ACLU: We’re only interested in protecting some civil rights

posted at 2:31 pm on June 27, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

Come on. How many will truly be surprised to see the American Civil Liberties Union backpedal away from an enumerated civil right in the Constitution, now that the cognoscenti considers it a form of bigotry?

The organization that once went to court to ensure that the American Nazi Party could parade through Skokie, Illinois in an exercise of free speech no longer wants to support the exercise of religion guaranteed in the same First Amendment. The ACLU’s deputy legal director published the organization’s backpedaling from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act the day before the Obergefell decision that will make it even more critical. If it’s not being used to help Muslims in prison and Native Americans in unemployment insurance, writes Louise Melling, just skip it:

The ACLU supported the RFRA’s passage at the time because it didn’t believe the Constitution, as newly interpreted by the Supreme Court, would protect people such as Iknoor Singh, whose religious expression does not harm anyone else. But we can no longer support the law in its current form. For more than 15 years, we have been concerned about how the RFRA could be used to discriminate against others. As the events of the past couple of years amply illustrate, our fears were well-founded. While the RFRA may serve as a shield to protect Singh, it is now often used as a sword to discriminate against women, gay and transgender people and others. Efforts of this nature will likely only increase should the Supreme Court rule — as is expected — that same-sex couples have the freedom to marry. …

Yes, religious freedom needs protection. But religious liberty doesn’t mean the right to discriminate or to impose one’s views on others.

That last declaration is rather curious, considering all of which precedes it in Melling’s argument. She decries its use in the Hobby Lobby case, despite the fact that the HHS contraception mandate is government explicitly imposing its views on the business owners in contradiction to their right to live their faith and their views on abortion and the nature of human life. Melling also objects to RFRA defenses for people like bakers and photographers who are being forced to either participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies that violate their religious tenets or pay massive fines to governments, and in some cases endure “sensitivity training” that forces the government’s views on private citizens. Melling also faults the Catholic Church for receiving government funds to reimburse its service to refugees without knuckling under to government edicts to endorse and facilitate abortions, cooperation with which would prompt excommunication automatically for Catholics.

All of these cases involve government imposing its ideas on citizens, not the other way around. Catholics aren’t physically preventing people from getting abortions; bakers and photographers aren’t stopping people from getting married; Hobby Lobby isn’t preventing its employees from using abortifacients. They are declining to participate in those actions out of sincere religious belief and their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The Constitution separates that from the freedom of speech because it doesn’t just encompass speech; if it did, the passage would be entirely redundant. One would think a group so dedicated to “civil liberties” that it defended the right of neo-Nazis to parade past Holocaust survivors would know that.

Note that in each of these cases, RFRA only allows for a stricter scrutiny on government action, allowing for a better defense on government infringement on religious expression. It’s not a Get Out Of Jail Free card, but simply a requirement that judges find that the state interest in these cases is both compelling and serviced by the least intrusive method possible. Courts use RFRA as a balancing test, another point one would assume that the ACLU would have figured out, too. If people use it out of sheer discrimination, courts will reject that use.

The Left is trying to shrink the meaning of the First Amendment’s language. It protects the people from laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion, even before protecting speech. “Exercise” means more than just worship, but the ability to live one’s religious beliefs without incurring government penalties for it. Until relatively recently, government actions such as Loving and Griswold removed government interventions in these intimate areas of human interaction, but the HHS contraception mandate and now Obergefell intrude on decisions where Americans rely on religious faith most, both in the marketplace and in homes.

The biggest threat to civil liberties is an ever-growing regulatory state and a government that rules by whim and the current passions of politics. It’s not surprising to conservatives to the ACLU desert the field now that the going has gotten tough. It just confirms our long-standing assessment of the leftist clique.

Update: Francis Beckwith warned about this two years ago:

If the requirement to embrace orthodoxy becomes optional, however, it follows that it is wrong for a church to require that its members believe that there are right and wrong beliefs. Consequently, “when orthodoxy is optional,” as Fr. Neuhaus put it, “it is admitted under a rule of liberal tolerance that cannot help but be intolerant of talk about right and wrong, true and false.”

For this reason, a new “orthodoxy” will arise, one that entails that it is in fact wrong for a church to act as if there are right and wrong theological beliefs. Thus, the cleric who suggests an ecclesiastical trial to prosecute an alleged heretic will be marginalized and punished by his superiors for his suggestion.

Inspired by Fr. Neuhaus’ Law, I’d like to offer my own maxim, one that applies to law, politics, and culture in the same way that Fr. Neuhaus’s applies to theology:  “Whenever a practitioner of a traditional vice appeals to the right of privacy as the justification for the state to leave him alone to engage in that vice, he will inevitably demand that the state require that those who morally disapprove of his practice cooperate with it, either materially or formally.”

To which we can add this proviso: Progressive groups who pushed the right of privacy in defense of liberty will be in the vanguard of switching over to demands for forced participation. Looking at you here, ACLU.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Worshiping your invisible sky pappy is your right. Oppressing others in its name, or forcing them to observe your mythology is not.

That ACLU is exactly right here (as usual).

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM

How exactly are they forcing anyone to observe their “mythology?”

Star Bird on June 27, 2015 at 8:04 PM

Since christians perverted it, from a shield to protect powerless minorities, into a club to be used by a powerful majority to attack those same minorities…yeah, not supporting it anymore.

Funny that.

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:37 PM

Does this mean you no longer support it to protet Muslims?

Star Bird on June 27, 2015 at 8:06 PM

Worshiping your invisible gender in conflict with your actual body parts is your right. Oppressing others in its name, or forcing them to observe your mythology is not.

That ACLU is exactly right here (as usual).

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM

hawkdriver on June 27, 2015 at 8:27 PM

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM

How exactly are they forcing anyone to observe their “mythology?”

Star Bird on June 27, 2015 at 8:04 PM

They’re not. It’s the gay agendas excuse to destroy the church. 1 part vindictive, one part future insurance of unopposed marching normal to what ever they want requires the church be destoyed.

The fight is at our churches now and the glove come off.

hawkdriver on June 27, 2015 at 8:30 PM

It doesn’t take religious faith to realize that same sex anything is unnatural.

An overwhelming majority of species, both living and now extinct, throughout millennia needed a contribution from one of each to ensure the survival of their species.

That alone should give even dullest a clue.

The biggest slap in the face (IMO) are those who want to live a gay lifestyle AND have children too. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Accept the limitations created by your choices.

Same sex couples are unnatural. But same sex couples with children are a sin against nature.

Oxymoron on June 27, 2015 at 8:43 PM

hawkdriver on June 27, 2015 at 8:30 PM

The Churches were always the target, the end game.

Get it out in the open.

Kraken on June 27, 2015 at 8:43 PM

hawkdriver on June 27, 2015 at 8:30 PM

The Churches were always the target, the end game.

Get it out in the open.

Kraken on June 27, 2015 at 8:43 PM

I agree. But get to your church and fight it there.

hawkdriver on June 27, 2015 at 8:53 PM

hawkdriver on June 27, 2015 at 8:53 PM

10-4

Kraken on June 27, 2015 at 9:07 PM

Since christians perverted it, from a shield to protect powerless minorities, into a club to be used by a powerful majority to attack those same minorities…yeah, not supporting it anymore.

Funny that.

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:37 PM

Does this mean you no longer support it to protet Muslims?

Star Bird on June 27, 2015 at 8:06 PM

This is for you Tapas or Toomuch or Toofool or whatever…dude or dear I am not in the mood you friggin moron. As a pervert advocate I’m pretty sure that you are relieved that finally Muslims can quit living in sin with their “partners”. that could be guys, girls, goats. you can be damn sure that there will be a huge whatever -your -pleasure ” parade by Muslims in New York…..yes?

HatfieldMcCoy on June 27, 2015 at 9:10 PM

The ACLU was organized to provide litigation support for the Communist Party USA and NAMBLA. Who thinks the ACLU would do anything for Christians?

TulsAmerican on June 27, 2015 at 10:02 PM

Tlaloc is just grateful that your invisible sky-god and all those oppressive racist christian rules can’t force him to marry those baby mamas he’s got scattered around.

A proud black man scattering his vital essence shouldn’t be hampered by those old white moralities, yo.

Dolce Far Niente on June 27, 2015 at 10:05 PM

Worshiping your invisible sky pappy is your right. Oppressing others in its name, or forcing them to observe your mythology is not.

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM

As you demand a nationwide mandatory tithe to ward off the flying carbon spaghetti monster.

crrr6 on June 27, 2015 at 11:25 PM

What is the natural mortality rate of ACLU attorneys? How long will it take to rid the country of their plague?

MikeinPRCA on June 28, 2015 at 12:08 AM

CONSERVATIVES, REPUBLICANS, RIGHTY INDEPENDENTS:

WHEN VOTING FOR POTUS IN FUTURE ELECTIONS AND YOU QUESTION WHETHER THE GOP NOMINEE IS CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH TO DESERVE YOUR VOTE, REMEMBER THIS PAST ADMINISTRATION.

OBAMACARE, FREE-FOR-ALL IMMIGRATION, SAME SEX MARRIAGE, LOSS OF LIBERTIES INCLUDING SPEECH, WORSHIP, POLITICAL BELIEFS (IRS) STOMPING ON STATES RIGHTS, THE PUSHED BELIEFS THAT ALL WHITE PEOPLE HAVE ADVANTAGES DUE TO WHITE PRIVILEGE, ALL WHITE POLICE ARE RACIST KILLERS AND FINALLY, ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE.

THEN ASK YOURSELF AGAIN – ANY REPUBLICAN WOULD BE BETTER THAN THE DEMOCRAT

BabysCatz on June 28, 2015 at 12:19 AM

Worshiping your invisible sky pappy is your right. Oppressing others in its name, or forcing them to observe your mythology is not.

That ACLU is exactly right here (as usual).

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM

How exactly are they forcing anyone to observe their “mythology?”

Star Bird on June 27, 2015 at 8:04 PM

Don’t hold your breath waiting for a coherent argument that supports his statement, because he hasn’t got one. He never does.

This guy, like several others on this board have exhibited terrible behavior of late, yet they continue to be allowed to post, which is pretty disconcerting, in terms of what it says about this website.

Dreadnought on June 28, 2015 at 12:21 AM

Worshiping your invisible sky pappy is your right…

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM

This is what results when you cross the village atheist with the village idiot: the village illiterate, an ignoramus incapable of making the distinction between imagery and thought, and apparently incognizant of the actual sophistication of the many and varied images used in the Bible to describe the indescribable. As C. S. Lewis put it:

The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them. All the scriptural imagery…is, of course, a merely symbolical attempt to express the inexpressible. People who take these symbols literally might as well think that when Christ told us to be like doves, He meant that we were to lay eggs.

The only one who’s laid an egg here is the village imbecile.

de rigueur on June 28, 2015 at 12:23 AM

All of these cases involve government imposing its ideas on citizens, not the other way around. Catholics aren’t physically preventing people from getting abortions; bakers and photographers aren’t stopping people from getting married; Hobby Lobby isn’t preventing its employees from using abortifacients. They are declining to participate in those actions out of sincere religious belief and their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The Constitution separates that from the freedom of speech because it doesn’t just encompass speech; if it did, the passage would be entirely redundant. One would think a group so dedicated to “civil liberties” that it defended the right of neo-Nazis to parade past Holocaust survivors would know that.

Points to keep in mind.

AesopFan on June 28, 2015 at 2:59 AM

It has always been and will always be the Anti-Christian Lawsuit Union. If it hurts Christians, they support it. Once the very same thing could help Christians, they abandon it. Liberals are utterly predictable.

Theophile on June 28, 2015 at 3:25 AM

But we can no longer support the law in its current form. For more than 15 years, we have been concerned about how the RFRA could be used to discriminate against others…. it is now often used as a sword…

Not baking a cake is now a sword?

Alberta_Patriot on June 28, 2015 at 5:07 AM

Example number 11,509 that liberalism is a mental disorder. Laws and the constitution mean NOTHING to these loons. We are now under attack. I see the next civil war coming upon us. They will not relent in their hatred for our country as founded.

Ta111 on June 28, 2015 at 7:54 AM

Should be American Some Civil Rights Union.

rennyangel2 on June 28, 2015 at 8:11 AM

This guy, like several others on this board have exhibited terrible behavior of late, yet they continue to be allowed to post, which is pretty disconcerting, in terms of what it says about this website.

Dreadnought on June 28, 2015 at 12:21 AM

No, don’t ban Tlaloc. I don’t have time to surf all the lefty blogs to observe idiocy in its natural habitat, so I appreciate his/her/its willingness to share it here.

2ndMAW68 on June 28, 2015 at 8:32 AM

No, don’t ban Tlaloc. I don’t have time to surf all the lefty blogs to observe idiocy in its natural habitat, so I appreciate his/her/its willingness to share it here.

2ndMAW68 on June 28, 2015 at 8:32 AM

Keeping him talking is what eventually shows what a laughable fool he is. He hasn’t learned from the other trolls that to continue to post eventually invalidates their own arguments. Weedbrain, nonport, libidiotanddie, all know that trying to answer their own stupid posts draw them to revealing their illogic.

So let him talk. Eventually he shows what a dunce he is.

itsspideyman on June 28, 2015 at 8:50 AM

Worshiping your invisible sky pappy is your right. Oppressing others in its name, or forcing them to observe your mythology is not.

That ACLU is exactly right here (as usual).

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM

The ACLU is dead wrong, as are you.

The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to the free exercise of their religion. It doesn’t say “unless you start a business, in which case you completely surrender your right of free exercise.”

Gays demanding that Christian (or Muslim, although no gays have been brave enough to try that) bakers bake them a gay wedding cake, and governments that force compliance or penalize non-compliance, are clearly violating those Americans’ First Amendment rights.

There is no constitutional right for gays not to be offended. There IS a constitutional right of free exercise of religion. When gays’ desire not to be offended or inconvenienced conflicts with another American’s First Amendment religious rights, the constitutionally-guaranteed rights should always win.

If the ACLU was actually interested in defending Americans’ civil rights, this would be a no-brainer. But they’re not interested in the constitution; like all leftist groups, they’re only interested in advancing the progs’ PC agenda — and when, as here, that agenda flatly contradicts enumerated rights in the constitution, they will happily trash the constitution.

AZCoyote on June 28, 2015 at 9:37 AM

But we can no longer support the law in its current form. For more than 15 years, we have been concerned about how the RFRA could be used to discriminate against others…. it is now often used as a sword…

Not baking a cake is now a sword?

Alberta_Patriot on June 28, 2015 at 5:07 AM

Yes, the irony — and blatant hypocrisy — of the ACLU’s position is rich.

It has not been the Christian bakers and photographers who have been out actively searching for people they can sue; it is the gays. They are the ones who have been using laws as a weapon. The ACLU is refusing to take RFRA cases now because it fears that RFRA may be effectively used as a defense against gay lawfare.

The ACLU should just change its name to Gaystapo Legal Fund and stop the ludicrous pretense that it cares about civil rights.

AZCoyote on June 28, 2015 at 9:43 AM

But religious liberty doesn’t mean the right to discriminate or to impose one’s views on others.

WE SHOULD BE THE ONLY ONES ALLOWED TO IMPOSE OUR VIEWS ON EVERYONE!

Next the ACLU will be all for “Though Police”.

GarandFan on June 28, 2015 at 9:45 AM

Worshiping your invisible sky pappy is your right.

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM

You are such a child.

ShadowsPawn on June 28, 2015 at 12:03 PM

CONSERVATIVES, REPUBLICANS, RIGHTY INDEPENDENTS:

WHEN VOTING FOR POTUS IN FUTURE ELECTIONS AND YOU QUESTION WHETHER THE GOP NOMINEE IS CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH TO DESERVE YOUR VOTE, REMEMBER THIS PAST ADMINISTRATION.

OBAMACARE, FREE-FOR-ALL IMMIGRATION, SAME SEX MARRIAGE, LOSS OF LIBERTIES INCLUDING SPEECH, WORSHIP, POLITICAL BELIEFS (IRS) STOMPING ON STATES RIGHTS, THE PUSHED BELIEFS THAT ALL WHITE PEOPLE HAVE ADVANTAGES DUE TO WHITE PRIVILEGE, ALL WHITE POLICE ARE RACIST KILLERS AND FINALLY, ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE.

THEN ASK YOURSELF AGAIN – ANY REPUBLICAN WOULD BE BETTER THAN THE DEMOCRAT

BabysCatz on June 28, 2015 at 12:19 AM

First off, turn off the caps lock.

Secondly, No. The GOP has been standing around doing nothing but trying to look busy for the simple-minded as these fundamental transformations have taken place. Your GOP heroes are now asking us to accept these progressive changes so they won’t have to stand up for what’s right during voting season.

You have some growing to do and I’m sorry, but it’s gonna hurt.

ROCnPhilly on June 28, 2015 at 12:36 PM

BabysCatz on June 28, 2015 at 12:19 AM

And once again, the usual question:

Republicans have a majority in both Houses of Congress. Tell me if you can, what has been accomplished with a Republican majority that would not have been accomplished without one. Tell me if you can, what parts of the leftist agenda have been blocked that would have succeeded if not for the Republican majority in Congress.

They spent months and millions in 2014 fearmongering about how only they could stop Obama’s agenda, and crowing about how hard they would fight all this. Have they? How so? Give examples. Talk is cheap.

“Don’t trust the con artist!” is usually a sound rule. But when you turn it into “Don’t trust the con artist, trust his shill instead!” you just make yourself an even bigger fool.

GrumpyOldFart on June 28, 2015 at 1:31 PM

How exactly are they forcing anyone to observe their “mythology?”

Star Bird on June 27, 2015 at 8:04 PM

In the case of hobby lobby by forcing their religious views on their employees by dictating what their employees are allowed to use their compensation for.

In the case of bakers/florists/etc by trying to prevent customers from getting services based on lifestyles that the employee’s religion derides.

It’s entirely about forcing others to follow your faith.

Tlaloc on June 28, 2015 at 3:12 PM

Does this mean you no longer support it to protet Muslims?

Star Bird on June 27, 2015 at 8:06 PM

Have muslims suddenly become a powerful majority in this country?

No?

Oh, so there’s no reasonable reading of what I wrote that supports your statement, huh?

Tlaloc on June 28, 2015 at 3:13 PM

This is for you Tapas or Toomuch or Toofool or whatever…dude or dear I am not in the mood you friggin moron. As a pervert advocate I’m pretty sure that you are relieved that finally Muslims can quit living in sin with their “partners”. that could be guys, girls, goats. you can be damn sure that there will be a huge whatever -your -pleasure ” parade by Muslims in New York…..yes?

HatfieldMcCoy on June 27, 2015 at 9:10 PM

I dare you to be more incoherent.

Tlaloc on June 28, 2015 at 3:15 PM

As you demand a nationwide mandatory tithe to ward off the flying carbon spaghetti monster.

crrr6 on June 27, 2015 at 11:25 PM

Your attempt to equate science to your mythology is amusing but not very convincing.

Tlaloc on June 28, 2015 at 3:16 PM

The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to the free exercise of their religion. It doesn’t say “unless you start a business, in which case you completely surrender your right of free exercise.”

AZCoyote on June 28, 2015 at 9:37 AM

True, but irrelevant. They still have every ability to practice their religion as private citizens. When at work, though, they are governed by the laws that cover their work. If their religion precludes them from following the law of their job they can quit, or they can do their job, or they can suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

Not one of these choices violates the 1st amendment. A person’s whose religion says they can’t cut flesh probably shouldn’t be a surgeon, huh? Well a person whose religion says they can’t bake shouldn’t voluntarily choose to be a baker either.

Tlaloc on June 28, 2015 at 3:21 PM

Tiaioc on June 28, 2015 at 3:12 PM

Are they employed against their will? In Obama’s booming economy they can work anywhere and probably for more. Might not have Sunday off but what they heck.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2015 at 3:33 PM

In the case of hobby lobby by forcing their religious views on their employees by dictating what their employees are allowed to use their compensation for.

How exactly is Hobby Lobby dictating what their employees are allowed to use their compensation for? I’m looking for specifics, not rhetoric.

In the case of bakers/florists/etc by trying to prevent customers from getting services based on lifestyles that the employee’s religion derides.

It’s entirely about forcing others to follow your faith.

Tlaloc on June 28, 2015 at 3:12 PM

How is a baker preventing anyone from getting service, when the customer is free to go to any number of bakers that exist as long as a free market is in place?

Do you honestly believe that gay bakers ought to be forced to bake for Christian customers? I don’t.

Star Bird on June 28, 2015 at 3:48 PM

Have muslims suddenly become a powerful majority in this country?

No?

Oh, so there’s no reasonable reading of what I wrote that supports your statement, huh?

Tlaloc on June 28, 2015 at 3:13 PM

I’m not sure if you’re asking me those questions, or yourself.

In any case, it would seem that you support the rule of law for some, but not for others.

Isn’t that discrimination?

Star Bird on June 28, 2015 at 3:51 PM

I dare you to be more incoherent.

Tlaloc on June 28, 2015 at 3:15 PM

Are you asking him to copy and paste your posts?

Star Bird on June 28, 2015 at 3:52 PM

Your attempt to equate science to your mythology is amusing but not very convincing.

Tlaloc on June 28, 2015 at 3:16 PM

AGW is mythology, or more accurately, religious faith.

Star Bird on June 28, 2015 at 3:53 PM

True, but irrelevant. They still have every ability to practice their religion as private citizens. When at work, though, they are governed by the laws that cover their work. If their religion precludes them from following the law of their job they can quit, or they can do their job, or they can suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

Tlaloc on June 28, 2015 at 3:21 PM

In the same fashion that someone working for Hobby Lobby can quit?

Star Bird on June 28, 2015 at 3:54 PM

Since christians perverted it, from a shield to protect powerless minorities, into a club to be used by a powerful majority to attack those same minorities…yeah, not supporting it anymore.

Funny that.

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:37 PM

I’m just wondering here, since you seem to feel strongly that Christians are a problem population, do you think it may be beneficial to mark their homes and businesses with some sort of signage warning others? Or perhaps issue some sort of mandated Christian identification card or badge?

Star Bird on June 28, 2015 at 4:23 PM

Your Rights can only affect me in the negative, by preventing my positive act to restrict your exercise of said rights;
i.e. – I may NOT keep you from Speaking, Writing, Worshiping, Buying, Selling, Living, Pursuing your happiness.
You CANNOT possess a Right that commands my action.
Your Rights CANNOT trump mine.
If they can, then they are not Rights, but power granted you by an abuse of authority.

thelastminstrel on June 28, 2015 at 5:07 PM

Star Bird on June 28, 2015 at 3:48 PM/3:51 PM/3:53 PM/3:54 PM/4:23 PM

Well put.

GrumpyOldFart on June 28, 2015 at 5:08 PM

If they can, then they are not Rights, but power granted you by an abuse of authority.

thelastminstrel on June 28, 2015 at 5:07 PM

Tlaloc doesn’t see that distinction, he considers them to be the same thing. He has said so already.

GrumpyOldFart on June 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM

It’s entirely about forcing others to follow your faith.

Tlaloc on June 28, 2015 at 3:12 PM

And you’re still cheering using the Supreme Court to make your morality the law of the land.

Hypocrite much?

hawkdriver on June 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM

Tlaloc doesn’t see that distinction, he considers them to be the same thing. He has said so already.

GrumpyOldFart on June 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM

Tlaloc couldn’t see a distinction if it drilled its way through his eyeballs.

What he talks about is soo far from “making people follow a faith”–oohh I’m not using abortifacients–I must be following somebody’s faith. Oooh, I had to pay for OTC abortifacients instead of having them supplied by my insurance plan–so even though I’m not doing anythingthat “follows” a faith, it’s still “following somebody’s faith”.

But his hope is that one day, people who can analyze will die out and then everyone will see his truths.

Axeman on June 29, 2015 at 12:51 AM

Yes, religious freedom needs protection. But religious liberty doesn’t mean the right to discriminate or to impose one’s views on others.

That last declaration is rather curious, considering all of which precedes it in Melling’s argument. She decries its use in the Hobby Lobby case, despite the fact that the HHS contraception mandate is government explicitly imposing its views on the business owners in contradiction to their right to live their faith and their views on abortion and the nature of human life.

Indeed. Further proof the liberal/progressive view is not based on objective principle but on the cultural politics of the moment to whatever empowers the state and reduces the individual.

Ricard on June 29, 2015 at 9:03 AM

The ACLU has NEVER been about rights. They are a progressive organization that only maintains a thin veneer of protecting religious rights to preserve the illusion of integrity around their organization.

Not surprised that HA bloggers… even Ed… fall for the lies.

Time to wake up Ed.

This isn’t America anymore.

dominigan on June 29, 2015 at 9:56 AM

Tlaloc on June 28, 2015 at 3:12 PM

You all should just ignore Tlaloc.

He is an anti-Christian BIGOT of the worst kind. His biggest aspiration is bring back the Nero dinner parties of ancient times.

dominigan on June 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM

The American Cancer Society isn’t in favor of cancer. What makes anyone think the American Civil Liberties Union is in favor of civil liberties?

Lammo on June 29, 2015 at 11:17 AM

Well. There are times when I wish Hobby Lobby was open on Sundays.

(Usually as a result of one of my children informing me about the science or art project due the next day.)

Tsar of Earth on June 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM

Worshiping your invisible sky pappy is your right.

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM

But since you believe “rights” are merely whatever privileges the ruling clique chooses to bestow, subject to revocation at their whim, that doesn’t really mean anything at all, does it? “_____ is your right” only means “We’ll graciously allow you to keep doing _____… for now.

In the sense most people think of them, you don’t believe anybody has any “rights” at all. Only authority granted by whoever is in power, which can be taken away any time those in power change their minds. You have said so in just so many words, back in the “inherent rights” thread.

So anything you have to say about “rights” has the exact same significance, and the exact same relationship to legal reality, as kittens squealing in a box or the sound of thunder. In short, zero.

GrumpyOldFart on June 29, 2015 at 12:34 PM

Worshiping your invisible sky pappy is your right.

Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM

Correction…”Freely exercising your religion based on your belief of an invisible sky pappy is your right.”

You’re welcome.

Ricard on June 29, 2015 at 1:13 PM

So Obama gave a eulogy and sang amazing grace at the funeral of a homophobe in the afternoon and then lit the White House in rainbow colors in the evening? I’d love to read about the epiphany he had on the flight back from Charleston.

trubble on June 27, 2015 at 2:52 PM

Don’t forget all those hypocrites (the black preachers) standing behind Obama, cheering him on.

Ward Cleaver on June 29, 2015 at 2:41 PM

Well. There are times when I wish Hobby Lobby was open on Sundays.

(Usually as a result of one of my children informing me about the science or art project due the next day.)

Tsar of Earth on June 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM

I hate going in there only because they don’t have signs above the aisles, telling you where anything is located. You just have to wander around until you find it, or try to find a clerk to show you, neither of which I have time to do.

Ward Cleaver on June 29, 2015 at 2:45 PM

You all should just ignore Tlaloc.

dominigan on June 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM

But it’s fun to feed the animals.

Star Bird on June 29, 2015 at 6:44 PM