WASHINGTON (RNS) Five things to know about one of the most anticipated Supreme Court decisions of the year:

Demonstrators rallied at the Supreme Court on Monday (June 30) before the justices sided with the evangelical owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., ruling 5-4 that the arts-and-crafts chain does not have to offer insurance for types of birth control that conflict with company owners’ religious beliefs.

Demonstrators rallied at the Supreme Court on Monday (June 30) before the justices sided with the evangelical owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., ruling 5-4 that the arts-and-crafts chain does not have to offer insurance for types of birth control that conflict with company owners’ religious beliefs. RNS photo by Heather Adams


This image is available for Web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

1. Corporations can’t pray, but they do have religious rights.

Hobby Lobby isn’t a person. It’s a chain of crafts stores owned by a religious family. And though the evangelical Green family objects to parts of the Affordable Care Act’s emergency contraception mandate, it’s not the Greens but the company that writes the check for employees’ health insurance. The first question the justices had to answer was this: Does Hobby Lobby have religious rights? To many Americans, this sounds a little nutty. Does a craft store believe in God?

A majority of the justices held that a closely held company such as Hobby Lobby does have religious rights. The court didn’t apply those rights, however, to publicly held corporations, where owners’ religious beliefs would be hard to discern.

But well before the justices had delivered their verdict on this question, many legal scholars said they wouldn’t be surprised were they to affirm the company’s religious rights. American corporations do have some of the rights and responsibilities we usually associate with people. And in the 2010 Citizens United campaign finance case, the justices overturned bans on corporate political spending as a violation of freedom of speech — corporations’ free speech.

Protesters stand outside the Supreme Court on June 30, 2014, waiting for decision on the Hobby Lobby case. Some protesters had homemade signs, like this one. The Court later sided with the evangelical owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., ruling 5-4 that the arts-and-crafts chain does not have to offer insurance for types of birth control that conflict with company owners’ religious beliefs.

Protesters stand outside the Supreme Court on June 30, 2014, waiting for a decision on the Hobby Lobby case. Some protesters had homemade signs, like this one. The court later sided with the evangelical owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., ruling 5-4 that the arts-and-crafts chain does not have to offer insurance for types of birth control that conflict with company owners’ religious beliefs. RNS photo by Heather Adams


This image is available for Web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

2. The Affordable Care Act isn’t the only way to get contraception to women.

The justices in this case interpreted not only the 225-year-old Constitution but also the 21-year-old Religious Freedom Restoration Act. One of the things RFRA says is that if a federal law is going to substantially burden someone’s religious freedom, the feds must make sure that the law uses the “least restrictive means” to achieve its purpose. In this case, the purpose is providing birth control to female employees at no cost.

Justice Stephen Breyer asked the “least restrictive means” question when this case was argued before the court: Instead of making the company provide insurance that conflicts with its owners’ beliefs, how about the government pays for it? The Supreme Court answered Breyer’s question in the affirmative in this opinion: There are ways of getting contraception to women that don’t substantially burden the Green family’s religious beliefs. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, suggested the government could pay.

3. The American people would have ruled differently.

There are nine U.S. Supreme Court justices and most of them ruled for Hobby Lobby. But what if a softball team composed of a random sample of nine American adults got to decide this case instead? Well, the team would have likely come up with a very different decision.

In a Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, released in April, Americans expressed solid support for the contraception mandate, backing it by a 2-to-1 margin. Kaiser also asked specifically about requiring coverage in the Hobby Lobby scenario: Should a for-profit business owner with religious objections to birth control be subject to the requirement? Again, a majority (55 percent) said yes, they should, “even if it violates their owners’ personal religious beliefs.”

4. This court is rah-rah religious rights.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ court is shaping up to be pretty darn protective of that free exercise clause. Less than two months ago, the court ruled 5-4 that the town of Greece, N.Y., could regularly convene town meetings with sectarian Christian prayers. And in 2012, the court ruled 9-0 that a Lutheran school could fire a teacher who had some ministerial responsibilities, despite the government’s argument that her dismissal violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.

In all these cases, the court sided with religious rights over other rights. “The Roberts court has been a great champion of religious freedom,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Hobby Lobby.

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 30) sided with the evangelical owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., ruling 5-4 that the arts-and-crafts chain does not have to offer insurance for types of birth control that conflict with company owners’ religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 30) sided with the evangelical owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., ruling 5-4 that the arts-and-crafts chain does not have to offer insurance for types of birth control that conflict with company owners’ religious beliefs. RNS graphic by Tiffany McCallen


This image is available for Web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

5. Hobby Lobby won, but the next company to cite religious objections might well lose.

Contraception mandate fans painted terrible scenarios of religious rights run amok in the case of a Hobby Lobby win. What if a Jehovah’s Witness invokes her religious rights and says she won’t cover blood transfusions in her company’s health plan? What if an employer says vaccinations conflict with his beliefs?

The Hobby Lobby decision may certainly embolden religious employers to object to laws they consider burdensome. But that doesn’t mean they’re always going to win. The court made clear in this ruling that religion should not always trump the law, and said its decision applies to the contraception mandate, not other insurance mandates. The court also specified that an employer could not use religion to get an exemption from laws that prohibit discrimination — on the basis of race, for example. The justices were silent, however, on whether employers’ religious beliefs could override laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Also unclear, legal experts say, is how this decision is going to affect religious non-profits and religiously affiliated schools and hospitals that want the same sort of exemption the justices awarded to Hobby Lobby.

Supreme Court rules for Hobby Lobby

WASHINGTON (RNS) The Supreme Court on Monday (June 30) sided with the evangelical owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., ruling 5-4 that the arts-and-crafts chain does not have to offer insurance for four types of birth control that conflict with company owners’ religious beliefs.

Beyond the specifics of the Hobby Lobby case before them, the justices broke new legal ground by affirming that corporations, not just individual Americans or religious nonprofits, may claim religious rights.

Does Monday’s decision mean, however, that the religious beliefs of business owners stand paramount? That they are more important than a female employee’s right to choose from the full array of birth control methods she is promised under the Affordable Care Act? Or that business owners may invoke their religious rights to deny service to a gay couple?

Not necessarily, legal experts say.

The decision for Hobby Lobby, the justices made clear, applies to privately held companies such as Hobby Lobby — not vast publicly held corporations, for which the owners’ religious beliefs would be difficult to discern.

But in general, the ruling — one of the most anticipated in the high court’s current session — is a victory for conservatives who had hoped the justices would find that the federal government had trampled on the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise of religion.

“This case demonstrates that Americans don’t give up their religious freedom when they open a family business,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Hobby Lobby. “The court understands that religion isn’t limited to what you do in a synagogue on Saturday or a church on Sunday.”

Those disappointed with the ruling faulted the justices for granting religious rights to corporations and compromising women’s health.

“This decision is a double-edged disaster,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “It conjures up fake religious freedom rights for corporations while being blind to the importance of birth control to America’s working women.”

“While the Obama administration may arrange for the government to provide contraceptives, a future administration could easily take that away,” Lynn continued. “In years to come, many women may find their access to birth control hanging by a thread.”

What the majority opinion says:

— The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which sets a high bar for any federal law that restricts religious practice, applies to closely held for-profit businesses.

— Though employers at such companies can’t be forced to cover emergency contraception that conflicts with their religious beliefs, that doesn’t mean that religious employers can refuse to cover any medical procedure — blood transfusions or vaccinations, for example — that conflicts with personal religious beliefs.

– The government could have found a way to achieve the goals of the Affordable Heath Act’s so-called contraception mandate without impinging on religious rights, a RFRA requirement.

Lawyers for Hobby Lobby argued that President Obama’s landmark health care law, had overstepped when it required the company and another owned by a Mennonite family — Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. — to insure employees for birth control the companies’ owners found contrary to their Christian beliefs.

READ: Transcript of oral arguments in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell

The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy, the court’s swing vote, also wrote a concurring opinion. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayer and in part by Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. Kagan and Breyer also wrote a separate dissent.

The justices’ affirmation of religious rights in the Hobby Lobby case falls in line with two other major religion cases in the past three years, making clear the court’s intention to preserve religious rights when they compete with others or conflict with anti-discrimination laws.

In the Hosanna-Tabor case in 2012, the court backed a Lutheran school that had fired a teacher who claimed she had been discriminated against under the Americans With Disabilities Act. In Greece v. Galloway in May, the court approved sectarian prayers, or invocations, at the start of government meetings.

YS/AMB END MARKOE

151 Comments

        • Before now, a company could not flaunt a law by claiming religious belief.

          Employees need labor laws to protect their interests. Employers already ha e the power of coercion on their side.

          So you have something against rule of law?

        • The genuinely Christian thing would be to legislate universal health care that prevents the Supreme Court, any other entity of government, any business, any person from invading the relationship between a patient and the patient’s medical advisors.

      • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

        Baloney Larry: Any woman who wants contraception can leave work on her break, walk to the nearest drug store, and purchase a cornucopia of very inexpensive contraceptives.
        The trouble is the socialist mentality that says if I want it someone else should pay for it for me and government power should be used to coerce people to be a party to it all. In addition the media slants the story almost everywhere by usually not mentioning that the only contraceptives at issue in this case are those many doctors say are really abortion pills and killing an already conceived human being. The trouble is that for some with a Planned Parenthood mentality the only good baby is a dead baby.

        • Bullcrap. The most effective forms of female contraception require medical implantation or are prohibitively expensive out of pocket, or require at least a prescription.

          Suddenly you are an expert ob/gyn? Hardly. You just are following along with Steve Green’s own factually incorrect blather, because he says he is a Christian.

          The trouble is your “whatever a christian wants it is justified” attitude. You think everyones private choices are subject to your holier than thou judgment.

          • larry is the true voice of reason here! God willing Christians will read between the lines and see that ego has no part in Christ. Your beliefs are between you and The Almighty, not to be pushed upon the rest of humanity. Prohibit yourself, not others from transgressions.

        • Denise Thress

          “someone else should pay for it” -NOT EXACTLY!
          A paid insurance premium usually in part from the employer and in part from the employee, is the basis for health care. Birth control is part of that. No one asked for FREE!
          Planned Parenthood by the way helps people plan children too. You are so narrow minded that you can’t fathom that. And by the way, “any pills” (plan B) are not abortion pills…they prevent implantation and so does an IUD. The doctors who say otherwise are in a miniscule minority and are misinformed.

        • That’s great! So I assume this means that I can safely opt out of paying any taxes for all the things I don’t believe in? Well, since I’m not really scared of foreign bogeymen, I think I’ll keep the portion of my hard-earned money that goes to the Defense Department – I’ll be happy to defend myself, thanks. I don’t fly much so anything that goes to the FAA, Homeland Security and other such departments I also don’t feel like supporting. And forget public education (or vouchers for private education) – I have no kids so why should I pay for you to educate yours? You know, I may really get to like this “anti-socialist” stuff.

        • Wow, that is just grade A fanatical idiocy.

          You see a fundamental difference between who is treating you like crap and take sides between them. Whereas a reasonably intelligent person would ask why either of them should be able to do it.

    • The Supreme Court is a Disgrace.

      “I turned myself into my own son – I tortured
      and killed myself to impress you.
      If you don’t believe me I’ll do worse to you.” – Yahweh.

      This is an assault on human intelligence and our dignity.

      • It’s not the first assault by our life-tenured federal judges. Therein lies the problem. The people must be given a say in the nomination, the approval, and the continuation of all judges on any benches. Life tenure for federal judges was right up there with the approval of slavery and the prevention of women from voting in our original Constitution. That document has been amended XXVII times to correct errors or omissions. One clarification that is needed is that “freedom of religion” includes “freedom from religion.”

        Add to that the reality that disturbed individuals with firearms do not constitute a “militia,” especially not a “well regulated militia.” We are sinking into muck beyond oligarchy, more into the rot of ancient emperors and royalty. Our system is certainly not capitalism. We have no free market. We have never been a democracy. It is nothing but selfish greed.

        • @Ghilhcan,

          Nightmare scenarios have been unleashed:

          1. Company owners decide to use religion in marketing.

          2. Billions of $ flow to support religious candidates.

          3. War between companies weaponized against the out groups.

          The Supreme Court is building a pre-World War 1 Europe.
          In AMERICA!

          All for ‘religious freedom’ as if we don’t have enough of that already!
          Worst decision since Dred-Scott and it could lead to civil war.

  1. Comment marked as low quality by the editors. Show comment

    I am really shocked at the disconnect the Supreme Court liberals have with everyday Americans when it comes to healthcare and the issues it (AFA0 has created. They seem to waive words around like they are Gods!. Their stance on the liberal side is ” if you cannot see fit to “obey” this law, just don’t offer insurance! This case really highlights the issues with AFA and what a joke it is and what a joke these liberals mindset is as to how they see us Vs government
    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, that’s an
    23
    interesting question, because the briefs on both sides
    24
    here are written as if the penalty for not having a
    25
    health insurance policy that covers contraceptives is at
    Alderson Reporting Company
    22
    Official Subject
    to Final Review
    1
    issue. But isn’t there another choice nobody talks
    2
    about, which is paying the tax, which is a lot less than
    3
    a penalty and a lot less than than the cost of health
    4
    insurance at all? These employers could choose not to
    5
    give health insurance and pay not that high a penalty 6
    not that high a tax.
    7
    MR. CLEMENT: Well, just to put this in
    8
    concrete terms, for Hobby Lobby, for example, the choice
    9
    is between paying a 500 a $475 million per year
    10
    penalty and paying a $26 million per year coverage.
    11
    JUSTICE KAGAN: No, I don’t think that
    12
    that’s the same thing, Mr. Clement. There’s one penalty
    13
    that is if the employer continues to provide health
    14
    insurance without this part of the coverage, but Hobby
    15
    Lobby could choose not to provide health insurance at
    16
    all. And in that case Hobby Lobby would pay $2,000 per
    17
    employee, which is less than Hobby Lobby probably pays
    18
    to provide insurance to its employees.
    19
    So there is a choice here. It’s not even a
    20
    penalty by in the language of the statute. It’s a
    21
    payment or a tax. There’s a choice. And so the
    22
    question is, why is there a substantial burden at all?
    23
    MR. CLEMENT: Well, just to be clear, we
    24
    were talking about the same thing. So the option, the
    25
    choice, is between paying a $475 million a year penalty
    Alderson Reporting Company
    23
    Official Subject
    to Final Review
    1
    and a $26 million a year penalty. That’s what Hobby
    2
    Lobby faces. So $2,000 per person 3
    JUSTICE KAGAN: No, between paying $2,000
    4
    per employee per year if Hobby Lobby does not provide 5
    MR. CLEMENT: That’s $26 million.
    6
    JUSTICE KAGAN: You know, Hobby Lobby is
    7
    paying something right now for the for the coverage.
    8
    It’s less than what Hobby Lobby is paying for the
    9
    coverage. There are employers all over the United
    10
    States that are doing this voluntarily because they
    11
    think that it’s less.
    12
    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I thought I
    13
    thought that part of the religious commitment of the
    14
    owners was to provide health care for its employees.
    15
    MR. CLEMENT: That is true, Mr. Chief
    16
    Justice. It is also true that this 17
    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, if they want to do
    18
    that, they can just pay a greater salary and let the
    19
    employees go in on the exchange.
    20
    MR. CLEMENT: Exactly, which is, by the way,
    21
    why comparing the $2,000 penalty to the cost of the
    22
    health care is a false it’s a false comparison.
    23
    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It’s not called a
    24
    penalty. It’s called a tax. And it’s calibrated and
    25
    it’s calibrated Alderson
    Reporting Company
    24
    Official Subject
    to Final Review
    1
    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: She’s right about
    2
    that.
    3
    (Laughter.)
    4
    MR. CLEMENT: And it has been treated for
    5
    some purposes as a penalty. And I think for this
    6
    purposes, it certainly feels punitive.
    7
    And if I could finish the thought about why it’s
    8
    a false comparison, the 2,000 penalty to the cost of the
    9
    health insurance, is that it’s going to very much hurt
    10
    Hobby Lobby if all of the sudden it doesn’t provide
    11
    health care to its employees. And in order to
    12
    compensate for that, it would have to increase the
    13
    wages. And I think it would be worse off as a result of
    14
    this. But if I could also 15
    JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, let’s say that that’s
    16
    right. Let’s say that they have to increase the wages a
    17
    little bit. I mean, still we are talking about pretty
    18
    equivalent numbers. Maybe it’s a little bit less; maybe
    19
    it’s a little bit more. But this is not the kind of
    20
    thing that’s going to drive a person out of business.
    21
    It’s not prohibitive.
    22
    It’s like the thing that we talked about in
    23
    Braunfeld where we said, you know, maybe if the store
    24
    can’t stay open 7 days a week, it makes a little bit
    25
    less money. But so be it, is what we said.
    Alderson Reporting Company
    Official Subject
    to Final Review
    25
    1
    MR. CLEMENT:
    No, I actually think what it’s
    2
    like, Your Honor, with all due respect, it’s like the
    3
    five dollar penalty enforcing the prohibition in Yoder.
    4
    And what this Court says, it’s one thing if you don’t
    5
    have a direct government prohibition on a religious
    6
    exercise or a mandate that somebody do something that
    7
    violates their religion.
    In those cases, which is like
    8
    Sherbert and is like Braunfeld, then you have to look at
    9
    the substantial pressure, and it becomes a little bit
    10
    more of a looseygoosey analysis.
    But when you have a
    11
    government law that specifically says you must do
    12
    something that violates your religion and it’s
    13
    enforced with a penalty, and with all due respect I
    14
    think $2,000 per employee is a penalty.
    15
    JUSTICE KAGAN:
    But Mr. Clement, it’s not
    16
    saying you must do something that violates your
    17
    religion.
    It’s giving you a choice.
    You can do this
    18
    thing or if this thing violates your religion you can do
    19
    another thing.
    And that other thing is approximately
    20
    the same price as the thing that you don’t want to do.
    21
    MR. CLEMENT:
    I don’t think it would be the
    22
    same price at the end of the day.
    I’d also like to
    23
    point out how this 24
    JUSTICE SCALIA:
    Well, of course it wouldn’t
    25
    be the same price at the end of the day.
    If they deny
    Alderson Reporting Company
    26
    Official Subject
    to Final Review
    1
    health insurance, they’re going to have to raise wages
    2
    if they are going to get employees.
    3
    MR. CLEMENT: Absolutely.
    4
    JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s absurd to say that,
    5
    you know, it comes out of nowhere.
    6
    MR. CLEMENT: Absolutely, Your Honor. And
    7
    by the way, this $2,000 penalty is very much a
    8
    doubleedged sword for the government, because you’re
    9
    trying to 10
    JUSTICE KENNEDY: But why why is that a
    11
    problem? Let’s assume that the cost of providing
    12
    insurance is roughly equivalent to the $2,000 penalty.
    13
    How how is the employer hurt? He can just raise the
    14
    wages.
    15
    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: May I just put a
    16
    footnote on this. I thought the average price of
    17
    providing insurance for a single person is $4,000, and
    18
    it’s $12,000 for a family for a family. So the 2,000
    19
    tax that’s what it’s called is to help the
    20
    government provide subsidies to people on the exchange
    21
    that don’t have employer insurance. So it’s a tax
    22
    because it’s it is to do exactly what your client
    23
    wants, to get the government to supply the
    24
    contraceptives, not the insurance companies.
    25
    MR. CLEMENT: Here’s the problem with this
    Alderson Reporting Company
    27
    Official Subject
    to Final Review
    1
    way of looking at it, which is to say whatever it costs
    2
    per employee to get this, this health care, that’s
    3
    something that right now Hobby Lobby is paying whatever
    4
    it’s paying them, plus it’s it’s you know, imputed
    5
    into that is the idea that they’re getting their wage
    6
    and they’re getting health care insurance.
    7
    If they take away the health care insurance,
    8
    they are going to have to increase the wages to make up
    9
    for that. And they’re going to have to pay the $2,000
    10
    penalty on top of it, plus they’re going to have to
    11
    violate their their own interest which is, we
    12
    actually we believe it’s important to provide our
    13
    employees with qualified health care.
    14
    JUSTICE KENNEDY: Okay, the last is
    15
    important. But just assume hypothetically that it’s a
    16
    wash, that the employer would be in about the same
    17
    position if he paid the penalty and the employer 18
    pardon me, an employee went out and got the insurance
    19
    and that the employee’s wages were raised slightly and
    20
    then it’s and that it’s a wash so far as the employer
    21
    are concerned, other than the employer’s religious
    22
    objection, but just on the financial standpoint. Can we
    23
    assume that as a hypothetical. Then what would your
    24
    case be?
    25
    MR. CLEMENT: I think my case would be that
    Alderson Reporting Company
    28
    Official Subject
    to Final Review
    1
    in that case the government might be able to sort of
    2
    support itself on the compelling interest. I think
    3
    there would still be a substantial burden on their
    4
    exercise. But again, this all turns on issues that the
    5
    government hasn’t put in issue. This case hasn’t been
    6
    litigated on this particular theory, so I think I’d
    7
    love to have the opportunity to show how by not
    8
    providing health insurance it would have a huge burden
    9
    on my client and their ability to attract workers, and
    10
    that in fact would cost them much more out of pocket.
    11
    But that’s not been the nature of the government’s
    12
    theory.
    13
    JUSTICE KAGAN: Can I ask 14
    JUSTICE GINSBURG: There was a point made
    15
    earlier, and I think you didn’t mean to say this, that
    16
    provision of health care is not part of their religious
    17
    belief. Covering their employees for health care, that
    18
    is not a religious tenet, right?
    19
    MR. CLEMENT: No, it actually is. Again, it
    20
    hasn’t been the principal theory on which this case has
    21
    been litigated. But see, if you go back to the
    22
    complaints and you go back to our briefs, you know, it’s
    23
    part of the religious beliefs that both the Hahns and
    24
    the Greens have. They think it’s actually important 25
    JUSTICE KAGAN: But, Mr. Clement, you’re not
    Alderson Reporting Company

  2. I’ve given a lot of thought to this stuff and I think owners’ religious values should be protected, so long as they aren’t imposing them on someone. A Christian who owns a bakery shouldn’t be forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding because he isn’t trying to prevent them from getting married – he simply doesn’t wish to participate or have his name or that of his business associated with a gay wedding. I think Hobby Lobby crosses the line and is seeking to impose itself, but the secularists would cross the line if they moved the “medical provision” from contraception to abortion. So, though I think Hobby Lobby is going too far because they aren’t Catholic, the protection the court gave them protects Christian business owners from paying for abortion when that issue arises. It will be the next one, just like we will move from gay issues to transgender – that will be the next one on that front.

    • Chaplain Martin

      Ellen
      It’s not contraceptives (birth control) they are against. They are against abortion whether it’s called emergency birth control by a method which aborts the egg just after fertilization or in later months as the fetus develops. They are not against birth control pills to prevent conception.
      I am not for abortions being made illegal I just can’t seeing paying for one because a couple didn’t use “protection”.

    • “Because they aren’t Catholic”
      The Roman Catholics do not have the corner on detesting abortifacients and the slaughter of the unborn. Why would it be okay for Roman Catholics to have an opposition to such “birth control” measures, but not other religions / denominations who defend the right to life?
      Why would Roman Catholics have rights that others don’t?
      There are many different religions and Christian denominations who detest abortifacients and some even the use of a condom on doctrinal grounds.

      In my personal opinion, this whole healthcare system that this administration has crammed down our throats is a complete overreach and has shown itself to be nearly impossible to implement. Free people should never be forced to buy something, but they should be held accountable if they refuse to insure themselves properly.

      • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

        To this Catholic one of the most heartening parts of this story is finding out how many Protestant and Evangelical and Mennonite,etc Christians value human life and religious liberty.

        • You are full of crap John.

          Yesterday you were extolling the death penalty

          You only value human life in the womb, but not the person who has the womb. Their decisions never matter compared to your exalted judgments.

          Christans only value life when it us convenient to their beliefs. Otherwise they are indifferent or hostile.

          • ProChoiceProGodAndrea

            (Larry, )
            That’s just not true of everyone…

            But there sure is a whole lot of ignorance flying about right now. It makes me want to cry and punch someone in the face when they use the name of my Higher Power to justify hate, inequality, and isms. :/ (but punching is Not what Jesus would do :))

          • @ProChoiceProGodAndrea,

            “punching is not what Jesus would do”

            You are correct.
            He prefers whips and swords.
            And he prefers execution.

            JESUS – I WILL DISMEMBER PEOPLE WITH A SWORD

            “The master shall cut him to pieces” – Jesus (Luke 12) JESUS describes what he intends to do to his own enemies, whoever they may be.

            JESUS – EXECUTE MY ENEMIES FOR ME

            “..bring to me those enemies of mine who would not have me as their King, and execute them in front of me.” (Luke 19:27)

            JESUS – YOU SHOULD DROWN THEM

            “Drown him with a millstone” (Matt 18:6),

            JESUS – YOU MUST YOUR NEIGHBOR JUDGE HARSHLY

            “Deem [them] unworthy…remove your blessings of PEACE” (Matt 10:13)

            JESUS – I SHALL BURN THE WORLD

            “I have come to bring FIRE…What constraints! I am impatient to bring..DIVISION.” (Luke 12:49-51)

            JESUS – HATE THOSE WHO LOVE YOU

            “Hate your parents…hate your life”(Luke 14:26)

            JESUS – I’M A MAFIA GODFATHER.

            “Eat of my body” and “Be baptized and believe” or “Be condemned to Hell” (John 6:53-54) (Mark 16:16).

      • Sometimes the most moral choice is not an easy one.

        The birth control methods you speak of do not end established pregnancies, but they certainly have the potential to reduce the numbers of surgical abortions.

        You speak of the health care system being “crammed” down our throats, but you ignore the fact that before the ACA was passed, corporations were making our healthcare decisions based (pretty much) on profits alone. As their profits soared and health insurance became unafordable for many, more and more Americans were left without access to care.

        You apparently care deeply for all the fertilized eggs that may not iimplant, but you care not at all for the child that may die from a treatable condition because his parents can’t afford to pay for treatment.

        The ACA is making affordable care available to many for the first time. It is not difficult to implement, but even if it were the good it does would be well worth it. The problems caused by allowing corporations to call the shots in American health care were many, and none of the possible solutions perfect.

      • I smell an offended catholic…also, remember, the very court who upheld this decision, ruled in favor of all forms of contraception. They also ruled that the penalty for not being insured is legal. So if you want to dispute one, you should dispute all.

    • Here’s the problem: this Hobby Lobby decision is welcome, but the time for this Supreme Court to start taking constitutional religious freedoms seriously was BEFORE it legalized gay marriage in Windsor.

      That specific demon-possessed decision (which a similarly afflicted president worked very hard to achieve), pretty much makes any SCOTUS decision that follows it moot.

      With the federal DOMA being killed, there is ultimately NO legal protection from gay bullying of Christian business owners at all, no matter what happens with the “contraception issue.” And the libbie federal judges, going on a pro-gay rampage, are pressing this point home, state by state.

    • “I’ve given a lot of thought to this stuff and I think owners’ religious values should be protected, so long as they aren’t imposing them on someone.”

      Agreed, however, Hobby Lobby doesn’t hire from a pool of specifically religious people that happen to follow their religious convictions. They are hiring from the general public and are making a profit on it. Therefore they are ‘imposing’ their religious values on their employees by not paying for equal care across the board. In addition, since they do not need to pay for this type of care, that gives them a competitive edge as a business by cutting costs, meaning businesses that claim religious exemptions to costs will do better than those that provide full care to their employees.

      It’s different than a company like a cake baker who probably is the only or one of the few employees at their shop. They can be fairly sure that their religious convictions are uniform in their business. Hobby Lobbies exist all over the US and hire wide ranges of people. They cannot be sure that their employees share the same religious convictions. Therefore, the court’s caveat that it only applies to small independently owned businesses should state that this shouldn’t apply for Hobby Lobby which is more akin to a large corporation (like Michael’s) than a small independently owned business. This was a bad decision, and this is evidenced by the narrow margin in which this passed (in which the majority was both conservative and male).

    • @MIke,

      You said,
      “I think owners’ religious values should be protected, so long as they aren’t imposing them on someone.”

      BUT THEIR RELIGIOUS RIGHTS ARE ALREADY PROTECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      BUT AS OF TODAY….THE EMPLOYEES ARE BEING DENIED THEIR FREEDOM !!!!!!!

      Heathcare is about health!
      And religion has no place in this!

      Be SCARED.
      This is the Talibanization of America!
      AND PEOPLE WILL DIE FROM THIS DECISION.

      • Another foil hat has left its head…you were 100% correct until you sensationalized your credibility with the taliban reference. You may as well have used some kind of Hitler analogy. Sensationalism has no place in politics or media. Kindly show yourself out.

        • Forcing people to comply with religion is exactly what the Taliban and Hobby Lobby are doing.

          The only difference is the Taliban has no constitutional law to defend it so it is likely to fade away with time.

          We will suffer from religious edicts for the rest of our lives.

    • Why do they need to know its a gay wedding, why limit it to a wedding, why do I even have to provide food to gay people. I’m not gay but do I need to take a “gay test” in order to order a cake. How about the busy bodies just leave me alone and sell cakes. And be sure the court opened a can of worms, can hardly wait until a Muslim owner of a corporation imposes their beliefs on the Christian employess, then all heck will break loose.

        • And I can’t wait until some angry lesbian CEO
          decides all the male employees must be denied erection pills
          to protect her religious rights.

          And if there is no religion that fits this rule – SHE’LL CREATE ONE!

          In fact, lets make up some gods and some religions who
          don’t like OSHA rules!

          How about the EPA!
          Funny but my religion forbids cleaning up toxic waste sites!
          Which religion permits pollution?

          Well, by golly, I’ll FIND ONE!!!!!

          • OR INVENT ONE!!!

            The recipe for making a god is:

            2 parts nothing
            6 parts of nothing.
            Add two tablespoons of nothing.

            Mix it all together and you have a god.

            Pick a letter from the alphabet and Name
            your god whatever you like
            then add some commanding attributes which coincide with your own!

            Can’t wait til the Supreme Court gets a challenge on “what is a valid religion?”

            So disgusting.

    • I have a friend who almost died because of terrible complications with her pregnancy. She spent weeks in the hospital trying to save her baby, receiving wonderful care from her doctors. However her team of physicians determined that in order for her to live, she could not carry her dying, severely deformed fetus to term. Her physicians cared for her, and yes, she had an abortion – a MEDICAL PROCEDURE< HER LIFE WAS IN DANGER. She survived. Now she and her husband have 2 lovely healthy children. However, she also has had to keep her ordeal a secret from her extended anti-abortion family – who would have rather had her die and have a dead fetus removed from her dead body than for her to have an abortion and live. Some abortions are MEDICAL procedures performed in order to save the woman's life or remove a dead or dying fetus from her body. But few people know about women's experiences because people like you condemn them before you even learn their stories.

    • Mike: The government can’t force a company to provide something to its employees that it considers a sin. That would be akin to giving a gun to a suicidal person. Why must this government continuously think that they are above God?

    • Then you ought to ABHOR the government that interjects itself into the lives of its citizens… going beyond its intended job of protecting our God given rights (especially the right to life).

      Government intruding into the health care business is HORRIBLY WRONG! Now that Gov. has a business interest in our health… how many more gov. employees will be added to control our actions? Sending out workers to test if we have applied enough sunscreen to be allowed outside, drank enough water, taken our vitamins, eaten according to gov. requirements, etc.

      The government should NEVER go beyond its purpose! History has proven gov. is inefficient in business and when grown beyond its intended purpose is oppressive to our freedoms and growth of our society!

      • Yet now they have the right to determine the level of your “deeply held beliefs” when it comes to application under the law. The self destructive idiocy of Bible thumping and knee jerk libertarianism has created an even greater threat to personal iberties.

      • When bad things happen in this country we always ask, “Where was the Government and why didn’t they stop this?”

        Well something was very, very wrong with our healthcare system. Why should “business” have control of our health? We had a situation where enormous profits were being generated by corportations. How did the corporations do this? Answer: by providing health care to healthy people and preventing the sick from having access.

        What I am seeing in the people here who complain about the government truly disgusts me. People who had decent insurance already, and couldn’t care less about all of the people who were shut out of the system. Millions of people who were sick and therefore uninsurable are actually blamed (in this right wing fantasy) for not taking responsibility for themselves.

        By the way— government does certain things better than corporations because profit is not always the appropriate priority. History doesn’t prove you right in this respect.

      • “This” being the forced intervention of religion into the lives of people who don’t follow that religion. And “people” being anyone who is not Christian or who is Christians but believes in “freedom of and from religion”.

        • It is one privately held company and if you do not like how the family wants to run the company they worked hard for and sacrificed for and believe God blessed them with THEN GET ANOTHER JOB!

          • Yep, and if a family-owned company wants to do anything they want to do to their employees–as long as they worked hard and believe God blessed them–then, if the employees don’t like it, they can get another job. Basically, people who believe God blessed them (and worked hard) should be allowed to do anything they want to, anywhere, any time, to anyone. Got it.

          • Yet they don’t want the personal responsibility or liability of running it. Which is why they incorporated.

            If they want to torch the corporate veil so badly, the Greens should be personally sued for every legal issue Hobby Lobby has to deal with.

          • “Privately” held. But that didn’t stop them from turning the business into a corporation— which is a legal entity separate from the owners. They, of course, wanted the legal protections this separate entity would provide.

    • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

      Organized baby killing by Planned Parenthood is OK, but organized defense of the sanctity of human life by organized religion isn’t?????

      • Yes!!!

        Because its none of your [expletive deleted] businesses what a woman does with her womb.

        Your religious beliefs do not entitle you to make decisions for others.

          • Yes!!! Because I EARNED it selling your stupid popsicle sticks, Elmers glue and glitter.

            Its my compensation package, my private medical matters!

            What right do you have to tell the healthcare professionals I use what they should do?

          • @John,

            Good thing your boss isn’t a fascist lesbian
            who hates male boners, eh?

            Your blue pills won’t be covered.
            EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY ALSO BE USEFUL AGAINST PROSTATE CANCER!

            You fascist knuckleheads are going to ruin America with your religious intrusions.

  3. We have decided to boycott Hobby Lobby going forward for discrimination against women’s heath rights. NOBODY is ever forced to take birth control. Your policy has not likely made it impractical to access.
    I will encourage ALL of my friends, family, and acquaintances to do the same. I believe this is a real blow to women’s rights.

    • Chaplain Martin

      Your reaction seems to be based on only one part of the act, the emergency contraceptive mandate.
      That leave many, many contraceptives they have no problem with. The Greens are a family and families have rights. I was against Hobby Lobby stance until I studied the issue. Remember how well the boycott of Chick-filia went?

      • The Greens are a family who chose the legal protections afforded by turning their business into a corporate entity separate from themselves. In my view, corporations are not people and do not have religious beliefs. It offends me that a corporate employer would choose to take an interest in the reproductive choices or sexual orientation of employees. I will continue to avoid Hobby Lobby and Chik fil a from now on.

        The Greens don’t want to buy insurance policies that cover birth control and I don’t want a cent of my money going into their pockets. The fact that they will continue to have other patrons is not the issue.

      • 14th amendment. Equal protection under the law. Having a religious belief does not entitle you to discriminate. The policy is discriminatory towards women who seek effective birth control.

    • Cathy Jo Hatch

      And I will encourage all my friends and family to support them! Why should a Christian company have to pay for someone to have birth control .. or abortion .. Its not like they are being refused it as the government ( aka the taxpayers ) are still going to provide it to the employees. The whole problem with Obama care is it is being shoved down everyones throat whether they want it or not .. totally Un Amerian and totally WRONG. But you crybaby koolaid drinkers cant see it or think for yourself about anything !

      • The fact you and the court can call a company “Christian” is a sure sign for how superficial and meaningless the term really is. Spiritual belief reduced to a label attached to something whose existence is merely so.e documents and a fee filed with a local Department Of State.
        It really has nothing to do with religion. Its just a tribal tag for people like yourself.

        Atheists dont have to denigrate religion. Christisns are doing it all by themselves

      • Was that a racial comment there? Maybe you should take that down. Christ is not a brand name. Just because a human court makes a decision doesn’t make it 100% infallible. Christ does not belong to a profit, he belongs to the poor humble people who believe in Him.

    • Lol I love boycotts and how they accomplish absolutely nothing in america. We are such material/possession driven people that are desires for stuff far overrides our morals or particular religion.

      Terry, next week HL will have a sale you can’t resist and your rear end will be in line with your credit card hanging out and a buggy full of crap from China. Just stop your emotionally driven fake revenge maneuvers.

    • Publius Scipio

      I and several others will be shopping there. And just what “heath” rights are being violated? Hobby Lobby and this decision isn’t outlawing any contraception.

      They just have to pay for it themselves. Novel concept, I know!

      • Hobby lobby is making decisions for its employees it had no businesses making.

        They are denying their employees the ability to use THEIR employment based compensation for contraception. The whole “making the company pay for it” argument has been nonsense from the beginning because health insurance is not a gift from employers. It is a form of salary.

    • Haha…ya stupid ..put them out of business. Don’t forget how many people will lose their jobs. Did you know Hobby Lobby pays their employees double the minimum wage?? Its not like they found God yesterday ..this company has been family owned and religious for 30 years. Typical left way…free choice is only good if everyone agrees with your opinion ..if not then of course they must be destroyed.

    • Women can still get birth control they just should not have the right to make a privately owned company buy it for them. You do not mind taking their rights away from them so why should other feel sorry for you.

  4. If you were Islam the women working for you would be required to wear a Burqa = an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions to cover their bodies when in public.

    I thought the thing that separated us form the rest of the world was that no one would or could be forced to conform to someone’s else religious beliefs.

    I will NOT be shopping at Hobby Lobby ever again..

    • Chaplain Martin

      For the sake of a little justice read the court decision clearly. Insurance limit medication choice and contraceptive choice for those insured every day. If you choice of contraceptive is emergency contraceptive method the expense is not that great.

    • John: No one is forcing anyone to conform to anyone’s religious beliefs. The government was trying to force a company to provide something to its employees that the company considers a sin. People can choose not to work there, or they can buy birth control elsewhere. Birth control is not expensive, and there is always the option of condoms. Besides, Hobby Lobby objected to only 4 of the more than 20 birth control methods provided under the Affordable Health Care Act.

    • Your language is funny… “forced to conform”, means what? That you don’t get something for free? You are free to pay for your self, or work for someone else. Wow, that’s really oppressive.

      Being forced to wear, behave or speak in a specific way is quite a bit different than not getting more free stuff. More free stuff, that was not previously demanded of companies to provide, and now it’s your right to receive or you’re being forced to conform?

      • I love how Hobby Lobby supports our mandatory abortions in China.
        We see no hypocrisy here.

        So what if Hobby Lobby wants to market our goods
        as being especially holy once they arrive in America?

        We all like to see the “holy markup” !

    • >”I thought… no one would or could be forced to conform to someone’s else religious beliefs.”

      Your belief (faith) that you have the trumping right to murder another person should be FORCED as an expense on others is contrary to your own demands for freedom from coercion.

      Can you not see the contradiction/hypocrisy of your own words?

      • The employees pay for their healthcare choice in wages, and from their own contributions to the company aka profits. Taxpayers are not paying for the emergency contraception…Also, murdering a ball of cells is not a PERSON, nor is it MURDER. It is a medical procedure. Stop being ignorant. The true hypocrisy is that Hobby Lobby makes a profit, and then has the audacity to claim religious exemption. And that it makes a profit from a country that PROMOTES abortion. CHINA.

    • I simply do not understand why you liberals think you have the right to take freedom away from a company that is owned by a family that happens to have religious beliefs. If this was General Motors I would have a different opinion, but it is not.

  5. Chaplain Martin

    I agree with the Supreme Court decision, however lets clarify some things. There are at least 74 approved contraceptive methods approved in the Affordable Care Act. Hobby Lobby owners only disapproved the parts of the Act which has to do with emergency contraceptive mandate.
    “Americans approved of the entire act” based on a survey (55% or it). Just how was the question asked? Hobby Lobby comes out as against the entire contraceptive mandate which is not the case.

    I am a liberate in many, many cases but this seams to be a liberate slant even in the reporting by the Religious News Service. The slant seems to be the over all results of attacking not just religion but Christian on all fronts.

    Putting Chaplain as part of my name will doubtless entitle others to label be as an evangelical idiot.
    Being Chaplain to me means I am out among the people not just in a church environment and I talk with people with strong faith, no faith and many faiths.

    • and yet they don’t might profiting off of the production of the very birth control methods they’re denying their employees. They’ve got 70 million invested in it. I wonder if the sell a stencil that says “hypocrite”.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

  6. David Trindel

    I think that it is dissappointing that the American Public has come to beleive that an employer is required to provide healthcare at all. The companies should be able to provide the money that would have been spent on care, minus the administrative portion, to the employee and allow them to organize group policies for the kind of coverages they want. I think my fellow Americans are upset becasue it is least restrictive to have others manage their affairs and care for them than living up to the responsibility of managing their own family’s wellfare.

    I also find it odd that some people are also commenting on this being the result of religion. Seriously, my fellow Americans. When can we once again be noted by our ability to prosper? Why don’t we learn to do so without the expectation that our open hands be filled at the will of others, when we do not take the risk to employ others or ourselves, then complain about how it is filled?

    I am disappointed that the Supreme Court ever had to hear the case, not in their decision. I am seriously concerned that people expect the Government to make God fearing Americans put aside their faith in favor of having them beleive in our ways, instead fo making our own way.

    • In your short sighted effort to impose your religious views on others through coercion, Christians have undermined both religious liberty and all notions of corporate structure.

      Now you have given the government the right to evaluate whether religious beliefs are deeply held enough to warrant protection under the law. You also have officially made every person who is the employee of a private corporation into the personal playthings of their employers.

      Bible thumping idiocy.

        • It is righteous anger over judicial idiocy

          RFRA is a perfect template now for using religion as a tool of coercion. It had no business being applied to a corporation.

      • Larry, I think you make a good point. As a Christian, might an atheist company owner forbid me to conduct a lunch-time Bible study in the company break room?

          • You should be fired if you are needed at work during any holiday and you fail to show up. Unless they are discriminating against a particular group of people. I have never found in the Bible that a religious holiday requires you to special benefits.

          • Then you have no respect for what a corporation is or what being a Christian is. You cheapen both just to get your way.

            If you think a legal fictional entity can be Christian, what makes anyone think it us a status that has meaning.

          • Tom, you are saying that as a Christian you believe that the owner of a private company has the right to disallow a Bible study on company property? I don’t vehemently disagree with you, but I’m a bit surprised. Why does the company owner have an interest in limiting religious activity during non-work hours?

          • “Why does the company owner have an interest in limiting religious activity during non-work hours?”

            It can be perceived as discriminatory, could be disruptive to company operations, could cause problems with worker morale. Lots of rational and secular reasons which could affect the bottom line. It is private property, there is no right to exercise religious rites on the grounds. Any activity unrelated to work has to be with permission of the owners.

      • Actually, your closet-atheist pal Obama has ALREADY taken the position that consitutional freedoms of religion and speech DON’T EVEN EXIST for anybody who dares to disagree with the government — especially Obama’s stupid government.

    • I DEFIANTLY will NOT shop at hobby lobby!!!!!!!! I encourage everyone to also not do so! Its about time someone took a stand against this attack on the Establishment Claus!!!!

      • Have you pitched a fit that your beloved liberals have unconstitutionally delayed the enforcement of ObamaCare? Have you not realized that their illegal delay — till after the next election— is another admittance that it is going to be AWFUL for our country (check history)! They just don’t want YOU to realize it till after YOU have voted them in AGAIN!

      • I am sure you would shop lift you obviously do not have any respect for the rights of others. It seems to me you think what is mine is yours to do as you please.

        • Tom Martin
          Jun 30, 2014 at 11:48 pm
          “I am sure you would shop lift you obviously do not have any respect for the rights of others. It seems to me you think what is mine is yours to do as you please.”
          Except that I damn sure wouldn’t pick and choose your insurance coverage according to MY beliefs about God, if I was your employer. I would be much more likely to take YOUR beliefs into consideration if you were my (presumably) loyal and devoted employee.

  7. This illustrates the problem of depending on employers to provide healthcare. Healthcare is a public responsibility, as it affects all of us. The quality of one’s healthcare should not be determined by an employer. Let businesses take responsibility for their business and leave healthcare as the responsibility of all of us.

  8. Why does an Evangelical family get their personal religious belief upheld, but other don’t? In fact the court states, others won’t: deeply held belief is a deeply held belief, what harm they do to society is a matter of opinion. There are just as many reason Hobby Lobby is harming society as banning blood transfusions, depending on who you talk to. It almost sounds like a Evangelical court majority is violating their oath, voting to help their own. All other religions should be concerned, all none religious people should be even more concerned!
    one of the big reasons incorporating your business is done, is to separate liability between the owners and the business. This weakens that boundary, can we now sue the family if we feel that harm was done by this or other “deeply held” decisions they make?

  9. Well evangelicals, you now get to have the government evaluate whether your beliefs are sufficiently deeply held enough to be deemed important.

    For people who were talking a great deal about government interference with religion, they just shot themselves in the foot. Now they will have their views under scrutiny by the government as to whether it is sufficiently religious to be considered. Sef destructive short sighted fools one and all.

    • Publius Scipio

      No, you just simply apply the “strict scrutiny” guideline, as outlined in the RFRA.

      You know, the one “bible thumping evangelical” Theodore Kennedy sponsored.

    • Obama had already de facto repealed our constitutional freedoms of religion and speech already, Larry. (And yes, I’d rather see YOU become the President instead of that turncoat closet-atheist bum Obama.)

      Obama’s position is that Christians (or any other religionists) better not disagree with Obama’s bonehead libbie fascism, or else the government (Obama’s government) could run roughshod over the Christians (etc) at any time with impunity.

      The Supreme Court gave Obama a blank check to enforce his fascism in the Windsor decision, but (strictly for cosmetic purposes) they now want to give Hobby Lobby a slight break.

      So the Hobby Lobby decision is actually a step up — just one step, no more than that — from Obama’s fascist mess.

  10. Publius Scipio

    The greatest takeaway I have is that liberals can be pretty spiteful when things don’t go their way.

    Now they probably can’t force elderly nuns to provide free abortofacients, either. Boo hoo.

    • Nah. Spiteful is cutting off funds to a charity because they didn’t want to discriminate against their legally married employees. This is just politicking

    • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

      I’m afraid to say, but so many liberals so hate people who disagree with them that they are probably salivating at the prospect of using government power to bully a bunch of elderly nuns who serve the poor and the biggest Catholic TV network founded by a nun.
      Having grown up in a Democratic household, I find the hate directed at Catholics and other Christians by Democrats disgusting.

      • There is no hate from me. there just is no respect for your inteligence or the intellectual honesty of your view. There just isn’t anything there to take seriously

        There is nothing rational or sane about an anti-contraception POV. Pure sectarian nonsense. Corporate religion is dangerous stupidity.

        You can tell even SCOTUS didnt want to stand by any kind of legal principals because of all the limitations they declared. Purely just getting the desired result.

        1. They stated corporate religion only applied to closely held corps.

        2. They stated it is only limited to ACA contraception mandate.

        They desperately tried to duck out of the consequences of their decision.

  11. This contents of this article in point #1 proves the Authors did not actually read the opinion. Go to the Supreme Court’s website and read it for Yourself and You will see the Authors’ characterization is not the least bit accurate.

    • Women are so very much people that they are given the respect and the right to go out and pay for the things they want themselves.

      Stop with the histrionics. Its embarrassing.

      • You think you are so superior in status to women that you feel entitled to make decisions for all of them.

        That they do not deserve access to healthcare unique to their needs because…Jesus.

  12. This decision will save lives. That is why the decision is a right decision. Just one life is so precious to God. We read about all the atrocities that take place in different parts of our world.. since Rowe vs. Wade.. over 50 million babies have been killed.. we are a barbaric society.

    This current administration promotes the ” Culture of death.” I am ashamed of them.. and what they are doing to our country. Please America, let us seek out a person of virtue to lead our country.

    • How magnanimous of you. That god has entrusted you to make private decisions for women. Decisions that obviously require your input since they can’t make them on their own. Its not like their privacy or personal lives matter. They are just silly women. Property of a man according to the Bible.

      Lord save our nation from self righteous bible thumpers who believe they have a god given right to tell everyone else what to do.

  13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQCH1qyIDo

    http://conservativelogic101.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/04-02-14-hypocrisy-lobby-Large-sinlge-pane.jpg
    Christian values, until money is involved

  14. Chaplain Martin

    Does anyone remember that the original article was Five Takeaways From the Holly Lobby Case? As usual with these comments to articles whether to a local newspaper or to a national journal or Religious News Service, personal attacks and personal agendas take the place of thoughtful responses.

  15. The SCOTUS just opened Pandora’s box for a multitude of lawsuits that will come before them. These OLD white men are eroding the rights of women piece by piece and no one seems to be able to stand up to them or the religious right. What about my rights as a woman, to use birth control to plan my family ? What about my rights as a women if I need birth control to regulate my periods or to help ease pain of monthly periods? I have seen how these born again, conservative, evangelical ‘men’ speak and think of women who are independent, unmarried, and how they view what a wife should be – a good wife who stays at home, is barefoot and pregnant, in the bedroom or the kitchen; doesn’t have an education, doesn’t have a job outside the home; doesn’t have a career; and soon, women will be denied other things. When will women be denied the right to an education or career? When will women be denied to choose her spouse? Or drive or vote, or buy her own home or car? Or even be denied the right to leave her home without having a male member of the family ‘escort’ her? This new conservative religious evangelical right will chip away at women’s rights and civil rights of gays, persons of color and people of other religions. People need to stand up and take note of what is happening and speak out by voting for people who want to serve all citizens, not a chosen few.

  16. This ruling has nothing to do with freedom of religion. At no time where these indiuvals forbidden to assemble and worship. At no time where they told they HAD to take contraception. It is about the courts giving corporations and businesses more freedom over its employees and to opt out of paying for healthcare. It’s all about the money. As a Christian I do not want to abide by someone else’s religious rules. Fine for them to practice as they wish but leave me alone, “Don’t Tread on Me”. It would be interesting to see how much you would have supported this ruling if it were a Muslim family expressing their religious beliefs. Fox News would have not “shut up” and people would be marching in the streets in protest. It is about corporate power and money, not religious freedom.

    • “At no time where they told they HAD to take contraception.”

      This array of medications which are being denied to women (and only women)
      have more than one use!

      This Hobby Lobby case is a disgusting infringement on a woman’s access to medicine.
      It is a disgrace to our country and an embarrassment to a modern civilization.

      Certain poor women were told they are less human than their male counterparts today. By AN AMERICAN SUPREME COURT!

      FOR SHAME!

  17. There’s a very simple remedy to all of this.

    Since this SCOTUS has now ruled that corporations – like individuals – have protected speech and protected exercise of religion, they should naturally be taxed at the same rates as individuals.

    Watch how quickly they don’t want to be treated as individuals anymore.

  18. If you regulazrly take prescription muscle relaxer or pain medications,you might be faced with
    chronic snoring. However, if you are looking for natural solutions that can put a stop too snoring, yyou need onmly look at the person’s lifestyle to
    tell that it can be done. When yoou or your better half starts snoring you know how tough it is going to
    be for the other person.

  19. So if I’m the owner of a company and my religion says discriminating against blacks is wrong, but the majority of the population says slavery is OK, is the article trying to promote that what the majority says is what should be the law. There are many things in history that Christianity taught to be wrong but the population went against and do so to this day. Christianity says premarital sex is wrong and our society reaps the huge demonstrable negative consequences of premarital sex. You see, determining what is right and wrong by what the society says is OK at that particular time, is called relativism, and history is full of examples why relativism succeeds in bringing society down the gutter. Roman and Greek society once accepted pedophilia as OK. American society once accepted discrimination against blacks as OK. Most of American society currently accepts abortive contraception drugs as OK. Most of American society currently accepts recreational sex (both hetro- and homo- sexual) as OK. Even if these sinful practices can demonstrably be proved to be destructive to our society, the majority can be self delusional. What we want should not trump what we ought to do. If the president proposed a vote tomorrow that the government should mail everyone a $5000 check, don’t you think a majority would vote yes. We are deluding ourselves if we think the constantly revised “morals” of human history and secularism are superior to the morals of God. On our death bed, sexual promiscuity causes and contraceptive rights will not seem so important as they are anti-life, I suspect on one’s death bed one quickly and easily begins to see that pro-life is the Truth and the Light.

  1. […] The Supreme Court ruled that the owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family, do not have to pay for some types of birth control for employees which violate their religious beliefs. Instead the government will make an “accommodation” for employees to access these four drugs/devices independent of Hobby Lobby. The same accommodation will apply to other “closely held” companies with similar religious objections to abortifacients. The ruling, however, did not create sweeping new religious liberty rights for all corporations as some (including me) had feared, nor can it be applied to anything other than the contraception mandated by Obamacare. (Read more details about the court’s decision.) […]

  2. Comment marked as low quality by the editors. Show comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.