Skip to comments.USCCB on Hobby Lobby ruling: “Justice has prevailed”
Posted on 06/30/2014 3:06:59 PM PDT by NYer
The president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, together with the chairman of the conference’s Committee for Religious Liberty, released a statement earlier today in response to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby religious freedom case.
The joint statement from Archbishop Joseph Kurtz and Archbishop William Lori praised the Supreme Court for “[recognizing] that Americans can continue to follow their faith when they run a family business.” They also pointed out that the ruling has no clear implications for religious freedom cases challenging the Obama administration’s “accommodation” for religious employers, such as the lawsuit filed by the Little Sisters of the Poor.
Earlier this year the USCCB filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, both family-run businesses whose owners object to providing employees with insurance plans covering contraceptives that can act as abortifacients. In the brief, the USCCB voiced its objections to “any rule that would require faithful Catholics and other religiously motivated business owners to choose between providing coverage for products and speech that violate their religious beliefs, and exposing their businesses to devastating penalties.”
Today’s statement from Archbishops Kurtz and Lori reads:
We welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to recognize that Americans can continue to follow their faith when they run a family business. In this case, justice has prevailed, with the Court respecting the rights of the Green and Hahn families to continue to abide by their faith in how they seek their livelihood, without facing devastating fines. Now is the time to redouble our efforts to build a culture that fully respects religious freedom.
The Court clearly did not decide whether the so-called ‘accommodation’ violates RFRA when applied to our charities, hospitals and schools, so many of which have challenged it as a burden on their religious exercise. We continue to hope that these great ministries of service, like the Little Sisters of the Poor and so many others, will prevail in their cases as well.
It wasn’t sweeping enough. The court should have said that the constitution does not provide the government ANY authority to force employers to violate their religious beliefs in ANY capacity when it comes to the commerce and employment they engage in. In fact, this is a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause. No business should be forced to engage in commerce against their will or provide benefits to their employees against their will, especially when such activity would violate the moral beliefs of their owners. Both are voluntary business transactions, and businesses may make their terms with a wide berth of authority.
Businesses don’t have to serve you
Businesses don’t have to employ you
Businesses don’t have to pay for your Christmas list
whew- now onto Little Sisters of the Poor
They should have said the Constitution doesn’t give the Federal government any authority regarding health insurance AT ALL.
But since they didn’t, this is better than a kick in the teeth with a hobnailed boot.
I guess it was because a family owns Hobby Lobby and they all practice the faith in their business even playing religious music in their stores during the day.
Since this is really about Religion and killing babies...I think we’re on our way to reversing Roe. I hope so...in my lifetime.
Like baking wedding cakes for homosexuals. I hear you. Perhaps you missed Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 35 page written dissent. She claims the decision is of startling breadth, that would mean that corporations could "opt out of any law
they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs". The feminists have had a hey day with this ruling. Some have threatened to burn down Hobby Lobby stores (where, of course, none of them ever shop). Lol!
Wouldn’t that be wonderful to reverse Roe vs. Wade?
What’s the bet all the pro aborts were fat and/or ugly?