LGBT groups dump ENDA after Hobby Lobby

posted at 8:41 am on July 9, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The Hobby Lobby case has produced some ridiculous hysteria and pronouncements, especially from lawmakers and Obama administration officials, and that may have just produced some significant backfire on their own side of the aisle. The White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill put a lot of effort into pushing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) on behalf of the LGBT community, a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination for a wide range of sexual-orientation categories. It passed the Senate with Republican votes that came after adding a clause that protected religious expression similar to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the statute on which the Hobby Lobby decision rests. At the time, LGBT groups thought this was so terrific that they challenged the House to take up the bill, and Democrats hoped to use the debate to fire up their base in the midterm elections.

After a week of sky-is-falling rhetoric over Hobby Lobby, though, the same LGBT groups that pushed ENDA now have disavowed it on the basis of the Hobby Lobby demagoguery:

Several major gay rights groups withdrew support Tuesday for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would bolster gay and transgender rights in the workplace, saying they fear that broad religious exemptions included in the current bill might compel private companies to begin citing objections similar to those that prevailed in a U.S. Supreme Court case last week.

The gay community is a key constituency and source of campaign donations for Democrats, and calls to rewrite the most significant gay rights legislation considered in recent years is a major setback for the White House, which had used passage of the legislation last fall as a way to draw a contrast with House Republicans, who have refused to vote on the measure.

But the groups said they can no longer back ENDA as currently written in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last week to strike down a key part of President Obama’s health-care law. The court ruled that family-owned businesses do not have to offer their employees contraceptive coverage that conflicts with the owners’ religious beliefs.

Let’s see how many Chicken Littleisms we can pack into a paragraph, shall we?

Rea Carey, the group’s executive director, said in an interview that “If a private company can take its own religious beliefs and say you can’t have access to certain health care, it’s a hop, skip and a jump to an interpretation that a private company could have religious beliefs that LGBT people are not equal or somehow go against their beliefs and therefore fire them. We disagree with that trend. The implications of Hobby Lobby are becoming clear.”

“We do not take this move lightly,” she added. “We’ve been pushing for this bill for 20 years.”

If they’ve been working on this bill for 20 years, maybe they should have studied RFRA and the balancing tests applied to cases such as these. Contra the hysterics, RFRA and similar language does not give anyone carte blanche to violate the law and claim religious expression as the Get Out of Jail Free card. What it does do is require courts to determine whether a regulation or law (a) substantially burdens sincerely held religious belief, (b) serves a compelling state interest, and (c) is the least burdensome method of serving that compelling state interest.

The Hobby Lobby case rested on a finding that (a) was true and (c) was obviously false, since HHS had offered other “accommodations” to other organizations (even though the 5-4 decision did not state that the accommodation actually satisfied (c) either). They never got around to addressing (b) in a definitive manner, but note Carey’s allegation that the court said that “you can’t have access to certain health care.” That’s not at all what the issue was; it was whether Hobby Lobby could be forced to provide contraception when it substantially burdens the religious practice of its owners. There is no limitation on access to contraception as a result of Hobby Lobby, and never was. Furthermore, the Alito decision made clear that this was only in regard to contraception, and not vaccinations or blood transfusions or other “health care,” which gives a hint of what the court thought about (b).

In the case of employment discrimination, though, courts have routinely ruled that government has a compelling interest in ensuring equal treatment regardless of religious beliefs, even those sincerely held. In fact, they have ruled that way even on commerce discrimination, most recently in the case of the bakers and photographers who didn’t want to participate in same-sex weddings. Statutory enforcement such as that in ENDA has been commonly considered the least-burdensome method of addressing that compelling interest. Hobby Lobby didn’t change a single stroke of that precedent. Even if the exemption clause in ENDA is broader than that in RFRA, the overall thrust of the statute and intent of Congress in passing it would still move the LGBT lobby’s goal forward on the ground first, and probably in courts, too — which would still end up having to do the same kind of balancing test that RFRA requires, using existing precedent.

This is a case of hysteria backfire. The White House and Democrats are now left without an easy talking point in the midterms and a way to turn out their base, largely on the basis of their own demagoguery over Hobby Lobby.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

No more taxpayer money for AIDS. It’s 100% preventable.

ConstantineXI on July 9, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Apparently the LGBT group expects the next step to be branding of their foreheads with a symbol so they will be identified when they walk among us?

katiejane on July 9, 2014 at 8:48 AM

Not surprising. After all, 5 Lawgivers-In-Black can do the “save the liberals/kill the Christians” parsing a lot better than Congress.

Steve Eggleston on July 9, 2014 at 8:50 AM

This is not about truth or even passing legislation.
It’s about firing up low information liberals with scare tactics. It’s been done successfully with blacks for years to turn out the vote. It used to work well with Seniors by saying the GOP would cut Medicare and Social Security.
They are simply expanding the tactic to other low information minority groups.
It’s not about truth at all. They know better.
Tossing this legislation overboard is no biggie. It wasn’t going anywhere anyway.

Curmudgeon on July 9, 2014 at 8:50 AM

If these guys want to be accepted as “normal” then they should just get a life and leave us the hell alone.

jmtham156 on July 9, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Drama Queens…

dpduq on July 9, 2014 at 8:50 AM

5 white guys destroyed Utopia!!!!!!

Electrongod on July 9, 2014 at 8:50 AM

So homosexuals need birth control? Alrighty then.

hillsoftx on July 9, 2014 at 8:51 AM

But the groups said they can no longer back ENDA

dude, this is too funny!

beselfish on July 9, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Border crisis, IRS, NSA, ISIS, bogus unemployment figures, rising debt, EPA, rockets in Israel, …

Oh look another gay squirrel.

batterup on July 9, 2014 at 8:55 AM

So homosexuals need birth control? Alrighty then.

hillsoftx on July 9, 2014 at 8:51 AM

Very sharp.

jmtham156 on July 9, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Several major gay rights special treatment groups withdrew support Tuesday

FIFT

DethMetalCookieMonst on July 9, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Their irrationality has turned on them. Like it eventually does.

22044 on July 9, 2014 at 8:57 AM

they fear that broad religious exemptions included in the current bill might compel private companies to begin citing objections similar to those that prevailed in a U.S. Supreme Court case last week.

This sentence does not make sense. Broad religious exemptions would COMPEL private companies to “discriminate” against the gays?????? As opposed to what, jack-booted thuggery from the EEOC that would compel companies with religious objections to pay for gender re-assignment or whatever else these freaks demand is normal behavior?

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 8:57 AM

The White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill put a lot of effort into pushing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) Sue If I Do Not Get Hired Act (SIIDNGHA) on behalf of the LGBT community, a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination for a wide range of sexual-orientation categories.

FIFT

DethMetalCookieMonst on July 9, 2014 at 8:58 AM

5 white guys destroyed Utopia!!!!!!

Electrongod on July 9, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Clarence Thomas is white? Or did I miss Ginsberg’s vote?

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 8:58 AM

If Boehner were smart, he’d immediately schedule a vote on ENDA and put these groups as well as Dems in a bind.

changer1701 on July 9, 2014 at 9:00 AM

These people will never be satisfied. They are freaking nuts.

gophergirl on July 9, 2014 at 9:00 AM

More proof that unlike every actual civil rights movement in history, the homosexual privilege movement is about shrinking the rights and livelihoods of anyone who would cross them. They don’t want liberty – they want state endorsement and control over any dissidents.

BKennedy on July 9, 2014 at 9:00 AM

it’s a hop, skip and a jump to an interpretation that a private company could have religious beliefs that LGBT people are not equal or somehow go against their beliefs and therefore fire them.

Sorta like how that guy was run out of Mozilla? Hypocrites!

LancerDL on July 9, 2014 at 9:00 AM

If a private company can take its own religious beliefs and say you can’t have access to certain health care, it’s a hop, skip and a jump to an interpretation that a private company could have religious beliefs that LGBT people are not equal or somehow go against their beliefs and therefore fire them.

That sounds like he is saying it’s a slippery slope and we all know that doesn’t exist. The gay people who once told us all they wanted was tolerance told us so.

Grammar Nazi on July 9, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Rea Carey, the group’s executive director, said in an interview that “If a private company can take its own religious beliefs and say you can’t have access to certain health care, it’s a hop, skip and a jump to an interpretation that a private company could have religious beliefs that LGBT people are not equal or somehow go against their beliefs and therefore fire them. We disagree with that trend. The implications of Hobby Lobby are becoming clear.”

“We do not take this move lightly,” she added. “We’ve been pushing for this bill for 20 years.”

Remember when the left would laugh at us in regards to “gay marriage” and the slippery slope? Yeah, something tells me they’ll “forget” that inconvinient truth.

DethMetalCookieMonst on July 9, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Ridiculous. Alito made it clear that they weren’t opening the floodgates to discrimination, and, in his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy clearly stated that the decision is narrow and that he views the contraception problem as something different from the other employment issues. Hobby Lobby had nothing to do with ENDA.

DisneyFan on July 9, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Clarence Thomas is white? Or did I miss Ginsberg’s vote?

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 8:58 AM

Harry Reid thinks so

Electrongod on July 9, 2014 at 9:01 AM

I just scanned the Drudge headlines.

The world is just about ready to explode.

davidk on July 9, 2014 at 9:02 AM

Obligatory.

Bmore on July 9, 2014 at 9:03 AM

The White House and Democrats are now left without an easy talking point in the midterms and a way to turn out their base, largely on the basis of their own demagoguery over Hobby Lobby.

I think you have this completely wrong, Ed. Americans used to understand the importance of religious liberty, but I’m not so sure that’s the case anymore. Too large a slice of the voting public is easily ‘demagogued’ on issues like this, and the talking points are alive and well. Facts be damned.

Ricard on July 9, 2014 at 9:04 AM

The implications of Hobby Lobby are becoming clear.”

No, mass hysteria over a simple decision that does not affect anyone’s “rights” is becoming clear.

Johnnyreb on July 9, 2014 at 9:05 AM

The Founding Fathers forgot to put the part in the Constitution about free contraceptives. They probably thought people should handle that stuff themselves.

Dongemaharu on July 9, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Harry Reid thinks so

Electrongod on July 9, 2014 at 9:01 AM

https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/486568950533066753/photo/1

davidk on July 9, 2014 at 9:05 AM

That sounds like he is saying it’s a slippery slope and we all know that doesn’t exist. The gay people who once told us all they wanted was tolerance told us so.

Grammar Nazi on July 9, 2014 at 9:00 AM

That’s still all the gays want. But like the atheists, gays definition is tolerance is shut up and hold the same views I did or you are an intolerant bigot. For them gay is more than a lifestyle choice and you better not honor their demands or be subjected to lawsuits.

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Ridiculous. Alito made it clear that they weren’t opening the floodgates to discrimination, and, in his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy clearly stated that the decision is narrow and that he views the contraception problem as something different from the other employment issues. Hobby Lobby had nothing to do with ENDA.

DisneyFan on July 9, 2014 at 9:01 AM

+1

22044 on July 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM

What it does do is require courts to determine whether a regulation or law (a) substantially burdens sincerely held religious belief,

Honestly Ed, how can the Court claim there’s any kind of clear bright line or test for “sincerity.” And if sincerity is the test, doesn’t it become relevant that Hobby Lobby purchases goods from China, a nation with a horrific record on abortion? Doesn’t it matter that their mutual funds invest in companies that manufacture abortificants? Why isn’t that a reflection of the insincerity of their beliefs? Why is it that we’re only allowed to examine the very small purview of their willingness to offer Plan B. This language necessarily *invites* investigation into if “family run businesses” are sincere in the convictions they are using to avoid regulation. Is that what conservatives really want?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM

You never did say what bothers you the most.

Hmmm, BM’s a nasty piece of work, I doubt this happened the way people say. Receipts?

libfreeordie on June 24, 2014 at 11:06 PM

Well slave?

Bmore on July 9, 2014 at 9:09 AM

That sounds like he is saying it’s a slippery slope and we all know that doesn’t exist. The gay people who once told us all they wanted was tolerance told us so.

Grammar Nazi on July 9, 2014 at 9:00 AM

That’s still all the gays want. But like the atheists, gays definition is tolerance is shut up and hold the same views I did or you are an intolerant bigot. For them gay is more than a lifestyle choice and you better not honor their demands or be subjected to lawsuits.

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Like the dhimmicRAT definition of compromise.

davidk on July 9, 2014 at 9:10 AM

They hate the First Amendment. They push the government into an area it doesn’t belong and then cry foul when it infringes on a Constitutional right. They are infringing on the separation of Church and State, but act as if it were the other way around.

Buck Farky on July 9, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Contra the hysterics, RFRA and similar language individual rights and free markets does not give anyone carte blanche to violate the law and claim religious free and autonomous expression as the Get Out of Jail Free card. What it does do is require courts to determine whether a regulation or law (a) substantially burdens sincerely held religious belief violates the rights of individuals, (b) serves a compelling state interest and supports the cause of freedom and free markets, and (c) is the least burdensome a non-coercive method of serving that compelling state interest.

RFRA for the smallest minority. The individual.

beselfish on July 9, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Why would anyone use a Grace Jones video as an insult…weird.

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:11 AM

The headlines write themselves.

“Gays Ditch ENDA Due to Fears That the Passing of It May Infact F**k Them in the @$$”

DethMetalCookieMonst on July 9, 2014 at 9:12 AM

There is no limitation on access to contraception as a result of Hobby Lobby, and never was.

I’m trying to figure out just when access to contraception became the most compelling issue of this generation. Never mind the invasion of our southern border by disease-ridden parasites. The fact that the Middle East is imploding with missiles raining down on Israel along with new geography in Iraq and Syria. Lousy employment numbers. The increased threat of a terrorist attack in this nation………

Forget all that. The only thing that matters is if some homosexual has to pay for his own contraception or if it is a right of employment. AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT SEES THE ABSURDITY IN THE LEFT’S PRIORITIES?

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 9:12 AM

So, they are saving it up for a campaign issue.

I can see the debate now, we better just not go to their debates this time.

George Stephanopolis: You and your party want to take away contraceptives, put women in shackles during pregnancy labor and delivery, and force people to live in your religious world and want to legislate “hate” against gays and transgendered people! You want women and others to die.

Ted Cruz: Huh?

Marco Rubio: Que?

Paul Ryan: uh,

Rand Paul: Is that a question?

Sarah Palin: Is this question about the Islamic World?

Fleuries on July 9, 2014 at 9:12 AM

How long will it be before liberalism is classified as a genetic disorder and therefore eligible for protected class status?

Armed Texan on July 9, 2014 at 9:13 AM

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Just like the President doesn’t get to decide when the Senate is out of session, you don’t get to determine someone’s sincerity. The court determined their sincerity on this issue to be sufficient.

Buck Farky on July 9, 2014 at 9:15 AM

The Founding Fathers forgot to put the part in the Constitution about free contraceptives. They probably thought people should handle that stuff themselves.

Dongemaharu on July 9, 2014 at 9:05 AM

If they ever considered reproduction, the Founders probably thought normal married couples WANTED children.

Wait…reproduction and normal

reproduction and married

reproduction and couples

Maybe the actual problem lies not with the Supreme Court but with whom is doing that whole reproductive leads-to-babies activity thingie.

Dolce Far Niente on July 9, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Ted Cruz:

Speaking to CP Insider on Tuesday, Cruz said he’s “confident that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to strike down the contraceptive mandate.”

Cruz also expressed his support for Hobby Lobby Inc., an Oklahoma-based company whose owners are opposed to having to pay for four types of birth control (two types of IUDs, and Plan B and EllaOne), under Obamacare’s employer mandate, or pay $1.3 million in fines each day.

Hobby Lobby does provide insurance that covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives that the HHS mandate requires under Obamacare, but its owners have religious objections to providing coverage for items they believe destroy human life.

“Under Obamacare, the Obama administration has granted exemptions for big business, its granted exemptions for members of Congress, its granted exemptions for those who walk the corridors of power,” Cruz told CP in an exclusive interview.

“And yet, it is denying that same fair treatment to those who are practicing their religious faith. That is contrary to the law, its contrary to the Constitution. The question in this case is whether the American government can force Americans to violate the dictates of their faith,” Cruz added. “Under the Constitution, under the First Amendment, under centuries of our tradition the answer is ‘no.’”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ted-cruz-supreme-court-will-strike-down-contraception-mandate-116843/

davidk on July 9, 2014 at 9:19 AM

What it does do is require courts to determine whether a regulation or law (a) substantially burdens sincerely held religious belief, (b) serves a compelling state interest, and (c) is the least burdensome method of serving that compelling state interest.

Yeah, because I certainly want the courts to be able to determine whether or not my religious belief is “sincerely held.” How ludicrous.

Shump on July 9, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Jyou don’t get to determine someone’s sincerity. The court determined their sincerity on this issue to be sufficient.

Buck Farky on July 9, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Oh I see. So a political movement that rails against being ruled by the tyranny of non-elected judges in every other instance is confident that they have some magical test for “sincerity” that the rest of us don’t have? Which aspect of their legal training prepares them to determine the “sincerity” of another person’s religious belief, outside of telepathy?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:19 AM

If Boehner were smart, he’d immediately schedule a vote on ENDA and put these groups as well as Dems in a bind.

changer1701 on July 9, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Absolutely not. ENDA is a horrible legislation and it would lead to open season on businesses for the trial lawyers.

IE: you would not be able to pass over hiring the most disgusting, openly flaming type of gay to face the public in your store, for example.

ConstantineXI on July 9, 2014 at 9:19 AM

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Its intended as a compliment. Say, you really aren’t too bright are you? So, what bothers you the most?

Bmore on July 9, 2014 at 9:19 AM

I have half a notion to Bake a Cake.

ToddPA on July 9, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Yeah, because I certainly want the courts to be able to determine whether or not my religious belief is “sincerely held.” How ludicrous.

Shump on July 9, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Apparently, trusting that the Courts are able to ascertain your sincerity is the new thing among American conservatives. Isn’t that what the Moral Majority was all about?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Which aspect of their legal training prepares them to determine the “sincerity” of another person’s religious belief, outside of telepathy?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:19 AM

You do that daily with one’s views on Race.

ToddPA on July 9, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Apparently, trusting that the Courts are able to ascertain your sincerity is the new thing among American conservatives. Isn’t that what the Moral Majority was all about?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:20 AM

The only thing conservatives want from the courts and government in general is to be left alone.

Which, of course, meddling liberal types absolutely cannot tolerate.

ConstantineXI on July 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM

ibfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Dadgum, you’re clueless.

kingsjester on July 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Sarah Palin (two years ago):

Yes, very poor politics that they would choose such a battle. One, to pick a fight with faith-filled Americans. You know, we will fight — as the father had said earlier on the “Hannity” show, we’ll fight to the death for our freedom of religion and for the rights that are protected by our United States Constitution.

This is an un-American act of our president. Anything that would so blatantly violate an amendment within the United States Constitution is un-American. And Barack Obama needs to rethink what he has just done to the people of America because we’re rising up on this one. We’re not going to back off and we’re not going to say OK, it is all right that such a violation of conscience, such a violation of those things that our Founders fought and died for — we’re just going sit back and let it happen to us. Not this time!

davidk on July 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Dolce Far Niente on July 9, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Good point. They probably never dreamed of marriage ever involving anyone besides a man and a woman.

Dongemaharu on July 9, 2014 at 9:24 AM

This language necessarily *invites* investigation into if “family run businesses” are sincere in the convictions they are using to avoid regulation. Is that what conservatives really want?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Careful what you demand there sport. Why don’t we investigate COSTCO for violations of the First Amendment when they pull books for the simple reason it doesn’t fit the left’s agenda.

I’ve got to think that it is more than mere coincidence that COSTCO’s website is down the morning after they attacked conservative thought.

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 9:24 AM

Marco Rubio:

“The Obama Administration’s obsession with forcing mandates on the American people has now reached a new low by violating the conscience rights and religious liberties of our people,” said Rubio, a Florida Republican.

davidk on July 9, 2014 at 9:24 AM

Rand Paul:

Paul issued a statement saying the court “ruled in favor of religious freedom.”

“Religious liberty will remain intact and all Americans can stay true to their faith without fear of big government intervention or punishment,” the senator, who is contemplating a run for president in 2016, said. “Our nation was founded on the principle of freedom, and with this decision, America will continue to serve as a safe haven for those looking to exercise religious liberty.”

davidk on July 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM

The only thing conservatives want from the courts and government in general is to be left alone.

Which, of course, meddling liberal types absolutely cannot tolerate.

ConstantineXI on July 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM

But lib does make a good point. Why would we want courts to decide religious sincerity? But that’s one of the blow backs that may happen. It’s possible.

But I guess that would be acceptable if it’s a matter of standing our ground and sticking to our beliefs.

Walter L. Newton on July 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM

The Founding Fathers forgot to put the part in the Constitution about free contraceptives. They probably thought people should handle that stuff themselves.

Dongemaharu on July 9, 2014 at 9:05 AM

I see what you did there… o_O

JetBoy on July 9, 2014 at 9:27 AM

So, they are saving it up for a campaign issue.

I can see the debate now, we better just not go to their debates this time.

George Stephanopolis: You and your party want to take away contraceptives, put women in shackles during pregnancy labor and delivery, and force people to live in your religious world and want to legislate “hate” against gays and transgendered people! You want women and others to die.

Ted Cruz: Huh?

Marco Rubio: Que?

Paul Ryan: uh,

Rand Paul: Is that a question?

Sarah Palin: Is this question about the Islamic World?

blah blah blah

Fleuries on July 9, 2014 at 9:12 AM

davidk on July 9, 2014 at 9:27 AM

Apparently, trusting that the Courts are able to ascertain your sincerity is the new thing among American conservatives. Isn’t that what the Moral Majority was all about?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Wow, that’s some weapons-grade stupid right there.

Liberals are constantly given an out for their actions with the idea that “their heart was in the right place.” On that justification NOW excused the fact that Bill Clinton is a serial rapist whose inter-office antics with a slutty intern went against everything NOW supposedly stood for.

But for whatever reason, the left isn’t willing to concede that conservative business owners might have sincere beliefs too. Just not values that you’d find at a gay pride orgy.

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 9:28 AM

The only thing conservatives want from the courts and government in general is to be left alone.

Which, of course, meddling liberal types absolutely cannot tolerate.

ConstantineXI on July 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Then you should be concerned about this ruling. But whatever, you’re one of the lower watt bulbs around this place, you won’t get it.

Careful what you demand there sport. Why don’t we investigate COSTCO for violations of the First Amendment when they pull books for the simple reason it doesn’t fit the left’s agenda.

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 9:24 AM

So wait, now a business is *compelled* to sell products because otherwise it violates the author’s First Amendment rights?
1. How is that at all related to the Hobby Lobby decision vis a vis “sincerely held beliefs.”

2. It’s a constitutional right to sell your product? Think again before you type…

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Think again before you type…

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Your non reply is telling. I’ll ask again. What bothers you the most?

Bmore on July 9, 2014 at 9:29 AM

The sincerity objection is stupid. Courts have been dealing with that for years when it comes to other issues.

DisneyFan on July 9, 2014 at 9:30 AM

2. It’s a constitutional right to sell your product? Think again before you type…

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Health care and birth control are constitutional rights?

darwin on July 9, 2014 at 9:31 AM

So LGBT groups are confirming that their advancing agenda infringes on other people’s right to freedom of religion. Huh. Thanks for confirming what we already know, I guess.

cptacek on July 9, 2014 at 9:31 AM

And if sincerity is the test, doesn’t it become relevant that Hobby Lobby purchases goods from China, a nation with a horrific record on abortion? Doesn’t it matter that their mutual funds invest in companies that manufacture abortificants?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM

No, it isn’t relevant. Work less hard to invent straw men and more on understanding others’ points of view (a.k.a ‘tolerance’) and you might start to ‘get it.’

Ricard on July 9, 2014 at 9:31 AM

I have half a notion to Bake a Cake.

ToddPA on July 9, 2014 at 9:20 AM

You can always do what libfreeordie does. Half bake it.

Bmore on July 9, 2014 at 9:31 AM

“We want to be live everyone else, now give us special rights only we can have.”

Bishop on July 9, 2014 at 9:32 AM

But for whatever reason, the left isn’t willing to concede that conservative business owners might have sincere beliefs too. Just not values that you’d find at a gay pride orgy.

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Of course conservative business owners have sincere beliefs, the question is *what* are those beliefs and are they Christian? For example:
1. Hobby Lobby buys products from China, whose record on abortion is clear.
2. Hobby Lobby mutual funds include corporations who manufacture and sell abortificants.
3. Hobby Lobby claims it’s sincerely held religious beliefs make being forced to subsidize Plan B a burden.

How can all 3 of these things be true?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Wasn’t the payment of 16 out of 20 contraceptives a sign of good faith?

Cindy Munford on July 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM

And if sincerity is the test, doesn’t it become relevant that Hobby Lobby purchases goods from China, a nation with a horrific record on abortion?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM

So in your opinion, should they purchase only from US companies? In the US, only 50 million innocent babies have been slaughtered since RoevWade, so our record is really good, right?

In fact, shouldn’t all abortion opposition actually move out of this country to prove our sincerity? There’s a thought.

Really, can we start inspecting YOUR life for insincerity, Mr. Ideologue? Checked your retirement and mutual funds for investments in say- Russian or Middle Eastern countries where teh ghey lifestyle is still unwelcome? Something invested in Africa, where the black slave trade is still flourishing? How ’bout checking around the house for small appliances, clothes and shoes made in China, where gays are persecuted, children are forced to live in wageless slavery and Christians are martyred?

I’m sure someone as SINCERE as you has nothing with an offensive origin in your house.

Because, consistency/

Dolce Far Niente on July 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM

The only thing conservatives want from the courts and government in general is to be left alone.

Which, of course, meddling liberal types absolutely cannot tolerate.

ConstantineXI on July 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Then you should be concerned about this ruling. But whatever, you’re one of the lower watt bulbs around this place, you won’t get it.

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Sheesh…incredibly thick…this ruling as ALL ABOUT government leaving people alone.

Ricard on July 9, 2014 at 9:34 AM

But lib does make a good point. Why would we want courts to decide religious sincerity? But that’s one of the blow backs that may happen. It’s possible.

But I guess that would be acceptable if it’s a matter of standing our ground and sticking to our beliefs.

Walter L. Newton on July 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Sincerity isn’t part of the argument. The courts don’t have jurisdiction over religious sincerity because the Constitution denies them jurisdiction over religion period. So the court has no standing to EVALUATE sincerity, because the citizen or organization has an inalienable right to freely exercise their religion.

The federal government CANNOT establish a religion (that includes Obamaworship too) nor can it restrict the free exercise of religion.

The 13th Amendment outlaws slavery, so couple that with the 1st Amendment neither Congress nor the courts have the authority to compel people to violate their religious beliefs in involuntary servitude.

ConstantineXI on July 9, 2014 at 9:35 AM

A Prayer in Darkness
by G K Chesterton

This much, O heaven—if I should brood or rave,
Pity me not; but let the world be fed,
Yea, in my madness if I strike me dead,
Heed you the grass that grows upon my grave.

If I dare snarl between this sun and sod,
Whimper and clamour, give me grace to own,
In sun and rain and fruit in season shown,
The shining silence of the scorn of God.

Thank God the stars are set beyond my power,
If I must travail in a night of wrath,
Thank God my tears will never vex a moth,
Nor any curse of mine cut down a flower.

Men say the sun was darkened: yet I had
Thought it beat brightly, even on—Calvary:
And He that hung upon the Torturing Tree
Heard all the crickets singing, and was glad.

thelastminstrel on July 9, 2014 at 9:35 AM

No, it isn’t relevant.

Ricard on July 9, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Why isn’t it relevant? Hobby Lobby’s own argument is that the ACA violates their expression of religious freedom by mandating they subsidize abortificants like Plan B. How is subsidization a violation of religious beliefs when it comes to paying for employee’s abortificants, but *not* a violation of those beliefs when they direct money into companies that sell abortificants and acquire nearly all of their products from a nation deeply implicated in the advancement of abortion.

None of you actually can offer a response. You just say “you can’t understand.” Please. That’s avoidance and spin.

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:36 AM

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Son, you don’t understand the important differences between direct responsibility, indirect responsibility, & no responsibility.

Perhaps you should stick to professoring, if you’re good at that.

22044 on July 9, 2014 at 9:37 AM

The 13th Amendment outlaws slavery, so couple that with the 1st Amendment neither Congress nor the courts have the authority to compel people to violate their religious beliefs in involuntary servitude.

ConstantineXI on July 9, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Coming to a religion nearest you. Involuntary servitude. So, you’re cool with that?

Walter L. Newton on July 9, 2014 at 9:37 AM

1. Hobby Lobby buys products from China, whose record on abortion is clear.
2. Hobby Lobby mutual funds include corporations who manufacture and sell abortificants.
3. Hobby Lobby claims it’s sincerely held religious beliefs make being forced to subsidize Plan B a burden.

How can all 3 of these things be true?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Please give the specifics for points one and two, such as, with whom in China is Hobby Lobby contracting? Which mutual funds and companies are you referring to? How is the investment in said mutual funds structured?

Ricard on July 9, 2014 at 9:38 AM

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:36 AM

To borrow an analogy from a preferred radio host, explaining these matters to you would be like explaining Einstein to a small-necked clam.

22044 on July 9, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Dolce Far Niente on July 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Now you’ve done it. You will have it in a vapor lock. Nice going. ; )

Bmore on July 9, 2014 at 9:38 AM

That’s avoidance and spin.

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:36 AM

You would certainly know. So, what bothers you the most?

Bmore on July 9, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Then you should be concerned about this ruling. But whatever, you’re one of the lower watt bulbs around this place, you won’t get it.

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:28 AM

I wonder if he can do basic math, I mean being a dim bulb and all:

What part of “the federal government pays 100% of the costs and the state pays 10% of the cost in ten years” do you not understand?

libfreeordie on August 28, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Bishop on July 9, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Think again before you type…

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:28 AM

You’re pushing the idea that Hobby Lobby is insincere in their objections to four different kinds of contraception and should be compelled to provide stuff for the mere fact that it doesn’t offend YOUR morals (or lack thereof). You’d love to drag the Green family into prison if they don’t personally hand out Plan B on demand. You insist that govenment should compel them to act against their sincerely held beliefs.

Meanwhile you claim that COSTCO pulling a book for being too conservative is simply the free market at work. If you can’t see the hypocrisy in your own positions, there is no hope for that kind of stupidity….. bless your heart.

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Health care and birth control are constitutional rights?

darwin on July 9, 2014 at 9:31 AM

The Bill of Rights is a charter of negative rights, meaning that it limits government action. The argument isn’t whether health care and birth control are constitutional rights. The question is does the ACA violate the constitutional rights of others. I don’t have to prove that birth control is a constitutional right to argue that the state should subsidize it or mandate employers cover it. Try again.

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Careful what you demand there sport. Why don’t we investigate COSTCO for violations of the First Amendment when they pull books for the simple reason it doesn’t fit the left’s agenda.

I’ve got to think that it is more than mere coincidence that COSTCO’s website is down the morning after they attacked conservative thought.

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 9:24 AM

The Obamacare that ate the Costco website!

22044 on July 9, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Obligatory.

Bmore on July 9, 2014 at 9:03 AM

Damn you. I was only halfway through eating my breakfast. Please tell me how I can unsee that.

NOMOBO on July 9, 2014 at 9:42 AM

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Abortifacients (the BC methods HL won’t pay for) should be subsidized or paid for by employers?
Please, tell us all about that.

22044 on July 9, 2014 at 9:42 AM

I’m trying to figure out just when access to contraception became the most compelling issue of this generation. Never mind the invasion of our southern border by disease-ridden parasites. The fact that the Middle East is imploding with missiles raining down on Israel along with new geography in Iraq and Syria. Lousy employment numbers. The increased threat of a terrorist attack in this nation………

Forget all that. The only thing that matters is if some homosexual has to pay for his own contraception or if it is a right of employment. AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT SEES THE ABSURDITY IN THE LEFT’S PRIORITIES?

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 9:12 AM

it’s really not an important issue, and the left knows it. it’s not a problem. the left ACTS like it’s a problem, because they can use it as a “war on women!!!1111″ claim.

Sachiko on July 9, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Coming to a religion nearest you. Involuntary servitude. So, you’re cool with that?

Walter L. Newton on July 9, 2014 at 9:37 AM

The Constitution is a non exhaustive charter of individual liberties and an exhaustive charter of enumerated government authority.

IE: it is a partial list of your rights as an individual, but a COMPLETE list of the authority of government. Since slavery is prohibited, than that means muslims can’t bring their slaves to America and they remain slaves.

ConstantineXI on July 9, 2014 at 9:43 AM

No, it isn’t relevant.

Ricard on July 9, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Why isn’t it relevant?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Because in the Jeffersonian model, you are not the judge of the conscience of another. It’s clear that the government tried to force HL to pay for something they long opposed. The need for examination ends there. That you personally find conflict between that and another unrelated straw man is irrelevant. You’re simply trying to force Hobby Lobby to abandon their 1st Amendment rights and force your views on them.

Ricard on July 9, 2014 at 9:44 AM

How is subsidization a violation of religious beliefs when it comes to paying for employee’s abortificants, but *not* a violation of those beliefs when they direct money into companies that sell abortificants and acquire nearly all of their products from a nation deeply implicated in the advancement of abortion.

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:36 AM

When you find yourself in a hole, it is best to stop digging.

Happy Nomad on July 9, 2014 at 9:44 AM

So, per the narrative of these groups, they’re changing course. To what? More proactive? Implying they’ve been restrained in the past?

LOL. This ought to get good! Almost hoping they’ll go for broke. Best thing in the world to reveal to the public what mindless, self-absorbed, self-centered, anti-religious ideologues they truly are. May very well push back against them in the realm of public opinion.

lineholder on July 9, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Wasn’t the payment of 16 out of 20 contraceptives a sign of good faith?

Cindy Munford on July 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Good faith that their religious convictions are narrow enough that they won’t use them in other ways? Even if I concede that, the precedent set by the ruling doesn’t establish a criteria for “good faith” deployment of religiosity to avoid regulation. If you recall, Rick Warren has already attempted to use the decision to argue that groups who contract with the federal government should be allowed to discriminate in hiring based upon sincerely held religious belief.

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:47 AM

1. Hobby Lobby buys products from China, whose record on abortion is clear.
2. Hobby Lobby mutual funds include corporations who manufacture and sell abortificants.
3. Hobby Lobby claims it’s sincerely held religious beliefs make being forced to subsidize Plan B a burden.

How can all 3 of these things be true?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM

How does purchasing products direct from a manufacturer in China politically support the Chinese governments laws on abortion? Do these companies have some sort of fund that they send to the government to uphold abortion legislation?

Hobby Lobby’s employees are free to select the companies they would like to invest in through Hobby Lobby’s mutual fund plan. Not every one of the companies have something to do with the manufacture of certain birth control items.

You see, it’s called personal responsibility, a term that you have trouble coming to grips with.

Walter L. Newton on July 9, 2014 at 9:47 AM

libfreeordie on July 9, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Those religious groups have always that allowance to discriminate in its hiring practices. And that should not change.
Deal with it.

22044 on July 9, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4