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

Skip to comments.

Hobby Lobby Wins !: Where Do We Go from Here?
Christianity Today ^ | 06/30/2014 | Ed Stetzer

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 High Court's Ruling

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: christians; hobbylobby; hobbylobbydecision; mandate; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last

1 posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

2 posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Time to head to Mississippi.

Directions for all RINOs, MS is south of Florida.


3 posted on 06/30/2014 7:25:26 AM PDT by George from New England (escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Religions liberty is foundational to the US, obama, kapish?


4 posted on 06/30/2014 7:25:40 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

READ THE BLOG ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT’s DECISION HERE:

http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.OfzafGnO.dpuf


5 posted on 06/30/2014 7:25:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
 photo shock.png
6 posted on 06/30/2014 7:26:00 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

FAN FREAKING TASTIC!!!!!


7 posted on 06/30/2014 7:26:30 AM PDT by NCC-1701 (You have your fear, which might become reality; and you have Godzilla, which IS reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


8 posted on 06/30/2014 7:26:36 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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...


9 posted on 06/30/2014 7:26:38 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

JUST SHOUTED PRAISE TO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!
LET FREEDOM RING!!!!!


10 posted on 06/30/2014 7:27:08 AM PDT by pollywog ("O Thou who changest not, abide with me.".......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Good news.

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.


11 posted on 06/30/2014 7:27:08 AM PDT by Grampa Dave ( Herr Obozo, the Sunni Won-Doer, will not divert $'s from his war on Americans to help our Veterans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


12 posted on 06/30/2014 7:27:13 AM PDT by AnAmericanInEngland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

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.


13 posted on 06/30/2014 7:27:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I understand this has to do with ‘privately held businesses’.....which Holly Hobby is...protects the owners from the Obama mandate.


14 posted on 06/30/2014 7:27:52 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Now individuals need to demand their religious freedom to not pay for other people’s contraception...


15 posted on 06/30/2014 7:28:03 AM PDT by EBH (And the head wound was healed, and Gog became man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar
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...

Exactly. What this ruling states is that you don't have to choose between owning a business or being religious.
16 posted on 06/30/2014 7:28:27 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes


17 posted on 06/30/2014 7:28:30 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

A teeny tiny success, enjoy but keep on waving your pro life, heterosexual, liberty flag high.

Forward to life and freedom.


18 posted on 06/30/2014 7:28:53 AM PDT by FreedomGuru (Time for torches and pitchforks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pollywog

BTTT ~ Ditto!


19 posted on 06/30/2014 7:28:58 AM PDT by Jane Long ("And when thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
SCOTUS: "HHS's contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion."
20 posted on 06/30/2014 7:29:47 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Awesome news.


21 posted on 06/30/2014 7:29:47 AM PDT by Girlene (Hey NSA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
  We owe a lot to Hobby Lobby.
22 posted on 06/30/2014 7:30:44 AM PDT by Maurice Tift (Never wear anything that panics the cat. -- P.J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Thanks for the best laugh of the day and probably the week.

Of course the rats and their mediots will ignore this court decision.

23 posted on 06/30/2014 7:30:56 AM PDT by Grampa Dave ( Herr Obozo, the Sunni Won-Doer, will not divert $'s from his war on Americans to help our Veterans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Thanks be to God !!


24 posted on 06/30/2014 7:32:26 AM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

so, who really thinks this will put a dent in Obama’s “borrowing of authority” and “acting on his own”?


25 posted on 06/30/2014 7:32:38 AM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Great news. Libs took two hits today, this and Harris v Quinn.


26 posted on 06/30/2014 7:32:46 AM PDT by jazusamo (Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomGuru
A teeny tiny success, enjoy but keep on waving your pro life, heterosexual, liberty flag high.
Forward to life and freedom.



27 posted on 06/30/2014 7:32:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“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
Comment
- See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.N2zhDl12.dpuf


28 posted on 06/30/2014 7:33:00 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

John Hayward is one of the sharper knives in the drawer.


29 posted on 06/30/2014 7:33:08 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

WOOT!


30 posted on 06/30/2014 7:33:11 AM PDT by Travis T. OJustice (I miss you, dad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

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

31 posted on 06/30/2014 7:33:13 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]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


32 posted on 06/30/2014 7:34:41 AM PDT by Qiviut ( One of the most delightful things about a garden is the anticipation it provides. (W.E. Johns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All

Does anyone know how or if this affects the Little Sisters of the Poor’s case?


33 posted on 06/30/2014 7:34:47 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

OK, now does the same principal apply to the cake maker?


34 posted on 06/30/2014 7:35:29 AM PDT by Flint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Qiviut

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?


35 posted on 06/30/2014 7:36:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: apillar
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?

I suspect this one will be revisited...

36 posted on 06/30/2014 7:36:12 AM PDT by GOPJ (Why no outrage over IRS targeting? Same reason Pravda didn't make a stink about gulags.FREnterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
so, who really thinks this will put a dent in Obama’s “borrowing of authority” and “acting on his own”?

Can we please enjoy a win here?

 photo eeyore.jpg

37 posted on 06/30/2014 7:36:33 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Maurice Tift

“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.


38 posted on 06/30/2014 7:37:02 AM PDT by lquist1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; kingattax

Praise The Lord.


39 posted on 06/30/2014 7:37:03 AM PDT by left that other site (You shall know the Truth, and The Truth Shall Set You Free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

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. -

See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.ydeCcrXN.dpuf


40 posted on 06/30/2014 7:37:51 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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?

That goes to separation of powers and is a good thing.

41 posted on 06/30/2014 7:38:57 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: All

Decision PDF: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf


42 posted on 06/30/2014 7:38:59 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Great News! The passengers on the Titanic can celebrate getting to move a deck chair from port to starboard.


43 posted on 06/30/2014 7:40:11 AM PDT by Gadsden1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Thank you Jesus. God bless the Greens.


44 posted on 06/30/2014 7:41:51 AM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: don-o

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.


45 posted on 06/30/2014 7:42:05 AM PDT by kjam22 (my music video "If My People" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b20RjILy4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Ginsburg has written a 19 page Dissent, not yet available.
46 posted on 06/30/2014 7:43:00 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

RE: Does anyone know how or if this affects the Little Sisters of the Poor’s 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.


47 posted on 06/30/2014 7:43:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
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.

I hope you mean REEL our (wannabe) dictator back in.

48 posted on 06/30/2014 7:44:15 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: apillar

apillar wrote:
<<
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...
>>

************************************************************

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?


49 posted on 06/30/2014 7:44:58 AM PDT by DestroyLiberalism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gadsden1st

It’s great news versus the alternative.


50 posted on 06/30/2014 7:45:05 AM PDT by jazusamo (Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 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