Skip to comments.Hobby Lobby Wins !: Where Do We Go from Here?
Posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The U.S. Supreme Court has given the Obama administration (and, hopefully the world) a lesson in the first freedom. I'm sorry it was necessary, but it was—the government cannot (and must not) require people of faith to violate their sincerely-held beliefs.
The ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties underscores religious liberty as our "first freedom." The freedom to exercise religion, enshrined in our Constitution's Bill of Rights, has been called "the cornerstone of the American experiment" because it is from our religious freedom all of our other freedoms flow.
Below is a graphic from a LifeWay Research study conducted in November of 2012, showing that most Americans support mandatory contraception coverage through ObamaCare.
Before the ruling, former U.S. Solicitor General Ken Starr pointed out that religious liberty was certainly at stake behind the legalese of the arguments being made by the U.S. government:
If the Supreme Court accepts the government's formalistic argument (that a corporation cannot exercise a right to free exercise of religion), it will deal an unnecessary blow to the cause of religious liberty and simply create incentives for families of conscience to carry on their business enterprise in another form. The Greens will, win or lose, be able to carry on and continue their admirable mission to serve a cause higher and nobler than their own commercial success. But something very valuable—the nation's historic commitment to religious freedom—will have been needlessly compromised.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Time to head to Mississippi.
Directions for all RINOs, MS is south of Florida.
Religions liberty is foundational to the US, obama, kapish?
READ THE BLOG ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT’s DECISION HERE:
FAN FREAKING TASTIC!!!!!
CW-II, of course, because the Obamadorks and associated low IQ minions will not give up.
May as well get it over with earlier rather than later.
And, as is my usual, I volunteer to construct, sharpen and man the guillotine when the libs and RINOs are led up the stairs.
I wonder if this case could set a precedent for the Christian wedding cake makers and photographers being persecuted by the state for refusing to participate in gay marriage? If nothing else it should bolster their argument that you don’t lose your right to practice your religion just because you go into business...
JUST SHOUTED PRAISE TO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!
LET FREEDOM RING!!!!!
However, the criminals in charge of America, Herr Obozo, Herr Holder and whatever Jarrett is, will ignore this decision llke they ignore the laws of the nation, elections and court decisions which go against their agendas and big donors.
Make every corporate entity a small closely held company? Other than that, the decision is narrow enough to only affect those types of companies, until the feds fund contraception coverage through regulation.
RE: Religions liberty is foundational to the US, obama, kapish?
We are on the edge my friend... the decision was 5-4.
All we need is for (God Forbid) one of the conservative to die or retire before 2016 and we’ll have another Ginsberg on the bench.
With that, 5-4 will be THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
I understand this has to do with ‘privately held businesses’.....which Holly Hobby is...protects the owners from the Obama mandate.
Now individuals need to demand their religious freedom to not pay for other people’s contraception...
A teeny tiny success, enjoy but keep on waving your pro life, heterosexual, liberty flag high.
Forward to life and freedom.
BTTT ~ Ditto!
Thanks for the best laugh of the day and probably the week.
Of course the rats and their mediots will ignore this court decision.
Thanks be to God !!
so, who really thinks this will put a dent in Obama’s “borrowing of authority” and “acting on his own”?
Great news. Libs took two hits today, this and Harris v Quinn.
“The first reactions from other news sources overread Hobby Lobby significantly. The Court makes clear that the government can provide coverage to the female employees. And it strongly suggests it would reject broad religious claims to, for example, discriminate against gay employees.
by tgoldstein 7:32 AM
- See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.N2zhDl12.dpuf
John Hayward is one of the sharper knives in the drawer.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Evidently Kennedy is very troubled that this mandate/reg came from HHS/Sebelius and not a duly elected branch of government. I think he’s ‘on’ to something there .... [/s] although I’m very glad he’s troubled since there are lots of ‘regs’ being promulgated (EPA/HHS, etc,) to get what Obama/libs want done to transform America.
Does anyone know how or if this affects the Little Sisters of the Poor’s case?
OK, now does the same principal apply to the cake maker?
RE: Evidently Kennedy is very troubled that this mandate/reg came from HHS/Sebelius and not a duly elected branch of government.
Well, this is something that we should be concerned about. WHAT IF it came from Congress, is he then going to side with the liberals?
I suspect this one will be revisited...
Can we please enjoy a win here?
“We owe a lot to Hobby Lobby.”
Indeed we do. Not a lot of businesspeople these days have the courage to stand up for their convictions even when their living is on the line.
Praise The Lord.
Paraphrasing more from Justice Alito’s opinion: The dissent is concerned about the possibility of disputes among the owners of a privately held corporation about this coverage. State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by (for example) dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure, and courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving such disputes. -
That goes to separation of powers and is a good thing.
Great News! The passengers on the Titanic can celebrate getting to move a deck chair from port to starboard.
Thank you Jesus. God bless the Greens.
Yeah... that’s a common thread in several of these rulings. There is a willingness on the side of the court to rule our dictator back in.
RE: Does anyone know how or if this affects the Little Sisters of the Poors case?
It should favor the Little Sisters as a PRECEDENT.
Just as Hobby Lobby headlined a group of for-profit businesses challenging the contraception mandate, the Little Sisters of the Poor headline a much larger group of non-profit ministries challenging the same mandate. The non-profit cases are about a year behind the for-profit cases in court.
It would be CONTRADICTORY of the Supreme Court to rule in favor of a for profit corporation and not rule in favor of a not for profit organization, especially an explicitly religious one.
I hope you mean REEL our (wannabe) dictator back in.
I wonder if this case could set a precedent for the Christian wedding cake makers and photographers being persecuted by the state for refusing to participate in gay marriage? If nothing else it should bolster their argument that you dont lose your right to practice your religion just because you go into business...
I’m wondering this very same thing... I don’t see how the Supreme Court can rule in favor of religious freedom for Hobby Lobby, but not for that of Christian small businesses. Not to mention, there is also a judicial precedence from 2000 where the Boy Scouts of America were ruled in favor of having the First Amendment right, as a private organization, to exclude people from membership. Why can’t the same right apply to private businesses that do not wish to cater its product to certain people for legitimate religious reasons?
It’s great news versus the alternative.