Hobby Lobby and the NYTimes

[PoliticalChic]

Well, the Supreme Court is about to adjudicate the Hobby Lobby case, one of those brought against the most anti-religion administration this country has ever had.






1. " It all starts with the Affordable Care Act....employers need to provide health care for their employees that covers all forms of contraception at no cost. However, some for-profit corporations have insisted they should not have to pay for all of these services — especially those that conflict with their beliefs.

2. ...Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties don't have a problem with offering insurance that covers most forms of birth control, but they aren't willing to cover emergency contraceptives — like Plan B or ella -- or IUDs. Hobby Lobby contends its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception."


3. The question these cases are seeking to solve is whether for-profit companies have a right to exercise religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,... that states the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."
Here?s what you need to know about the Hobby Lobby case







4. The Democrat house organ, the NYTimes, is right there, shoulder to shoulder with Obama, arguing "... that the Greens and Hahns are acting through what the Times insists are “two secular, for-profit-corporations.” It’s one thing, the Times seems to figure, to claim protection for an individual under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. It’s another thing to claim protection for a “secular, for profit” corporation.”


5. The First Amendment, after all, prohibits Congress from interfering with — making any law abridging — five freedoms. Religion. Speech. The press. Peaceable assembly. Petition of the government. But the aforementioned Amendment doesn’t say a thing, one way or another, about any corporation.

6. It doesn’t say that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion “except if it is exercised through a for-profit corporation.” It just says “no law.”






7. [We suggest] the Court would rule that the First Amendment applies to either all corporations or none of them and that, in any event, it must be consistent across all five freedoms.

8. If the Court denies free exercise to the Greens and the Hahns because they are acting through a corporation, it would also deny press freedom to the Sulzberger family corporation.[i.e., the NYTimes.]





9. ... the Times would be broken up and hived off in pieces to its individual family members (or scattered among the financial shareholders)...

10. In a best-case scenario, the Green and Hahn families would be excused from the birth control mandate, because it unduly burdens their free exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.....
...the Sulzberger family would then be permitted to use their for-profit, corporate vehicle, the New York Times Company, to publish the New York Times newspaper."
The Sulzberger Compromise - The New York Sun




Can you imagine???

A request for one standard, rather than the double that Liberals/Progressives/Democrats see as their hereditary right!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The qualifier for the OP is false.

Let's move along.

 

[Spoonman]

To this administration the right to choose only applies to certain groups

 

[PoliticalChic]

The qualifier for the OP is false.

Let's move along.

"Let's move along."

Amusing how you fall back on your career as a school crossing guard.

 

[dblack]

To this administration the right to choose only applies to certain groups

That's corporatism in a nutshell.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To this administration the right to choose only applies to certain groups

Actually....it's even worse:


"Vatican Chief Justice: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’


1. VATICAN CITY (CBS St. Louis) — The Vatican’s chief justice feels that President Barack Obama’s policies have been hostile toward Christians.


2. In an interview with Polonia Christiana magazine –and transcribed by Life Site News — Cardinal Raymond Burke said that Obama “promotes anti-life and anti-family policies.”


3. “It is true that the policies of the president of the United States have become progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization. He appears to be a totally secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies,” Burke told the magazine.


4. The former archbishop of St. Louis stated that Obama is trying to “restrict” religion.
“Now he wants to restrict the exercise of the freedom of religion to freedom of worship, that is, he holds that one is free to act according to his conscience within the confines of his place of worship but that, once the person leaves the place of worship, the government can constrain him to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions,” Burke said."
Vatican Chief Justice: Obama?s Policies ?Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization? « CBS St. Louis



This stains everyone who voted for the creep.

 

[emilynghiem]

The qualifier for the OP is false.

Let's move along.

Hi Jake:
Can you honestly explain why it is ok
for an Atheist to sue to remove a cross from a public building, at taxpayers' expense,
but not ok for Christians to defend their beliefs from imposition or offense.

If this is not some political stage of backlash in a process of developing as a society,
then why has "religious freedom" flipped the other way,
from defending religious practice from regulation or imposition by govt
to the opposite of defending against perceived religious bias by "dominant groups"
such as the Christian, conservative, White or wealthy "as a class."

Fowler recognized stages in spiritual development.
Doesn't the "same human psychology" apply to political development?

Can we be HONEST this is happening?

Or do we "need to go through denial and projection"
as part of the stages and process as well?

Is this just another stage also?
Thanks, Jake

Not trying to pick on you, but somehow trust you to be honest.
I've got my own biases also, and just trying to be honest about those also.
Want to know "who on this board" is able to step outside and call out
our biases for what they are. And be ok admitting it instead of excluding anyone
who has the opposite bias going on. Can't we just deal with each other anyway?

 

[emilynghiem]

To this administration the right to choose only applies to certain groups

That's corporatism in a nutshell.

"cronyism" -- when you abuse the corporate game to "play favorites"
according to your private, professional or political interests

SEE "Code of Ethics for Govt Service"
ethics-commission.net

What does it take to start enforcing these Constitutional principles and
ethics, to stop "political conflicts of interest" from ruling by partisan coercion

 

[rightwinger]

The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties don't have a problem with offering insurance that covers most forms of birth control, but they aren't willing to cover emergency contraceptives — like Plan B or ella -- or IUDs. Hobby Lobby contends its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception."

And yet, Hobby Lobby stocks their shelves with products from China where abortion is mandatory

They feel free to impose their religious beliefs on their employees but not their suppliers

 

[Spoonman]

The qualifier for the OP is false.

Let's move along.

Hi Jake:
Can you honestly explain why it is ok
for an Atheist to sue to remove a cross from a public building, at taxpayers' expense,
but not ok for Christians to defend their beliefs from imposition or offense.

If this is not some political stage of backlash in a process of developing as a society,
then why has "religious freedom" flipped the other way,
from defending religious practice from regulation or imposition by govt
to the opposite of defending against perceived religious bias by "dominant groups"
such as the Christian, conservative, White or wealthy "as a class."

Fowler recognized stages in spiritual development.
Doesn't the "same human psychology" apply to political development?

Can we be HONEST this is happening?

Or do we "need to go through denial and projection"
as part of the stages and process as well?

Is this just another stage also?
Thanks, Jake

Not trying to pick on you, but somehow trust you to be honest.
I've got my own biases also, and just trying to be honest about those also.
Want to know "who on this board" is able to step outside and call out
our biases for what they are. And be ok admitting it instead of excluding anyone
who has the opposite bias going on. Can't we just deal with each other anyway?

that is exactly right. there is a total double standard. and IMO creating these divisive double standards is one of the biggest flaws with liberal policies. liberal policies pit one side against the other. they only apply the ideology of " don't want to be gay, don't be" to agendas the support. how about don't want to pray, don't pray. don't want to own a gun, don't own one.

 

[Spoonman]

The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties don't have a problem with offering insurance that covers most forms of birth control, but they aren't willing to cover emergency contraceptives — like Plan B or ella -- or IUDs. Hobby Lobby contends its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception."

And yet, Hobby Lobby stocks their shelves with products from China where abortion is mandatory

They feel free to impose their religious beliefs on their employees but not their suppliers

so don't buy from them and don't work for them. you have a choice. they aren't forcing anything on you. you want to bitch about something being forced on someone bitch about obamacare being forced on everyone

 

[dblack]

To this administration the right to choose only applies to certain groups

That's corporatism in a nutshell.

"cronyism" -- when you abuse the corporate game to "play favorites"
according to your private, professional or political interests

SEE "Code of Ethics for Govt Service"
ethics-commission.net

What does it take to start enforcing these Constitutional principles and
ethics, to stop "political conflicts of interest" from ruling by partisan coercion

Corporatism is broader and more fundamental than mere cronyism. The trend in American government is away from the liberal tradition of equal protection and universal, individual rights, and toward rights based on interest group affiliation. Everybody gets a different deal, depending on which group they belong to, and how much political influence they can bring to bear.

 

[ogibillm]

i've never seen hobby lobby at church. has anyone else?

 

[rightwinger]

The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties don't have a problem with offering insurance that covers most forms of birth control, but they aren't willing to cover emergency contraceptives — like Plan B or ella -- or IUDs. Hobby Lobby contends its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception."

And yet, Hobby Lobby stocks their shelves with products from China where abortion is mandatory

They feel free to impose their religious beliefs on their employees but not their suppliers

so don't buy from them and don't work for them. you have a choice. they aren't forcing anything on you. you want to bitch about something being forced on someone bitch about obamacare being forced on everyone

As a consumer we are free to do that....

But it is Hobby Lobby not its customers who is suing to protect its religious rights. Yet they selectively choose to enforce those rights on their employees while they ignore it when their suppliers enforce abortion

Kind of calls their legal standing into question

 

[Spoonman]

And yet, Hobby Lobby stocks their shelves with products from China where abortion is mandatory

They feel free to impose their religious beliefs on their employees but not their suppliers

so don't buy from them and don't work for them. you have a choice. they aren't forcing anything on you. you want to bitch about something being forced on someone bitch about obamacare being forced on everyone

As a consumer we are free to do that....

But it is Hobby Lobby not its customers who is suing to protect its religious rights. Yet they selectively choose to enforce those rights on their employees while they ignore it when their suppliers enforce abortion

Kind of calls their legal standing into question

and that is your choice. you are fine with a hospital forcing a doctor to perfom an abortion against his will. why are you left wing moonbats so full of these double standards?

kind of calls the objectivity of your arguments into question.

 

[rightwinger]

so don't buy from them and don't work for them. you have a choice. they aren't forcing anything on you. you want to bitch about something being forced on someone bitch about obamacare being forced on everyone

As a consumer we are free to do that....

But it is Hobby Lobby not its customers who is suing to protect its religious rights. Yet they selectively choose to enforce those rights on their employees while they ignore it when their suppliers enforce abortion

Kind of calls their legal standing into question

and that is your choice. you are fine with a hospital forcing a doctor to perfom an abortion against his will. why are you left wing moonbats so full of these double standards?

kind of calls the objectivity of your arguments into question.

I am not the one suing here....it is Hobby Lobby

They seem to claim that they have religious convictions when it comes to their employees but not when it impacts their profits

Because profits are their true religion

 

[PoliticalChic]

And yet, Hobby Lobby stocks their shelves with products from China where abortion is mandatory

They feel free to impose their religious beliefs on their employees but not their suppliers

so don't buy from them and don't work for them. you have a choice. they aren't forcing anything on you. you want to bitch about something being forced on someone bitch about obamacare being forced on everyone

As a consumer we are free to do that....

But it is Hobby Lobby not its customers who is suing to protect its religious rights. Yet they selectively choose to enforce those rights on their employees while they ignore it when their suppliers enforce abortion

Kind of calls their legal standing into question

"....and don't work for them."


Spoony pretty much destroyed your attempt to force ObamaCare's anti-religious-freedom view down everyone's throat.

But, for you totalitarians, the view is 'you will obey!'


Of course you knew that, which is why you ignored his point.

 

[ogibillm]

so don't buy from them and don't work for them. you have a choice. they aren't forcing anything on you. you want to bitch about something being forced on someone bitch about obamacare being forced on everyone

As a consumer we are free to do that....

But it is Hobby Lobby not its customers who is suing to protect its religious rights. Yet they selectively choose to enforce those rights on their employees while they ignore it when their suppliers enforce abortion

Kind of calls their legal standing into question

"....and don't work for them."


Spoony pretty much destroyed your attempt to force ObamaCare's anti-religious-freedom view down everyone's throat.

But, for you totalitarians, the view is 'you will obey!'


Of course you knew that, which is why you ignored his point.

and what rightwinger did was pretty much establish that hobby lobby's supposed deeply held religious beliefs are demonstrably not that deeply held.

 

[Spoonman]

As a consumer we are free to do that....

But it is Hobby Lobby not its customers who is suing to protect its religious rights. Yet they selectively choose to enforce those rights on their employees while they ignore it when their suppliers enforce abortion

Kind of calls their legal standing into question

and that is your choice. you are fine with a hospital forcing a doctor to perfom an abortion against his will. why are you left wing moonbats so full of these double standards?

kind of calls the objectivity of your arguments into question.

I am not the one suing here....it is Hobby Lobby

They seem to claim that they have religious convictions when it comes to their employees but not when it impacts their profits

Because profits are their true religion

I guess because they realize they have no influence over choices of a soveriegn nation. However Hobby Lobys does have a choice how they chose to run their own business within the bounds of our constitution. a boundry the obama administration repeatedly tries to overstep.

 

[Jughead]

The First Amendment should not be selectively applied. It should apply throughout. Religious freedoms of an individual or individuals in a corporation should be protected.