Did the Daily Oklahoman Reject a Full-Page Ad from an Atheist Group?

Last week, the Christian chain Hobby Lobby ran an ad (PDF) in dozens of newspapers proclaiming the Christian heritage of our country, with “godly” quotations from the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and Congress. (They’ve been doing this for years.)

In response, the Freedom From Religion Foundation paid for several full-page ads of their own, celebrating our “godless Constitution” and how our Founding Fathers actually supported separation of church and state:

FFRF said it was the “single most expensive ad campaign in our history.”

Everything seemed to go smoothly (excluding the hate-mail they received)… except at the Daily Oklahoman, where FFRF says their ad was rejected:

A full-page ad set to run July 4 celebrating ‘our godless Constitution’ by the national Freedom From Religion Foundation was censored by the Daily Oklahoman, apparently to avoid offending the Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby.

“We’re shocked that our ad, featuring bonafide quotes from early founders and presidents, would be censored, while Hobby Lobby’s disinformation runs without balance,” said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.

“Hobby Lobby’s ads falsely portray the United States as a Christian nation with a government founded on a god, and nothing can be further from the truth,” Gaylor added.

“Why can’t Oklahoma City readers be permitted to read a view challenging Hobby Lobby’s disinformation and our message of ‘In Reason We Trust’?” Gaylor added.

I called up the Daily Oklahoman just moments ago to see why they would reject such an ad and spoke to their VP of Sales Patrice Hannan. She told me:

“We have to the right to accept or reject any advertising because we’re privately held… I can’t comment on an advertiser relationship.”

Standard boilerplate response, I thought, but then Hannan added this:

“We have not ever had any direct contact with this organization.”

Wha…? They’ve never even spoken to FFRF? So is this a case of legal-but-still-not-okay discrimination or just a huge miscommunication?

I asked FFRF if they had contacted the newspaper and they told me that, while Hannan’s statement was technically true, it wasn’t really telling the full story. FFRF placed so many full-page ads for Independence Day this year that they had a third party group (that specializes in this sort of thing) handle all the ad placements.

That company contacted the Daily Oklahoman. That company was told FFRF’s ad couldn’t run in the newspaper.

So while the paper never had direct contact with FFRF, they still knew of and rejected FFRF’s ad.

Why did they do it? We have no idea so we’re forced to speculate. Probably to avoid any backlash from Christians with thin skin.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Janice Clanfield

    What would you expect in the buckle of the bible belt?

  • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

    Copy-pasta from wikipedia:

    The paper is owned by Christian billionaire Phil Anschutz.
    It was announced September 15, 2011 that Anschutz would be acquiring all assets of Oklahoma Publishing Company (OPUBCO) from the Gaylord and Dickinson families. Upon closing, Anschutz would operate OPUBCO separate from all his other publishing and media assets as its own independent company.

    Contributed $70,000 in 2003 to the Discovery Institute
    Supported the Parents Television Council, a group that protests against television indecency.
    Financed and distributed films with Christian themes, such as Amazing Grace and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,
    for mass audiences through his two film production companies and
    ownership of much of the Regal, Edwards and United Artists theater
    Financed The Foundation for a Better Life.
    In 2009 Anschutz purchased the conservative American opinion magazine The Weekly Standard from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.
    Regal Entertainment Group, the largest movie theater chain in the world, with approximately 6,000 screens. Anschutz owns more than half of the company.
    Anschutz has funded a number of conservative and Christian organizations including the following
    The Foundation for a Better Life,
    Institute for American Values,
    Colorado for Family Values,
    Enough Is Enough,

  • Iggys Asshole

    Speaking of ads, John Loftus over at his Debunking Site is now charging for advertising.
    No problem there.
    But he announces that “Christian Ads will cost more”.
    I see a lawsuit for discrimination.

  • pierre

    Why did they do it? We know exactly why.

  • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

    Troll alert!! The ads on John’s website are Adsense and google products. Ah shoot my bad.

  • Iggys Asshole

    He says he is charging 75 a month and that Christians will pay more.

  • Sunny Day

    ““We’re shocked that our ad, featuring bonafide quotes from early
    founders and presidents, would be censored, while Hobby Lobby’s
    disinformation runs without balance,””

    I hate that word Balance.

  • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

    sources please

  • katiehippie

    Has Hobby Lobby never heard of TL:DR? The FRFF ad is much more nicely done.

  • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ
  • Mario Strada

    I have actually found it. Quoting: “See the advertisement at the right for Reasonist Products? That’s all they’re paying. The ad doesn’t have to be atheist oriented. It could be for an insurance agency, a financial agency, or an artist who wants to promote her work. Christian ads will cost more than that but I’ll entertain them, I’m not scared.”

    It’s not easy to find. But so what? His is a personal blog. Quite different from a newspaper. Newspapers have always been viewed as serving their community and are certainly held to higher standards than a blogspot blog. If Loftus serves a community, it is not a geographical one but an atheistic one so his “discrimination” is certainly not at the same level as that of a newspaper.

    For that matter, does the OP really want me to start inquiring with the various Christian and Right wing blog to see if they’ll accept an atheist or pro-choice ad? I don’t think the OP is going to win this one.

  • wombat

    “We are shocked that our ad . . . would be censored”

    Really? They weren’t expecting pushback from at least some of the papers they tried to advertise in? I’m not saying what the paper did is good/right/not stupid, but I struggle to believe that it’s ‘shocking’. Frustrating. Stupid. Ridiculous. All sorts of things. But shocking?

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Oh, I’m sure they’re not shocked. For PR purposes, though, it works much better if you’re shocked, just shocked, that you were treated unfairly. I mean, FFRF was just the nice innocent organization posting an ad with Founding Father quotes- how could that possibly offend anyone?

    If you go into it with the (public) attitude that of course some areas are going to discriminate against you, people will blame you for it, even though that doesn’t make any sense.

  • AT_Skeeve

    It may very well be just a Hobby Lobby issue. They just ran a rather nice and large spread on Oklahoma Atheists this past week.

  • flyb

    Reminds of this old animated short. Neat stuff.


  • Tobias2772

    I took the time and the magnifying glass to read the In god we trust ad. A couple of the quotes were not really founding fathers stuff, but many of the others seem to be on their target. Does anyone care to refute any of the specific quotes above ? I am not convinced but the quotes are very convincing. Can we take them apart, or do the christians have a point here ?? Just asking.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Here is Title II, Public Accommodation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Note that blogs, web sites – and newspapers, are not defined as “public accommodation” under this act.
    So what legal grounds would there be for a lawsuit?

  • GubbaBumpkin

    I am wondering if the Hobby Lobby ad contains any David Bartonesque phone quotes. This will take a little digging.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    Speaking of 7/4 ads, http://www.cannacare.net is medical marijuana dispensary in Sacramento. They run this ad in the Sacramento News and Review every year, the week of 7/4.

  • wombat

    I guess I’m not great at public relations – I would have gone with something like ‘deeply disappointed’ because it’s more truthful (at least to my eyes). Maybe shock, with a side helping of outrage, is the more effective route in terms of public perception.

  • C Peterson

    I’m not sure they were deeply disappointed at all. A paper refusing an ad can generate far more publicity than it would simply running it.

  • flyb

    The commandments crack me up. The first four, at least, are about as anti-American as anything can get.

  • An Oklahoman

    If you are shocked by this, you have never been to Oklahoma.

  • Inglorius Basterd

    Not on the same level, although he claims a higher readership, but still discrimination.
    Jesus Christ! Admit it! He screwed up, and atheists don’t need to make excuses for him.

  • SeekerLancer

    Oh Hobby Lobby. Shut up already. You’re a craft store. I don’t care about your opinions on God.

  • DougI

    Founding Fathers just aren’t welcome in Oklahoma because they might offend the fundies. Thanks to some serious, in depth reporting by Joel Klein we can assume there probably aren’t any Atheists in Oklahoma anyway.

  • Atheistiana

    They have every right to reject any ad they wish… and we have every right to call them out on it. It won’t make them take the ad but everyone should know they turned it away.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    I think #10 is pretty anti-American as well.

  • rg57

    If the ad was rejected based on viewpoint, is that legal?

  • Anne

    He didn’t screw up. As someone earlier posted, it is legal to control what you publish if you are privately run. The Daily Oklahoman *can* do it, they just shouldn’t (morally) portray themselves as journalism if they choose not to publish a rebuttal. The “Debunking Christianity” blogger is making it pretty clear that he has an agenda. Maybe not the most tactful thing, but he’s not pretending to be a balanced source of news.

  • Ike from OKC

    You’ll rarely find me amongst apologists for the Jokelahoman. However in this case they might have been legitimately afraid of losing subscribers, many of whom are those thin skinned fundie christians. Not so much because of the ads content, but because just the other day, they ran a full page story in the Sunday paper about local atheists and how they are “good without god”. It was actually a very good piece…(you can read it here: http://m.newsok.com/good-without-a-god-faces-of-atheism-in-oklahoma/article/3859369 , along with some accompanying bits that are linked to at the bottom). I feel that a decision was made not to run the ad for fear of it looking to their bread and butter subscribers that the new ownership was taking the paper in a “godless” direction, with that article and the ad running so close together. As much as I would live the paper to take exactly that direction, I have to recognize that if they were to do so, it would probably be the death of them. This is Oklahoma after all.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

    They are opening a brand new store in Bangor, Maine and they are going to lose a lot of business being closed on Sundays.

  • Madouc

    Why does the Daily Oklahoman hate America?

  • TCC

    “I am shocked — shocked — to find that gambling is going on in here!”

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    I wish the FFRF ad clearly printed the names of the luminaries they describe. Most of their signatures are illegible, and not everyone recognizes all of them by their portraits.

  • goddess

    Maybe they excluded it for the same reasons the New York Times excluded an anti-Muslim ad that mirrored, in exacting detail, the anti-Catholic ad they published.

    The NYT stated that the reason why they rejected the ad was out of fear for our troops. Riiiiiight! And then said that they would “consider” it at a later date…

    yeah…sure…like at the end of the world.

    Hemant, you know marketing well. You’re doing it all the time with your little book sale gimmicks to add some cash to your strapped teacher’s pay. Tell these folks the truth: You have to market to your audience! They feed you!

    Isn’t this the reason why you’ll never publish a Catholic or Christian article from a Catholic or Christian? Have you?

    Well, then, the FFRF just needs to learn how to take a punch just like it tries to dish it.

    Hey, even the New York Times have their audience, an anti-Catholic audience. But an anti-Muslim audience??? Hush….we can’t be doing that sort of gig. It’s too dangerous and it’s not as important as money.

    In the end, atheists are just as much business men as they are cheer leaders (of their cause) and math teachers (for a steady income).

  • WoodwindsRock

    True, that. Alongside an Oklahoma Joe’s BBQ commercial obnoxiously running every commercial break proclaiming itself to be voted the best restaurant of the year, with such friendly people, and the perfect place to cater your events, nothing really can surprise me anymore.

    The only thing that surprises me is how I’m still here.

  • TCC

    Hemant has published guest posts from Christians in the past.

  • NG

    I avoid Hobby Lobby because the dirt mall vibe mixed with Christian atmosphere squicks me out. I always feel they’re going to run me off with brooms or some of the ugly statues they sell. Plus, I don’t want to support their religious delusions.

  • JohnnieCanuck

    I don’t believe in you, by the way. You gods and goddesses are all the same. If you really cared about your worshippers, shouldn’t you be out there alleviating suffering and helping to end ignorance and bigotry and stuff?

    Why criticise atheists for using reason to follow the evidence when it is you that is hiding somewhere and letting the religionists tell their contradictory lies about you. Muslims and Catholics have been fighting with each other for a thousand years and yet you don’t want to see them criticised? They can’t both be right.

    If you don’t mind my asking, are you a Pagan, Roman, Greek, Egyptian or some other flavour of goddess?

  • David McNerney

    I thought the same myself – and I was kind of shocked that the Supreme Court would deliver a “Unanimous Decision Declaring America a Christian Nation”.

    Doesn’t take much looking to find that they did no such thing.

    I think I’ll go with the words of Jesus on this one: ‘By their fruits you will know them.’ If their fruits are a twisting of the truth – then it doesn’t say much for the trustworthiness of their god.

  • DavidMHart

    Is that title in Welsh? I didn’t know there was much of a Welsh-speaking population in California.

  • SeekerLancer

    Hobby Lobby was my first experience with “have a blessed day” from a cashier in Texas. Being a Yankee I just kind of stared at the lady in confusion.

    I’m used to the usual exchange of “have a nice day,” followed with, “you too.” I didn’t know anything about Hobby Lobby at the time. I was there looking for souvenirs for my family in Pennsylvania. Not that you have to be in a Christian store to get “have a blessed day” said to you in Texas.

  • Jesse

    Jesus is Lord and will reign forever. Atheists cannot bless the U.S.A. but God can.

  • Tobias2772

    You’ll notice that the quote is from 1892. We often complain that the Roberts court today is manipulating legal precedents to suit their own political agenda. They are not the only court in our history to do so. I will look up who was on that court later.

    Also, I made this point in another thread, but I think it bears repeating. There is a difference between being a christian nation (a group of people whose culture is dominated by christians and their mythology) and a christian government (in which that dominant religious mythology is allowed to dominate the law as well). I think one can make the argument that we have been and are a christian nation. However, our Founding Fathers were smart enough to set up safeguards to keep the christian nation from creating a christian government. We can hardly be surprised that members of the majority cult keep trying to find ways to dominate the government as well (especially in a democracy). We have to be forever vigilant to keep the Founders safeguards in place and working.

  • Oranje

    “Bless” is an utterly meaningless, empty verb. It is the partner in crime to “worship,” another empty, meaningless verb. Also, “Lord” is kind of a creepy, feudalism title, and “reign” sounds more like a threat.

  • John Nixdorf

    …odd to see radical rabid religious sentiment from a dispensary.

  • Ida Know

    Wow, that sure showed us! Sign me up!

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Yeah, who is this Benjamin Franklin dude? I mistook him for A.C. Grayling.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Since it is a privately owned company and not a government agency, I don’t see why not. Persons, including the fictitious persons known as corporations, are allowed to discriminate based on viewpoints. Or would you prefer to have the government tell you your opinion?

  • David

    Oh, trust me, there are atheists in Oklahoma.

  • Hobjob

    Doesn’t the Thinking Atheist Podcast from right thre in Oklahoma?

  • Gus Snarp

    We may be missing something huge here. Media in this country are already in the hands of only a few companies, as these companies are bought by Christians who openly admit that they want to promote a Christian world view and censor other views, it could lead to a serious problem. This is why we ought to also be very concerned when someone like the Koch brothers wants to buy the Tribune Company.

  • Gus Snarp

    A rare case of an atheist ad winning on design.

  • Gus Snarp

    Refute them? I’m not sure I see the point. Many of the “Founding Fathers” were Christian. John Adams most certainly was very religious. Most westerners were at that time, and Christian language was common, even among those who were not particularly Christian, like Jefferson. Some of the quotes may be false, as there certainly have been religious (and non religious) statements attributed to Jefferson that he never made, but the larger point is that it just doesn’t matter.

    There are religious and non-religious quotes by early Americans in abundance. These quotes do not in any way imply that as a group they believed that Christianity should have any special privilege or position or that our laws should be determined by the Bible. Nor do they necessarily imply the opposite.

    Quotes can be fun and useful, but alone and out of context they prove absolutely nothing. What’s important is the law. God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Nor is Jesus, nor Christianity. Religion is only mentioned in context of not allowing any religious test for office, and not establishing one. The treaty of Tripoli is important because it has the force of law and makes the point that the United States is not founded on the Christian religion and does so not in the context of various Christian sects, but of Islam in particular. This makes clear that the argument some make that the First Amendment was supposed to allow anyone to worship Jesus as they saw fit and not to have anything to do with other gods is blatantly false.

    Jefferson’s writings, both in the letter to a Baptist church and his commentary on the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, make very clear that he and others really saw the First Amendment as the courts have interpreted it for the last fifty years, and that the protections it provide applied to all religions and none. Jefferson’s commentary on the Virginia Statute says that outright and goes as far as mentioning Hindus, Muslims, and other less common faiths in the U.S. at the time.

    There’s no reason to bother with refuting any of the quotes. Go ahead and dig if you want to find out if some are false or falsely attributed or to find more context, but it doesn’t matter. Are at least some of those quotes accurate? Almost certainly. Do the Christians have a point? Hell no.

  • Gus Snarp

    I wouldn’t use the term “Christian nation” because it is misleading and has over broad implications. It certainly means something very different to the owner of Hobby Lobby and other Christians than it does to you. But even academically when describing national demographics it would not be the appropriate term. We are a nation with a majority Christian population, not a Christian nation.

  • Gus Snarp

    I like that they used the student guidelines of two private colleges as evidence of …. whatever it is they’re claiming – that we had an overwhelmingly Christian population in colonial, revolutionary, and early American history? That we still have a majority Christian population? That academia in the west was dominated by religion at the time and it played a strong role in the foundation of those early colleges that would become the Ivy League from whence all the atheist eggheads now come? Aren’t Harvard and Yale the evil ivory towers from which secular liberal elitists try to tell Christians how to live and that man evolved from apes?

    Yeah, here’s the lesson for today’s Christians from early American history: in a nascent nation where virtually everyone was a Christian, a bunch of Christians got together with some deists and had the good sense to realize that neither they, nor Hindus, nor Muslims, nor nonbelievers ought to be able to require anyone else to live according to their beliefs, nor to be discriminated against. They were able to come up with this 225 years ago, in a world where their religion seemed to be permanently dominant, that they ought to protect a tiny minority. If any of their quotes are meant to be inspirational, if there’s anything great and to be modeled after in these men of history, it is this recognition of the rights of people who were not like them.

  • DougI

    Yup, in OK city.

  • DougI

    What? Joel Klein is a serious, professional reporter and his in depth research of looking around to see if there were anyone with horns and eating babies didn’t turn up any results. I’m sure you’re mistaken.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    Well, if you’re going to link “George Washington’s Prophecy”, and claim the 10 commandments are the ‘root’ of our constitution, then I think anything is fair game.


  • The Other Weirdo

    That won’t last. Give them a few months.

  • The Other Weirdo

    Actually, he was only planning on reigning until his last enemies were cast down. So, are you saying that Jesus is an incompetent who will never be able to crush his enemies?

  • rx7ward

    “do the christians have a point here ?? Just asking.”

    No you’re not. You think you’re being clever, but you only expose your biases with “questions” like this!

  • Josh Johnson

    Oh, good, just what we need up here… And to think I thought the influx of the mentally ill downtown was going to be our biggest problem.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

    It is going up across the street from the Texas Roadhouse, they already have the exterior up but on a positive note we are also getting a Buffalo Wild Wings and nice to see another atheist in the Bangor area.

  • ktrav

    Both ads ran in the Denver Post on the same day (July 3 or 4). Too bad they weren’t opposite each other, they were a page apart as you opened the paper. Didn’t see any letters to the editor (yet) commenting one way or the other.

  • Pattrsn

    Sorry Janice hit down by mistake

  • Spuddie

    But he hasn’t. You guys had to use intimidation tactics and bullying tactics to claim so. It is apparent God has to rely on jerks and douchebags to get his word out. How pathetic.

  • Spuddie

    I don’t see anything defamatory in the atheist ad. The only defamation we see is from you. Casting aspersions on the readership of NYT.

  • Marco

    GOD is most definitely an Atheist.

  • alverant

    I would say the quotes doesn’t matter because they weren’t written into law or the Constitution. Sure some might have believed their religion was the right one, but they still went against their religious teaching and allowed people the right to NOT be a member of the dominate faith.

  • baal

    You can undo your down votes.

  • Gus Snarp

    I haven’t set foot in a Hobby Lobby since I saw the big display with the owner’s book of Christian historical revisionism near the cash register.

  • Brett Taylor

    I agree with what you’re saying, but I would be embarrassed to censor viewpoints like they did.

  • Tobias2772

    In your mind, what is the difference ? Do I not cover that difference in delineating between the definitions of christian nation versus christian government ?

  • Trevin

    Why does this story matter? You believe what you want to believe, and I’ll do the same. BOTH sides need not to worry about forcing their beliefs on others.

  • Pattrsn

    Not for Janice apparently. If I hit it again it gives two down votes.

  • Tobias2772

    First of all, allow me to state that I agree with you that our Founders were mostly christians who were still wise enough to make sure that neither their nor any other religion would become entwined or supported by our national government. My point is could we do a better job of refuting the christians claim that this should be a christian government.
    The two ads both use many quotes which have not the weight of law. Each ad has one quote which does bear the weight of law – they contradict each other. Even the First Amendment says that “Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Gus, you and I may agree completely on the meaning of that amendment, but our christian friends do not. I am merely seeking better understanding so that I can find a better way to convince them that they are mistaken. The two ads taken together pretty much equal a rational wash.

  • Tobias2772

    To which biases might you be refering ? I think questions are an integral part of our progress forward.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    So which is more important, HL’s right to not have a medical plan that covers contraception, or an employee’s right to have contraception included as part of their medical plan?

    This isn’t about forcing beliefs. Well, it is, but I’d argue that FFRF aren’t the ones doing the forcing.

  • Tobias2772

    I agree wholehertedly, but our ad uses quotes just like their ad. I was wondering if there is not a better way to go to refute their ideas.

  • Gus Snarp

    Fortunately, the courts agree with us. So did Jefferson. The point of putting up the secular quotes is exactly to show that both sides can play that game. That’s about all the refutation you need. Some founders said religious things sometimes. Some founders said secular things and anti religious things sometimes. It’s a wash, none of those quotes define America. The laws they wrote define America, and they’d have put God in the Constitution if they meant him to be there. All the laws and commentary on the laws clearly show the general intent was to keep religion and government separate. Some people aren’t going to believe that, but a point by point refutation of quotes is a pointless game. I’d prefer to use logic and reason, as Payne and Jefferson did, to explain why entanglement of church and state should always be opposed.

  • Gus Snarp

    At the worst “Christian nation” basically means the same as “Christian government”. At the least it means that the nation is organized on Christian principles, that Christianity holds some special place, rather than simply being the religion of the majority. And particularly when you’re dealing with Christians who actually believe that Christianity holds a special place and that “Christian nation” means that, but even with plenty of people who are more secular, you’ll find yourself having to have a long discussion explaining why you think Christian nation means something other than what it means to most people, and how it doesn’t mean Christian government. Instead you can simply use the correct terminology, we are a nation with a majority Christian population. Christian nation is a loaded term, and it’s unclear. That makes it a poor choice.

  • alverant

    I would say there wasn’t unless you want to dig up some preacher back then protesting the Constitution because it could mean pagans, papists, and Atheists could rule over christians. (I’m doing my best to remember the quote and not doing a good job.) But that could cause problems because there’s already enough people who think “freedom of religion” just means christianity.

  • allein

    I was in Washington DC last weekend and ran into Ben sitting outside the snack bar near the Lincoln Memorial. Nice guy, though he seemed a little cranky from the heat.

  • A3Kr0n

    I stopped going to Hobby Lobby after I found out ignorant, mean people own it, but now I’m going to not visit them twice as much!

  • allen in OK

    When I was working as a journalist in Oklahoma, we referred to the OKC paper as the “Daily Jokelahoman.” It was a sad excuse for a paper. It has gotten a little better. But it is still a horrible excuse for journalism.

  • Name

    I went recently to get balsa for a model plane… I never thought it would be to the point that they played hymns in the background but that’s what they did. I recognized some from my Christian days.

    Beyond the balsa they didn’t have anything I needed… No reason to go back ;)

  • gimpi1

    I agree with you, Trevin. However, Hobby Lobby wants to force its employees to live by their religious objection to birth control. When Hobby Lobby stops attempting to force compliance to their views on their employees, there will be no problem

  • TWaska

    Here’s the Fair and Balanced article from the Tulsa World. Why is it that Hemant can get more info and accuracy from an Oklahoma source than this ass-hat Oklahoma “journalist”?


  • B-Spark

    This doesn’t strike me as shocking or even wrong. They own the paper, they have an opinion, they are allowed to express only that opinion if that’s what seems right to them.

    On the flip side, atheists are free to make their own publication and refuse to print ads advocating religious views. I think the fact that some of those atheist publications DON’T refuse to print religious views speaks volumes about who is the bigger man, so to speak.

    Forcing views down people’s throats has never worked. Change takes time, and we, as a nation, will eventually get there.