Hobby Lobby Ruling Means Imposing Religion On Workers Or Something

The stupid keeps coming in from Leftists at an alarming expected rate. Let’s look at what the Paper Of Record has to say, via their Editorial Board

Limiting Rights: Imposing Religion on Workers

The Supreme Court’s deeply dismaying decision on Monday in the Hobby Lobby case swept aside accepted principles of corporate law and religious liberty to grant owners of closely held, for-profit companies an unprecedented right to impose their religious views on employees.

The NY Times imposes their views on politics on its employees. Companies impose their views on employees all the time. How many have gone to being smoke free workplaces? How many restrict employees from being drunk or under the influence? How many have a dress code? I fail to see how the company refusing to pay for abortifacients within their insurance plan is imposing religion, when the worker can purchase their own with their own money.

BTW, it’s interesting to note that the NY Times constantly wants to impose their views on the citizenry, via government law/rule/regulation. Ones like a carbon tax. Obamacare. The contraceptive mandate.

It was the first time the court has allowed commercial business owners to deny employees a federal benefit to which they are entitled by law based on the owners’ religious beliefs, and it was a radical departure from the court’s history of resisting claims for religious exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability when the exemptions would hurt other people.

Employees now have a federal benefit to abortions? That’s what the Times is stating. This mandate, as I’ve noted numerous times, is not required by law, instead, it is an invention by Team Obama to patronize their hardcore liberal “give me free stuff” base. Neutral law? Not one Republican voted for it, and the majority of Americans still despise Obamacare.

Mr. Alito’s ruling and a concurrence by Justice Anthony Kennedy portray the decision as a narrow one without broader application, like denying vaccine coverage or job discrimination. But that is not reassuring coming from justices who missed the point that denying women access to full health benefits is discrimination.

That “denying access” is the #1 stupid argument from liberals, as noted by Sean Davis. Discrimination is #2. The Times continues the stupid with a “debate” about

How Hobby Lobby Ruling Could Limit Access to Birth Control

You’re welcome to read it, the article is about as hysterical, and I don’t mean the funny type, as you would expect. Even crazier is that the article was written by a man. Liberal men sure seem concerned with women have abortifacients. Kinda like how the Editorial Board outnumbers women 11-7.

  • Think Progress tries to tell us that the ruling is actually bad for people of faith. Also, the sky is purple and rain is made of chocolate.
  • Eugene Robinson thinks the ruling is like segregation.
  • At The Daily Beast, the court has declared itself the high priest or something.
  • Jonathan Cohn says this means that all insurance should be in Government hands. You know, Single Payer.

And here’s a favorite

Corporations Are People, And They Have More Rights Than You

Ever since Citizens United, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision allowing unlimited corporate and union spending on political issues, Americans have been debating whether, as Mitt Romney said, “Corporations are people, my friend.” Occupy Wall Street protestors decried the idea, late night comedians mocked it, and reform groups proposed amending the Constitution to eliminate it. Today, however, the Supreme Court endorsed corporate personhood — holding that business firms have rights to religious freedom under federal law. Not only do corporations have rights, their rights are stronger than yours.

The stupid, it burns. All the ruling did was reaffirm the 1st Amendment, which, as I wrote yesterday, makes no distinction between the Individual and corporations in terms of Rights, because the First is telling Government what it cannot do.

We can surely expect The Stupid to continue for quite some time. I expect it to last through Friday, where abortionistas will use Independence Day to push their liberal notions.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “Hobby Lobby Ruling Means Imposing Religion On Workers Or Something”

  1. john says:

    Teach many women use these “abortifacients” for medical reasons other tahn birth control Perhaps a discussion with anumber of women would enlighten you.
    The NYT does not have a dress code for people who are NOT at work. Hobby Lobby wants to control the behavior of their workers when they are not at work.Teach all those pics of the hot chicks you post……. do you think they are using birth control? Religious extremists always want to try and control the lives of other people. Teach do you personally believe that these types of health careare wrong and should be outlawed?
    Should corporations that are owned by Catholics be exempt from paying for condoms because they are against Catholic dogma ?

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Teach many women use these “abortifacients” for medical reasons other tahn birth control Perhaps a discussion with anumber of women would enlighten you.

    That is interesting john considering the government in their arguments never presented that. Perhaps you think you know more than the government?

    Hobby Lobby wants to control the behavior of their workers when they are not at work.

    Really? How so? Is Hobby Lobby saying that employees cannot engage in sexual intercourse?

    Tell us all john, if you want a hamburger while at home, is it your position that Hobby Lobby must provide that hamburger? Or is it a choice for you and one for which you are responsible?

    Should corporations that are owned by Catholics be exempt from paying for condoms because they are against Catholic dogma ?

    Here we go….. john goes off on a tangent in arguing that which the decision addressed and he did not read.

    However, despite john’s ignorance, one must wonder why john cares what a company does because he always cites the Pope and therefore must be doing what the Pope says. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether the company is following the teachings of the Pope because john already is.

    Right johnny boy?

  3. john says:

    Will companies owned by Jews or Muslims or Hindus also be able to pick and choose what laws they wish to abide by? Here is a partial list of companies owned by only one Muslim owned corporation B.R. Lee Industries, Inc. — the leading manufacturer of commercial paving equipment in North America

    Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. — specialty retailer of premium brewed and roasted whole bean coffee, as well as teas, bakery goods and related products

    Cirrus Industries, Inc. — second largest manufacturer of single-engine, piston-powered, general aviation aircraft in the world

    DVT Corporation — develops and builds machine vision systems

    Medifax EDI — eading provider of information processing services to the health care industry in the United States

    Smart Document Solutions, LLC — leading provider of medical records release of information (“ROI”) services in the United States

    Transportation Safety Technologies, Inc. — manufacturer of specialty electrical components and safety products for the truck, utility, and emergency vehicles industries in the United States

    Yakima Products, Inc./WaterMark Paddlesports, Inc. — market leader in the United States for branded, high end, multi-sport roof racks
    Will they be able to choose which laws they are exempt from on religious grounds? Will they be able to refuse to pay for pills coated in gelatin ? Or medications derived using pigs?
    Will Jews have the same protections from having to pay for things they don’t like?
    Will I be able to refuse to pay taxes because I BLAME BUSH ?

  4. gitarcarver says:

    Way to go john!

    Keep raising straw man arguments that were addressed by the Supreme Court!

    Keep showing your ignorance to the world!

    Keep being a troll.

  5. Teach many women use these “abortifacients” for medical reasons other tahn birth control Teach many women use these “abortifacients” for medical reasons other tahn birth control

    Really? Women take plan B for other reasons than that one or both parties were stupid and/or drunk? Guess what? It’s available for purchase with personal money.

    In fact, I’ll bet the times, like so many companies, extends a dress code for off work time, in that employees should not be wearing company merchandise when out doing things like getting drunk.

    As forbthe rest, you’re off the edge of the map, matey.

  6. John says:

    First Teach thanks for the “johnny boy” I seldom here that since I passed 65
    No Teach not Plan B which of course as you know is only used by sluts who should bear the consequences of their sin.

    But The other slut pills are often used for off label purposes such as cramp reduction or to prevent hormonal imbalances that cause skin problems like acne. Not sure if you know any women that still need/choose to use birth control but ask them.

  7. First Teach thanks for the “johnny boy” I seldom here that since I passed 65

    Huh?

  8. Jeffery says:

    Let’s all recognize that most 5-4 decisions are political. In this case the conservatives found a way to support their desired outcome by relying on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, a law ruled unconstitutional in 1997 as applied to the states.

    This law had been passed to protect land considered sacred by Native American tribes from government encroachment. Earlier Rehnquist Supreme Court decisions (Lyng 1988 and Smith 1990) unfavorable to the tribes had prompted Congress to act to protect religious expression. In this case the conservative Rehnquist court had ruled against freedom of religious expression for Native Americans. After all, they were Native Americans, not Christians.

    If there had been a “liberal” outcome in Hobby Lobby, the far-right would be crying about “activist judges”.

  9. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    liberals and their thinking makes me sick. they are incapable of independent thought or action. They are now incapable of taking care of themselves without the gov’t providing a means for them.

    Liberals are slaves to their own ideology and are demanding others become slaves because they hate that others are happy, content, independent and … free.

    Instead of making the conscious decision to free themselves, they want to always drag others down to their misery.

  10. gitarcarver says:

    In this case the conservatives found a way to support their desired outcome by relying on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, a law ruled unconstitutional in 1997 as applied to the states.

    Luckily for the country this was not a states case, huh? (Funny how the left hates states’ rights and then wants to rely on them.)

    This law had been passed to protect land considered sacred by Native American tribes from government encroachment. Earlier Rehnquist Supreme Court decisions (Lyng 1988 and Smith 1990) unfavorable to the tribes had prompted Congress to act to protect religious expression.

    Let’s go to the video tape, shall we? Let’s look at the very case which you claim to have knowledge of which said the RFPA could not be applied to the states. That case would be CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES.

    From the decision:

    (a) Congress enacted RFRA in direct response to Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, in which the Court upheld against a free exercise challenge a state law of general applicability criminalizing peyote use, as applied to deny unemployment benefits to Native American Church members who lost their jobs because of such use.

    Hmmmm….. no use of land issue there. Maybe the SCOTUS didn’t know what it was talking about? Or maybe Jeffery cut and pasted something from some other person who was as clueless as he is because the land case is CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES.

    If there had been a “liberal” outcome in Hobby Lobby, the far-right would be crying about “activist judges”.

    No, we would be screaming that the judges ignored the law and the Constitution.

    However, I seem to remember you saying in regards to ObamaCare (a 5-4 decision) that ObamaCare is “settled law” and the right needs to “get over it.”

    Now that there is another 5-4 decision that did not go the way you wanted, you want to claim it was “political,” and the rational was none existent.

    Suck it up Bucko. To quote all the rage, “it is settled law. Get over it.”

  11. Jeffery says:

    g2,

    No, the land use case was Lyng 1988. The peyote case was Smith 1990.

    The City of Boerne case was where the law was ruled unconstitutional.

    I didn’t claim the ACA ruling wasn’t political. It was. I probably did say to “live with it”.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7264 access attempts in the last 7 days.