Supremes Side with Hobby Lobby

Supremes Side with Hobby Lobby June 30, 2014

 

I don’t know the details yet.

Buuuttttt … it appears the Supremes have ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and against the HHS Mandate.

The ruling, as I understand it (haven’t read it yet) is very narrow.

It says:

1. Closely held corporations (i.e., non public, “family” corporations

2. Do not have to abide by the contraceptive portion of the HHS Mandate

3. Due to First Amendment protections of religious freedom.

I have been told that is was a 5-4 ruling.

My source for this information was verbal and off the record, so I can’t give you a link to it directly, but this is a source of some information.

We’ll talk more, as I know more.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

18 responses to “Supremes Side with Hobby Lobby”

  1. As predicted, Kennedy was the deciding vote and sided with Hobby Lobby. I concur with this narrowly applying to one issue and one type of employer.

    • Yes, how dreadful that the conscience of a family should be found to be more important than the brute force of government, the harridan screeches of a suborned and corrupt media, the blind and dumb brutality of bureaucratic orders that nobody ever voted on, and the resolution to impose them in spite of all law. This is a really nasty thing to say, but your position here is like that of the average southerner in the civil war. They thought that they were defending their own freedom – not just their own interest, but their own freedom – and that it had nothing at all to do with the freedom of slaves; whereas freedom is indivisible, and those who denied it to blacks were already well on the way to denying it to whites too. Likewise you imagine that your party advantage can be served without harm to yourself, and don’t want to realize that what the brute forces tried to do to the Greens they will, one day, do to you as well.

      • Courts may now have a very hard time siding with employees against secular minded non religious employers who want freedom from employees religious requirements for preferential scheduling and workplace religious observance that may in any way interfere with performance of duties.

        • I’d like to know of any requirement for any employer to respect ‘religious scheduling and workplace observances’. That ship sailed long ago if indeed it ever existed. As a nurse subject to a 24/7/365 schedule of my employer’s choosing I can assure you that I never received nor expected religious preferential treatment.

      • Yes, guess if you are a woman who works for HL you should avoid needing the pill to take care of Endometriosis, severe cramps, acne, Irregular or heavy periods or lack of periods (not caused by pregnancy). If any of those reasons occur and the pill is RXed quit you job and work for someone who knows that there are other reasons to take that pill besides preventing pregnancy. Have a great day, Fabio.

          • Maybe this is a double comment—as I thought I had responded earlier, but you may not have had a chance to release it. Thanks for the information above. I wasn’t aware of that. I did respond and it has been posted on one of your other posts regarding this. 🙂

            • Disqus creates many confusions Pagansister. You wouldn’t believe how many times it duplicates comments. 🙂

      • Fabio, while I agree with your sentiments toward pagansister, your summary of the US “Civil” War, is somewhat incorrect, though many share your view.

        The War was about whether the individual states had the ability to secede and recuse themselves from the Union. Many states believed so, and did so. The Federal Government believed they did not, and went to war forcibly destroy the state and Confederate governments.

        While the southern states did indeed support slavery, this was due to their agrarian-based, cotton-producing economy that required slave labor to function. Their output entirely fueled the industrial revolution and economic boom of the north. In fact, the cotton plantation system had nearly died out by the early 1800’s, until the invention of the gin suddenly made it economically viable again. The majority of southern families did NOT own slaves, but took up arms when armies marched south.

        Southern states held (and mostly still do) to the Constitutional notion that the Federal government has authority for national things like war, diplomacy, commerce, and (sometimes) taxes. Most other rights are held by states specifically because they are more aware of and immediately impacted by circumstances locally.

        The Unionists believed that the Federal government had the right, duty, and authority to overrule individual state’s laws and mandates for whatever “Greater Good” we currently champion. The Abolitionists threw their hat into the ring, and made slavery the buzzword, so to speak. We see this happen when states oppose gay marriage, and courts overthrow the voter’s directions. Abortion and the “freedom” of sexual relations of any stripe, without any consequence or repercussions are currently a “good”.

        Scholars agree that Lincoln had no real plans for Emancipation. It was a political move forced upon him in an attempt to get the slaves to revolt and overthrow their local authorities. Remember, it was the Democrats who held sway through Reconstruction and the Jim Crow South, and it was the Republicans who (reluctantly at first) emancipated, then embraced, educated, and promoted the slaves to citizens.

        We are still seeing this legacy in this mindset. Individual states have blocked, or refused to accept, or ignored the ACA, and the HHS Mandates. But the idea of “we know best, and we’ll shove it down your throats, or shoot you for it,” is still strong.

        The old, classical, Platonic and Aristotelian views of slavery vs. freedom (which the founding fathers clearly had in mind when writing the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration, etc.) are almost unknown today by most of the people, including many lawyers and professors, unless they happened to have had a Catholic and Classical education. { But then, people with that sort of education tend to reject socialism, and the modern Democratic Party, so we are better off with people who enjoy Bread and Circuses. Or, welfare and television. } {sarcasm font}

        Just another POV, Fabio. Peace.

        • If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would not have wasted so much time repeating pointless apologetics. Where did I say that most southerners owned slaves? I said that they believed they were fighting for their own freedom at the same time as they were certainly fighting for slavery. Listen to their songs, if you don’t believe me. And if you don’t think that the secession was all about slavery, you are simply and plainly wrong.

      • My party advantage? I do not belong to any political party. You’ve gone from denial of BC discussion, to the AMERICAN civil war? Interesting. Guess I shouldn’t be surprised—it is, after all, very you.

  2. Looks like #3 is inaccurate- it was more statutory than First Amendment- was not the least restrictive method of achieving the goal, thus failed the RFRA challenge.

    I also note however that much of the rest of the vote went down along gender lines- what have we done in the last 60 years that has made women fear motherhood so much?

  3. On the days when the allied navies of France, Britain and Russia blundered into an unplanned battle with the Turkish forces that were crushing the Greek insurrection, and bludgeoned them to pieces, the Orthodox Archbishop of Athens ordered that church bells should be rung across Greece for ten continuous days. Given the enormity of the means thrown at Hobby Lobby and the interests involved, I think that some bishop today ought at least to celebrate a Te Deum.

  4. Since a limited type of for-profit corporation is now allowed to have a religious conscience, I am hoping there will be a way to expand this to small businesses involved in providing wedding services. Since their refusal to participate in ssm is rarely restrictive on the ss couple and they have none of the obligation to the couple like an employer has to an employee it seems possible some of the reasoning here can carry over into public accomodation lawsuits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.