Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will The Supreme Court Protect Hobby Lobby From the HHS Mandate? (Ruling this week..Your Prediction)
Life News ^ | 6/17/14 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 06/23/2014 5:11:27 AM PDT by xzins

The Supreme Court decision in the monumental Hobby Lobby case against the abortion mandate in Obamacare is expected either this week or next.

The Obama administration is attempting to make Hobby Lobby and thousands of pro-life businesses and organizations comply with the HHS mandate that compels religious companies to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for their employees. However, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions.

Kristina Arriaga, Executive Director of the Becket Fund, the legal group heading up the lawsuit against the mandate for Hobby Lobby, talked about what to expect.

hobbylobby3“We are expecting the Hobby Lobby decision any day now,” she said in an email to LifeNews. “In fact, we have been holding our collective breath for the last several weeks as the Supreme Court issues its Monday opinions.”

“As of today, according to several longtime observers of the Court, the expectation is that additional days will be added to the opinion calendar. We suspect that Monday, June 23, will be followed by several other days of announcements; and then, we will hear later that same week. Until then, we wait,” she added.

Arriaga says the decision is a long time coming.

“I think it is inherently unjust that the government has forced the Green family, the devout owners of Hobby Lobby, to face a two-year battle in court,” she explained. “As you know, the Greens grew their family business out of their garage. They now own stores in 41 states employing more than 16,000 full time employees. They have always operated their business according to their faith. In fact, the Greens pay salaries that start at twice the minimum wage and offer excellent benefits, as well as a healthcare package which includes almost all of the contraceptives now mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Their only objection is to 4 drugs and devices which, the government itself concedes, can terminate an embryo.”

“Their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should be protected by the government. Instead, the government has threatened them with fines and fought them all the way to the Supreme Court,” Arriaga added.

“The government has already exempted tens of millions of Americans from complying with the mandate that forces employers to provide certain specific drugs and devices. However, it refuses to accommodate the Green family because the Green family’s objections are religious. We believe that the government’s position is not only extreme and unconstitutional; it presents a grave danger to our freedoms,” she continued.

The Obama administration says it is confident it will prevail, saying, “We believe this requirement is lawful…and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”

“My family and I are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide our case,” said Mr. Green, Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO. “This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.”

The Supreme Court is also taking the case of the Mennonite cabinet makers forced to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs.

In July, a federal court granted Hobby Lobby a preliminary injunction against the HHS abortion-drug mandate. The injunction prevented the Obama administration from enforcing the mandate against the Christian company, but the Obama administration appealed that ruling recently. The government’s appeal makes it highly likely that the Supreme Court will decide the issue in the upcoming term.

After the appeals court ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton issued a preliminary injunction and stayed the case until Oct. 1 to give the Obama administration time to appeal the decision.

In an opinion read from the bench, the court said, “There is a substantial public interest in ensuring that no individual or corporation has their legs cut out from under them while these difficult issues are resolved.”

Duncan says there are now 63 separate lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate. The Becket Fund led the charge against the unconstitutional HHS mandate. The Becket Fund currently represents: Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University, Colorado Christian University, the Eternal Word Television Network, Ave Maria University, and Belmont Abbey College.

Hobby Lobby could have paid as much as $1.3 million each day in fines for refusing to pay for birth control or abortion-causing drugs under the mandate.

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.

Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; freedom; hobbylobby; lawsuit; life; scotus; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

1 posted on 06/23/2014 5:11:27 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan

I think it will be 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby.

1. IIRC, the contraception provision is NOT part of the law but is a regulation added to the law by the administration.

2. There are a huge number of exemptions already handed out.

3. The court will narrowly rule that Hobby Lobby also can have an exemption.

This will leave it open to change once the administration ends all its other exemptions. But, by then, this administration will be gone.

This enables the court to avoid actually ruling on the law or the regulation.


2 posted on 06/23/2014 5:11:56 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Predicting what this SC will do is ridiculous. After Roberts cave, there is absolutely no way to know, and it’s not worth the effort to try.

After the decision, it may or may not be clear as to the real factors behind it.


3 posted on 06/23/2014 5:19:35 AM PDT by Arlis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I think it will go against Hobby Lobby because it is a corporation rather than a sole propritor or partnership.


4 posted on 06/23/2014 5:20:01 AM PDT by Portcall24 (aer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins
They are already treating us like cattle, they "force" us to do things by law and yet don't bother to enforce the law when it comes to borders.

They are well on the way to destroying this country. I only hope there are enough patriots left to rebuild after the trogs take over. The elites are going to be surprised when those who they have enabled come after them out of lust for what the elites have.

5 posted on 06/23/2014 5:22:51 AM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Portcall24

I agree that’s an important issue.

But the exemptions granted to a regulation rather than to a law struck me as a bit more central.

My thought was that all kinds of corporations have corporate beliefs. Mozilla, for example, has beliefs that led them to fire their CEO, whasisname.


6 posted on 06/23/2014 5:24:11 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Portcall24
"I think it will go against Hobby Lobby because it is a corporation rather than a sole propritor or partnership."

I don't see what difference that would make under a 1st Amendment analysis. Citizens United would seem to have resolved that issue in the corporation's favor. Do newspapers loose the right to "freedom of the press" when they incorporate?

7 posted on 06/23/2014 5:26:31 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The ruling will be against Hobby Lobby. Why? Because the State is all about accumulating power. The State cannot tolerate that there is anything beyond its control, which is why the State despises religion.


8 posted on 06/23/2014 5:32:03 AM PDT by Flick Lives ("I can't believe it's not Fascism!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I agree. 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby.


9 posted on 06/23/2014 5:33:40 AM PDT by kjam22 (my music video "If My People" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b20RjILy4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I think Justice Roberts will protect Obama once again.


10 posted on 06/23/2014 5:33:49 AM PDT by Iron Munro (The Obamas' Black skin has morphed into Teflon thanks to the Obama Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
From your lips to God's ear ....

In addition to your valid points above, I submit two additional ones ...

It runs afoul of RFRA:

... governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;

Since 0bamacare only still stands today as a "tax", it runs afoul of both the equal protection clause of the 10th Amendment (friends of 0bama get exemptions while others do not), and the requirement that all bills raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives.

11 posted on 06/23/2014 5:39:08 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I believe the Supreme Court will rule that unbridled freedom to kill children will trump religious freedom.


12 posted on 06/23/2014 5:40:19 AM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Religious objection goes back to the beginnings of our country. It is solid ground. I believe Hobby Lobby will win

BECAUSE anyone in that company is free to go to Planned Parenthood and get those same free services. OR they can go to the store and spring for "o" rings.

13 posted on 06/23/2014 5:46:08 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

No. Roberts rolls over again.


14 posted on 06/23/2014 5:46:20 AM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (Audentis Fortuna Iuvat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjam22

I’m going to say 7-2 for Hobby Lobby...only because Religious Objection has been around since our beginnings.


15 posted on 06/23/2014 5:48:18 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xzins
This is not an RFRA matter and the constitutional rights of the Greens don't enter into it. The suit is not against them but against a corporate entity called Hobby Lobby. The question is does a corporation have a right to free exercise of religion?

And the answer should be, why not? The court has already ruled that corporations have a Constitutional right to free speech when they ruled that campaign funding restrictions were unconstitutional. If corporations have constitutional protections in one area of the First Amendment then why not in all areas? Why can't a corporation have a religious foundation and be entitled to religious beliefs that reflect those of the owners or the shareholders? I have a hard time understanding how the court can possibly hold that they don't. If they do rule against Hobby Lobby then it's a slippery slope because if the entire First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations then can it selectively apply to people too?

16 posted on 06/23/2014 5:48:19 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

>> I think it will be 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby.

I pray that it’s at least 5-4 in their favor.

With this court, however, I wouldn’t bank on it.


17 posted on 06/23/2014 5:50:16 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

This is the same Supreme Court that discovered a Constitutional right to homosexual marriage. Who knew that was in the Constitution all these years?

I am not optimistic.


18 posted on 06/23/2014 5:53:42 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

Recently, though, they didn’t have to rule in favor of prayer at town council meetings in Greece, NY.


19 posted on 06/23/2014 6:02:14 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I’m still amazed that insurance companies started adding personal choice/hygiene items onto health care. You’d think they’d be paying for toilet paper and toothpaste.

It’s crazy that condoms and pills are considered health care.


20 posted on 06/23/2014 6:09:25 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins

What business does ANY gubmint (including the religion of Islam) have to mandate ANYONE when to use contraceptives of any kind?


21 posted on 06/23/2014 6:34:27 AM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xzins
There was a theory floating around on the SCOTUS watching websites last week that Scalia unintentionally telegraphed the decision in the Hobby Lobby case when released a statement disagreeing with the courts decision not to hear another religious freedom case next term. In his statement he said (paraphrasing) "It makes no sense not to hear (the new) case since the court has expanded religious freedom in the cases before us this term."

The theory was since the only religious freedom cases before the court this term was "Hobby Lobby" and the already decided case that expanded the right to prayer at public meetings, that Scalia would not not have said "case(S) that expand religious freedom" if Hobby Lobby hadn't already been decided on those grounds....

22 posted on 06/23/2014 6:39:54 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

I tend to agree...Courts have already declared its more important to force you bake a cake than to have religious objections to doing so.


23 posted on 06/23/2014 6:50:48 AM PDT by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xzins

My prediction is that until the $1 TRILLION HHS is nuked, we’re constantly in jeopardy. It’s not about just winning this skirmish. It’s about winning the war by dismantling these huge, bloated, threatening, unconstitutional bureaucracies.


24 posted on 06/23/2014 6:58:13 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Of late the Supreme Court decision is based on the highest bidder it’s how we received ObamaCare.


25 posted on 06/23/2014 7:06:41 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro; xzins

Unhappily, I agree that Roberts will cave. He views his job as finding a compromise rather than looking at the issue and seeing it as the Constitution says (or not).

At best, I think it will be 5-4 that the regulation goes too far, but it will be on some basis that allows the government to continue to apply the regulation to other businesses. Every business will be forced to spend millions in legal fees to fight its individual status...


26 posted on 06/23/2014 7:12:58 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Left wing. Right wing. One buzzard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

I’m afraid this will be the first step in dismantling the First Amendment. They MUST do that to force the homosexual agenda. If any business has a right to take actions based on the religious beliefs of the owners - even if it is a one person business - then forcing everyone to bow down to homosexuals won’t stand.

My guess is that the homosexual lobby will get the results it wants from the usual suspects - the ones who keep finding a Constitutional right to homosexuality.


27 posted on 06/23/2014 7:16:33 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Left wing. Right wing. One buzzard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Because corporations are legal entities, the fascist/socialist/statists will ultimately determine that all corporations are owned by the state and thus subject to it’s every edict.


28 posted on 06/23/2014 7:29:55 AM PDT by Theophilus (Be as prolific as you are pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar

Good information. Thanks, apillar.


29 posted on 06/23/2014 7:35:45 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The court can rule against the contraception mandate since it’s only a regulation, and since so many exceptions have been granted. That would be in Hobby Lobby’s favor, but it would also enable them to continue preventing bakers from denying cakes to homosexual weddings. It would be based on an invalid burden without an overriding reason not to also grant an exception in this case to health care.


30 posted on 06/23/2014 7:42:30 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins

From a different ruling, made today:

“In what was a relatively narrow case concerning a challenge by industry groups and Republican-leaning states the court, divided in several different ways, held that a small proportion of industrial facilities are exempted from the single regulation in question. Most major facilities, including power plants and refineries, will still be covered.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3171207/posts

My guess is they do the same to Hobby Lobby.


31 posted on 06/23/2014 7:43:36 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Left wing. Right wing. One buzzard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
They MUST do that to force the homosexual agenda.

I thought this was about birth control? Somehow I don't see that as part of the homosexual agenda.

32 posted on 06/23/2014 7:53:51 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Portcall24

But a corporation is recognized as a legal entity. Arguing that the 1st Amendment only applies to people is silly. The 1st Amendment like most contained within the Bill of Rights, doesn’t actually give any rights; it is a restriction on the government. The genius of the Founding Fathers at work.

If the SC rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, and I’m not too optimistic that will happen. It opens up the argument for the baker who doesn’t want his business to make gay wedding cakes and other possibilities. Again, not optimistic that this will occur. But even a broken clock is occasionally right.


33 posted on 06/23/2014 7:55:22 AM PDT by voicereason (The RNC is like the "One-night stand" you wish you could forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

The birth control argument is rooted in religious freedom, as is the argument that a baker should not be required to bake cakes celebrating something he believes is evil. If they support religious freedom here, it will be harder to deny religious freedom to those who object to homosexuality.

Either we are or are not free to act in public based on our religious beliefs, and so are the businesses that we form and own. You cannot logically be free to have a religious objection to abortion, but not a religious objection to homosexuality.


34 posted on 06/23/2014 7:57:35 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Left wing. Right wing. One buzzard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Against Hobby Lobby. Roberts will fold again.


35 posted on 06/23/2014 8:08:14 AM PDT by ColdOne (I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I agree, Mr Rogers. Thanks.


36 posted on 06/23/2014 8:12:39 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Kennedy has gone off his rocker, and he is now “caucusing” with the radical Left. I think he will formally invalidate the 1st Amendment with this case.


37 posted on 06/23/2014 8:13:27 AM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Either we are or are not free to act in public based on our religious beliefs, and so are the businesses that we form and own. You cannot logically be free to have a religious objection to abortion, but not a religious objection to homosexuality.

That's why it will be narrowly decided on the basis of exemptions to regulation granted others under ObamaCare. That way it won't apply to the baker/cake issue.

38 posted on 06/23/2014 8:14:39 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Kennedy was pro-religious tolerance in the prayer case, so I hold out hope for him.


39 posted on 06/23/2014 8:15:40 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The USSC will dodge the issue by finding some way to deny them standing.


40 posted on 06/23/2014 8:29:11 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
It’s about winning the war by dismantling these huge, bloated, threatening, unconstitutional bureaucracies.

I very much agree, though I have to be honest I'm not hopeful:

  1. Given the Treason and state-sponsored terrorism of Fast & Furious… nothing happened.
  2. Given the NSA's domestic spying revelations… nothing happened.
  3. Given the IRS's political targeting… nothing happened.

41 posted on 06/23/2014 8:36:23 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I just saw a show the other night about the bald eagle. A few things struck me.

- John Adams, a devout Christian, helped choose the bald eagle as the symbol for America. I believe it was an inspired choice.
- The bald eagle has come roaring back from near extinction.
- An eagle's youth is renewed as it gets older as researchers continue to discover and as the Bible tells us (Ps 103:5).
- Interestingly, the flying eagle is one of four faces described throughout the Bible (Eze 1:10,10:14; Rev 4:7) of "man-like" (Eze 1:5) creatures that surround the throne and ceaselessly say "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Rev 4:8). Well many believe that these four faces represent the four main characteristics of Jesus with each of the four gospels emphasizing one of the four. The flying eagle is thought to symbolize Jesus as the Son of God, emphasized in John's gospel, as the one who will fly back to us in his second coming.

To me, these are all very hopeful symbols and aspects that point to the possibility and hope of God, not man, reviving America and giving her "a new birth of freedom" until Jesus returns for his bride. (All bets are off after that.) I also have some personal reasons why I think America's freedom and prosperity may be renewed because of clear promises of God's blessing and greatly prospering me and others for the next 60 years or so before I go to Heaven.

42 posted on 06/23/2014 8:56:27 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
You cannot logically be free to have a religious objection to abortion, but not a religious objection to homosexuality.

Of course you can. Just laws in a free society only prohibit actions that interfere with another's life and liberty. Unjust laws interfere with adult individuals' own private free choice that does not interfere with other's freedom.

Abortion is murder, clearly interfering with the life of the unborn and, therefore, should be prohibited.

Sodomy done in private between consenting adults, though deviant and reprehensible behavior, does not interfere with another's freedom and, therefore, should not be illegal

43 posted on 06/23/2014 9:12:23 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: xzins
FYI, I don't agree with Mr. Roger's assessment. Here's why...

Just laws in a free society only prohibit actions that interfere with another's life and liberty. Unjust laws interfere with adult individuals' own private free choice that does not interfere with other's freedom.

Abortion is murder, clearly interfering with the life of the unborn and, therefore, should be prohibited.

Sodomy done in private between consenting adults, though deviant and reprehensible behavior, does not interfere with another's freedom and, therefore, should not be illegal

44 posted on 06/23/2014 9:15:19 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

I’m not, for this thread, discussing if homosexuality ought to be illegal. Should someone who believes homosexuality is evil and repulsive in God’s eyes be forced to celebrate homosexuality in his public life?

Can we only condemn sin as sin in private homes and churches, or can we act on our beliefs in the public sphere?

And remember - the pro-choice folks completely reject your belief that “Abortion is murder”. They liken it to removing a tumor. In fact, from a religious viewpoint, the Bible condemns homosexuality in strong terms and is largely silent on abortion.

Please notice I am NOT in any way supporting abortion. But from a religious freedom viewpoint, the religious argument against homosexuality is more explicit in the Bible, along with some other religions.


45 posted on 06/23/2014 9:25:27 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Left wing. Right wing. One buzzard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Disease does interfere with freedom. A propensity toward child abuse does interfere with freedom. Early death and mental disease does interfere with freedom.


46 posted on 06/23/2014 9:32:10 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The court will rule against Hobby Lobby. They’ll say something along the lines of “Providing insurance coverage that is not in line with their religious beliefs is no different from selling their product to people who don’t believe as they do.”


47 posted on 06/23/2014 9:37:08 AM PDT by VerySadAmerican (Liberals were raised by women or wimps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: voicereason; circlecity; xzins

While a corporation is a legal entity, a corporation cannot carry a gun. A corporation can not vote. A corporation can not do a number of things that a individuals can do.


48 posted on 06/23/2014 9:43:54 AM PDT by Portcall24 (aer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

You should learn what “standing” means.


49 posted on 06/23/2014 9:56:36 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

50 posted on 06/23/2014 9:56:56 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson