoping for a series of “unfortunate” accidents to happen to Hobby Lobby stores…

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 1:16 PM

By using progressive logic, it appears that you want to have your wife murdered.

However, my Christian Values say that I must love my enemies, so I most certainly am NOT hoping for an “unfortunate” accident to happen at a Hobby Lobby while your wife is shopping there. Most certainly not.

In fact, I hope she survives her visit in great health, and stops by Chick-Fil-A on the way home for a delicious chicken sandwich.

JohnD13 on June 30, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Except for my sculpting supplies, which I beg them to stock, I buy every last bit of art material I use at Hobby Lobby.

hawkdriver on June 30, 2014 at 7:11 PM

I go there about twice a year for my paints and brushes. They don’t stock the Inks I use though.

Johnnyreb on June 30, 2014 at 7:18 PM

“Though that decision had much farther reaching legal and political implications, this is the issue that has captured the passions of the left.”

They perceive this decision as having to do with their naughty parts. That always inflames the passions of the left.

Lamont Cranston on June 30, 2014 at 7:18 PM

No. The Supreme Court got it wrong. For profit corporations of any type (closely held or publicly traded or in between) can’t practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Precisely, you have a right to free expression of religion, you have a right to free speech, you have a right to freedom of association.

But you MUST PICK ONLY ONE in the views of liberals.
Once you freely associate you lose rights for speech (Citizen United) and religion rights immediately.

You can have constitutionally protected rights, but liberals believe you should have to pick one and automatically give up all the rest of them immediately.

You can’t have 2+ rights at the same time, that’s far too much freedom for anyone to handle…right jim?

Oh sorry, Jim may be exercising his right to not have troops quartered in his home; so he may not be free to speak a response…

I hope they don’t slip troops in my home while I’m typing.

gekkobear on June 30, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Why should I, as a MALE, be forced to pay for healthcare I DO NOT NEED such as maternity coverage for myself, since I:

1. Am male, and as such..
2. I lack the ABILITY TO EVER GET PREGNANT?

ConstantineXI on June 30, 2014 at 4:30 PM

It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

malclave on June 30, 2014 at 7:51 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby

Sure you don’t.

CW on June 30, 2014 at 6:16 PM

I saw Jim shopping at Hobby Lobby. He was the one wearing the swap meet Izod knockoffs and Walmart cargo pants.

hawkdriver on June 30, 2014 at 7:57 PM

hawkdriver on June 30, 2014 at 7:11 PM

I go there about twice a year for my paints and brushes. They don’t stock the Inks I use though.

Johnnyreb on June 30, 2014 at 7:18 PM

My friend, do you know there is another accomplished painter that comments here?

hawkdriver on June 30, 2014 at 7:59 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

I do have to wonder… if Jim found out about a bomb planted at his local Hobby Lobby, set to go off when his wife was there shopping… would he warn her if he thought it might put the bombing plot at risk, or would she be considered an acceptable loss?

malclave on June 30, 2014 at 8:12 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes. Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

I mean, she brought you home, right?

(…sorry…couldn’t resist…)

Ricard on June 30, 2014 at 6:53 PM

She didn’t start shopping at Hobby Lobby until after we got married. Coincidence? Maybe not.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 8:15 PM

It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

malclave on June 30, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Well, I don’t want to have babies.
I’d be a bit worried about how it gets out…..

dentarthurdent on June 30, 2014 at 8:25 PM

dentarthurdent on June 30, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Total fail on the select and emphasis…..

dentarthurdent on June 30, 2014 at 8:26 PM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby, but my wife does sometimes. Quite a bit the stuff Hobby Lobby sells looks like it belongs at a swap meet.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Sounds like you just INSULTED your wife’s taste. Since you don’t shop there, but she does… you just proclaimed your wife buys stuff that belongs at a swap meet. You’re such a great husband (SARCASM!)

…or maybe she just thinks the “swap meet” items are appropriate for someone as classy as you!

dominigan on June 30, 2014 at 8:39 PM

So I log in and this thread is at 666 comments. It seems fitting somehow.

8 weight on June 30, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Someone needs to offer a million dollars for someone to be a “deep throat” and reveal the deception of Obama WH as well as Lois Lerners emails (high tech hacker could find em).

soapyjeans on June 30, 2014 at 9:05 PM

No. The Supreme Court got it wrong. For profit corporations of any type (closely held or publicly traded or in between) can’t practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Good Lord, you are dense. You’re making a false, and 1A impinging distinction. You really hate the First Amendment, don’t you?

Buck Farky on June 30, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Lemme make it real simple for the Cheap Seats, (I’m looking at Jim, and Triple, and LibFree et al)

(Obvious Public Safety aside)

What you do is really none of my business, and no; I’m not paying for any of it. (especially when it goes wrong.)

What I do, is none of your business, so stay the f*ck out of it.

Less eloquent than Thomas Jefferson, but I should think he’d approve, were he here.

a5minmajor on June 30, 2014 at 10:02 PM

Someone needs to offer a million dollars for someone to be a “deep throat” and reveal the deception of Obama WH as well as Lois Lerners emails (high tech hacker could find em).

soapyjeans on June 30, 2014 at 9:05 PM

That’s really peanuts, a mid-level job with a schedule federal salary and benefits and pension is worth much more than a million dollars over a typical career.

Start at ten million, for the emails of Lerner and the other six.

slickwillie2001 on June 30, 2014 at 10:03 PM

I am NOT hoping for a series of “unfortunately” spaced concrete steps to split jim56′s head like a melon. The infirmities of aging NOT covered by “ACA” tend to hit selfish a-holes like that like a falling cube of bricks.

S. D. on June 30, 2014 at 10:14 PM

Tons of comments but…. for crying out loud, birth control pills are cheap. Considering over half the USA believes life begins at conception, can these lefties take on a bit of personal responsibility and prevent the pregnancy in the first place? Do they want mama govt to tell them everything they can do? Grow up.

MN J on June 30, 2014 at 10:28 PM

The left loses their minds over Hobby Lobby decision

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ward Cleaver on June 30, 2014 at 10:31 PM

I don’t like Hobby Lobby, but not because of this. I’ve only been in a couple of their storea, but they didn’t have any signs over the aisles telling me where anything was. I had walk around and around, or try to find an employee to tell where to find something. Ain’t nobody got time for that!

But, I’m with them on this decision.

Ward Cleaver on June 30, 2014 at 10:35 PM

It seems that basically what the left is saying is that preserving the employer mandate is more important than the 1st Amendment.

Reggie1971 on June 30, 2014 at 10:55 PM

for crying out loud, birth control pills are cheap. Considering over half the USA believes life begins at conception, can these lefties take on a bit of personal responsibility and prevent the pregnancy in the first place?

MN J on June 30, 2014 at 10:28 PM

nope.

pc253 on June 30, 2014 at 10:56 PM

for crying out loud, birth control pills are cheap. Considering over half the USA believes life begins at conception, can these lefties take on a bit of personal responsibility and prevent the pregnancy in the first place?

MN J on June 30, 2014 at 10:28 PM

Price is not the issue with them. For libs it’s all about imposing their values on everyone else. Nobody is allowed to escape the plantation.

307wolverine on June 30, 2014 at 10:59 PM

I doubt I’ll ever even see a Hobby Lobby, or buy anything if I do.
Apply for a job, maybe.

S. D. on June 30, 2014 at 11:01 PM

We’re not back to the 2010 rule. Because now you have (for now) a narrowly-written Supreme Court decision that says closed for-profit corporations can practice religion. Prior laws generally said it was not permitted to discriminate against gays or on the basis of religion, but this new decision opens up a potential exception to the non-discrimination laws.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Corporate personhood has been recognised in one form or another in English common law for centuries and corporations have been deemed persons under the law (what is called a ‘legal fiction’) since 1819. In Trustees of Dartmouth College v Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819), the Court first recognised corporate personhood in American jurisprudence. The case arose when the president of Dartmouth College was deposed by its trustees, leading to the New Hampshire legislature attempting to force the College to become a public institution and thereby place the ability to appoint trustees in the hands of the governor. The Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the original charter (from King George III) of the College, which pre-dated the creation of the State. The decision settled the nature of public versus private charters and resulted in the rise of the American business corporation. This case, rightly, recognised the right of people to form corporations to contract for them.

Next, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with taxation of railroad properties. The case is most notable for the obiter dictum statement that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. At the California Constitutional Convention of 1878-79, the state legislature drew up a new constitution that denied railroads ‘the right to deduct the amount of their debts [i.e., mortgages] from the taxable value of their property, a right which was given to individuals.’ Southern Pacific Railroad Company refused to pay taxes under these new changes. The taxpaying railroads challenged this law, based on a conflicting federal statute of 1866 which gave them privileges inconsistent with state taxation.

The decision was unanimous.

And, while people claim that Justice Harlan did not actually mean to confer 14th Amendment rights upon corporations in Santa Clara, two years later, the Court quite clearly confirmed the doctrine in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181 (1888). In Pembina, the Court held that, pursuant to the Dictionary Act, enacted in 1871, which instructed courts to apply to all federal statute definitions of certain common words (including ‘person,’ which included corporations) and basic rules of grammatical construction (such as the rule that plural words include the singular) ‘unless context indicates otherwise.’ The Court held that: ‘Under the designation of ‘person’ there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution.’ Since 1888, the doctrine recognising the putative, albeit legal fiction of corporate personhood, has been reaffirmed on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court.

Through the Doctrine of Incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protects the citizenry from state and local governments, as well as the Federal government. Because of Pembina, corporations have the same rights, for the plus part, under the Bill of Rights that individuals possess.

Does it make any sense that a corporation a/k/a a person under the law would not have Fifth Amendment protection against the unconstitutional and uncompensated taking of its property? Does anyone want to argue that corporations lack Fourth Amendment protections?

Corporations, like unions, avail themselves of the First Amendment rights of assembly, association, and the right to petition their government for the redress of grievances. Does anyone want to argue that The New York Times, a corporation, doesn’t have freedom of the press rights under the First Amendment? If corporations, unions, and The New York Times have the protections conferred by the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth clauses of the First Amendment, but, somehow, someway lack the right clearly stated in the second clause of the First Amendment?

I understand that the Left, at least as far as they are willing to even acknowledge the primacy of the Constitution can best be called ‘Cafeteria Constitutionalists.’ None would ever argue that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eight Amendments of the Bill of Right are individual, not collective rights. However, when it comes to the Second Amendment, the Left finds the one amendment of the Bill of Rights that is not based upon individual rights. They are, of course, quite wrong when the words of the Founding Fathers are, once again, reiterated, but their tendency to pick and choose which rights are individual or collective is further revealed with respect to corporations.

Unions are a form of corporation; yet, no Leftist worth his Che shirt would ever argue that they lack First Amendment rights; however, these same champions of liberty would prohibit another association of free-born individuals, the corporation, from being entitled to the exact same rights that those, who screamed ‘This is what democracy looks like!’ in Madison, Wisconsin, claimed for themselves – correctly.

Corporations Aren’t People, But Trees Are!

Resist We Much on June 30, 2014 at 11:16 PM

These people are freaking nutz!

MCGIRV on June 30, 2014 at 11:24 PM

Corporations Aren’t People, But Trees Are!

Resist We Much on June 30, 2014 at 11:16 PM

So is GE now going to ask for the right to vote? It’s been in existence more than 21 years.

(Good article, by the way).

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 11:28 PM

southpaw @nycsouthpaw
Follow
“So as not to insult Allah, this accounting firm requires that all female employees wear the hijab.”
This wins as stupid tweet of the day.. The apt comparison is a female employee saying I want to were a hijab, and the company must pay for my hijabs….

dugbru on June 30, 2014 at 11:41 PM

No. The Supreme Court got it wrong. For profit corporations of any type (closely held or publicly traded or in between) can’t practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Good Lord, you are dense. You’re making a false, and 1A impinging distinction. You really hate the First Amendment, don’t you?

Buck Farky on June 30, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Good grief, don’t you understand that there is no such thing as private property? Everything serves the Borg collective. Soon we will overturn the 3rd and 4th Amendments so we can enter your so-called private residence at any time and make sure you are not practicing religion. Of course, we’ll have to dismantle the 2nd Amendment so you can’t resist the assimilation.

John the Libertarian on July 1, 2014 at 12:37 AM

Breaking: Women Now Free To Choose Own Birth Control

faraway on June 30, 2014 at 12:55 PM

That’s the attitude! Just call them “funtraceptives” and all is well!

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2014 at 12:39 AM

So is GE now going to ask for the right to vote? It’s been in existence more than 21 years.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 11:28 PM

I’m not sure what “21 years” has to do with it, but it would be consistent with progressive philosophy.

malclave on July 1, 2014 at 12:52 AM

So is this simply because you disagree with their morals and politics, or is it because they’ve embarrassed Obama?

rogerb on June 30, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Their “morals” are to force their faith on anyone they have power over. They’re theocrats, plain and simple.

See the right has tried to cast this as the Government bully against the tiny christian family, but that’s always been BS. This is about an employer feeling they have the right to dictate to employees based on the employers faith.

Seriously, screw the green family.

Tlaloc on June 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM

It is impressive how you manage to write in English without understanding the meanings of half the words.

Like theocrat. And force. And dictate.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2014 at 1:12 AM

First off, abstaining from the activity is free.

ajacksonian on June 30, 2014 at 3:34 PM

It would reflect a more enlightened and reality based view of the issue if one was to abstain from this as an argument.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 3:41 PM

That’s a weird comment. I mean, what ajacksonian said is true: abstaining from the activity is free.

And you would really think a true statement would be the very epitome of “reality-based.”

It’s almost like you have your own little language, where words have totally different meanings.

While we’re at it, why would true statements not be enlightening?

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2014 at 1:32 AM

Yes. My understanding is that most churches are non-profit corporations.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM

So, is there an exemption in the First Amendment which applies to non-profit religious organizations only? I submit that the First Amendment mentions nothing about profit or non-profit natures of religious practitioners.

That a First Amendment right can apply to a for-profit corporation is obvious — consider newspapers, which are for the most part for-profit corporations well protected by the First Amendment.

Furthermore, consider that any such restriction to nonprofit organizations would limit a person’s religious life such that, while engaged in business, they cannot live their faith.

In the moment that the Democrats crafted an exemption to the ACA for religious organizations, they created an establishment of religion. This decision rectifies that error, and, in addition, indicates that the Supreme Court considers the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to be fully Constitutional.

Expect more where this came from.

unclesmrgol on July 1, 2014 at 1:58 AM

I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby
jim56

Don’t you worry little jimmie, we just bought an armoire from Hobby Lobby today and plan to go back next week for a set of bar stools for the kitchen island.

We’ll take up the slack for ya!

Might watch out for the threats though, not that hard to find out where you live, brah.

8thAirForce on July 1, 2014 at 3:23 AM

It would reflect a more enlightened and reality based view of the issue if one was to abstain from this as an argument.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 3:41 PM

I would have thought that treating adults as adults, able to make their own decisions would be the enlightened view.

That adults can make personal cost/benefit analyses and then come to mutual agreement on types of precautions for birth control when they wanted it. Women are not the only ones who can practice birth control, and there are physical barrier methods that work quite well when couples wish to engage in recreational procreational activity. In fact, with multiple drug resistant diseases and AIDS, one would think that barriers and knowing your partner’s health would be an extreme and top priority for those engaging in such behavior.

Yet we do not call for the subsidized distribution of those items, which can have a very valuable health reason behind their purchase beyond mere recreational activity.

I am an advocate for adults knowing their sexual partners, engaging in safe sexual activity, not withholding their disease status to intimate partners and putting the onus for purchase of an extremely low cost pharmaceutical upon those wishing to engage in such activity and use it as a secondary means of birth control for those with partners of unknown disease status, and a primary one only when partners know the health history of their partner, do not wish to utilize physical barrier methods and are willing to risk the altering of the body chemistry of one of the partners using a systemic pharmaceutical that may have adverse reactions both psychologically and physically to the individual using them.

And if a couple or even a single woman cannot pay for such meager birth control pharmaceuticals, there are concerns both public and private, that will hand them out at a reduced cost or even for free.

Why any company should subsidize that if they have moral problems with birth control that is held by the owners, is beyond me. And if the argument is that companies shouldn’t be deciding THIS aspect of health care then it must be expanded to ALL ASPECTS OF IT. Stop subsidizing any and all company health care plans and stop telling them what to put in them, and do not penalize them if they do not offer one with strings attached that some companies will find objectionable.

I advocate personal responsibility.

Less enforcement of government edicts on companies and individuals.

And the expectation that adults will be able to make sound decisions on their own.

I’m sorry if your ‘reality’ does not have these as features. When you support bad behavior by covering for it and then offering to subsidize it you will get more of it.

I am against that.

The cost to the individual is not worth the price that society and the Nation must pay to support bad behavior choices and seeking to normalize them and support them via enforced subsidies. The end result of this is loss of freedom and expansion of tyranny.

And I damned well stand against that.

ajacksonian on July 1, 2014 at 6:38 AM

Fewer unplanned pregnancies is good for shrinking the size of the welfare state in particular.

libfreeordie on June 30, 2014 at 3:21 PM

If you want to shrink the welfare state, you beast, why not simply euthanize those on welfare now?

zoyclem on July 1, 2014 at 7:55 AM

Fewer unplanned pregnancies is good for shrinking the size of the welfare state in particular.
 
libfreeordie on June 30, 2014 at 3:21 PM

 
And we once again,
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/09/benghazi-whats-new/comment-page-3/#comment-6967160
 
as we always do,
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/26/obama-on-climate-change-how-about-these-anti-science-conspiracy-theorists-in-congress-amirite/comment-page-2/#comment-8241825
 
see the (D) habit of lying about whatever they need to
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/18/hagels-host-for-2007-rutgers-speech-linked-to-iranian-front-group/comment-page-1/#comment-6734442
 
if they think it will help them in that single moment. Here’s the truth:
 

Thousands. All the caseworkers, free lunch program coordinators, social workers, etc. The poor keep the state and federal government workers very employed.
 
portlandon on February 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM

 
We must be related. I’ve argued that for years in regards to the university setting (think of all the social work departments across the country and the related admin, IT, book-publishing, etc.). Like the drug war, we’ve embraced it as a solid corner of our fed/state/local financial foundations and neither our economy or our employment numbers can tolerate us solving the “problem”.
 
rogerb on February 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM

 
But why are those jobs worse for the economy than private sector jobs. Its not like the private sector actually produces anything in this country anymore. Its just a question of different types of service providers.
 
libfreeordie
on February 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM
 
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/02/05/romney-on-the-poor-even-worse-in-context/comment-page-2/#comment-1786236

 
The thread died immediately after, of course.

rogerb on July 1, 2014 at 8:19 AM

I am quite literally drunk on their tears.

Delicious.

Eric in Hollywood on July 1, 2014 at 8:46 AM

CW on June 30, 2014 at 6:20 PM

I understand the sentiment. And I don’t have a strong cause to suggest you may be wrong. But, I would suggest you not sink to the levels of Verb, Jim and Lib – leave the judging to God.

I do find it highly comical that the progressives feel that adults cannot fend for themselves and that asking them to purchase birth control at nominal cost – most of which HL does cover by the way –
is somehow an attack.

Our capitalist system has made us so rich that the left no longer thinks. History is full of examples of nations that decided to ignore the fundamentals of society that led them to great wealth. The left squanders this hard earned fortune on nothing – and leave waste and despair in their wake. Just look at the progressive utopia of Detroit, the state of Illinois (Chicago look out – your finances aren’t much better than when Detroit sank) and the increasing number of cities and some states that have essentially bankrupted themeselves both culturally and financially.

I can accept that Verb, Jim and Lib may actually be real people with truly held prog doctrines. It is difficult to believe they have a full understanding of what they say they believe. And it is amazing they fail to realize the real danger their positions pose to our country.

Zomcon JEM on July 1, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8