To: NKP_Vet
"Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion," the ruling said. Hint. It's in the constitution.
16 posted on
11/25/2012 7:49:33 AM PST by
oldbrowser
(Welcome to U.S.Zimbabwe)
To: oldbrowser
The text of the Constitution is not relevant. What matters is CASES. That approach to “Constitutional” law was introduced during the Progressive Era.
20 posted on
11/25/2012 7:54:21 AM PST by
Arthur McGowan
(If you're FOR sticking scissors in a baby girl's neck and sucking out her brains, you are PRO-WOMAN!)
To: oldbrowser
a government lawyer said . . . the U.S. has a compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them. In the vernacular of Chris Matthews, "compelling interest" is liberal dog whistle speak which means, "the Constitution be d@mned."
43 posted on
11/25/2012 9:43:51 AM PST by
Jacquerie
("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
To: oldbrowser
“Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion,” the ruling said.
Big, BIG error!
If a corporation is a “person” in the eyes of “Da Law”, then said corporate person has rights the same as a natural person.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - unless it is a Commie Pander Gander.
61 posted on
11/25/2012 12:33:55 PM PST by
GladesGuru
(In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson