The administration’s statements came in a court filing that asserts the federal government has the authority to order private companies to provide abortifacients for their employees.
A case against the order was brought by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Legatus, the nation’s largest organization of top Catholic business leaders, and Weingartz Supply and its owner.
We can’t stand by and let this happen. We have to defeat the President who allowed this to happen and send a message that won’t soon be forgotten about what happens to politicians who force people of faith to make a choice between their conscience and their livelihood.
Considering the dominant argument from the far-left is that we Catholic simply “find sex icky” and that’s why we are opposing the mandate, this shouldn’t be hard, right? Right?
Oh, but don’t insult any religion says Mrs. Clinton, the State Dept, etc.
The religious persecutors argue that the Catholics "find sex icky" at the same time complain that Catholics have families that are too big and Catholics love the unborn too much.
Who is the Beckett Fund, anyone know of them?
Uh no, what we find “icky” is ripping these children limb from limb or scalding them with saline solution or sucking their brains out moments from birth. That’s what we, and the Lord of creation find, uh, icky. Dearest Jesus help us defeat these monsters
This at a time when the administration is spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to start up companies that don't even have a business plan in an industry that doesn't exist.
Government is now the official religion of the USA.
The owner of Hobby Lobby has a collection of Bibles worthy of its own museum. He’s serious, and has the money to back the fight.
BTW: Geneva College is a non-Catholic university likewise suing against Obamacare.
Seems news media have decided only Catholic churches can oppose that law on moral grounds.
It’s hard for me to feel any sympathy anymore. People want to play with fire, and then scream when they get burned. Corporate law is the problem - corporate law is out of control. To pursue not only profits, but above all, personal indemnification, corporate law has grown into the all-consuming beast. By conflating business per se, with corporate activities, we have opened the door to a madness that cannot be stopped until the nature of the corporation itself is changed. You want to operate as a corporation? Then you’ve just surrendered your natural rights. That’s what it MEANS.
Why can’t they just get an exemption just like so many of Obama’s cronies?
Put a token muslim on the payroll. What’s the govt going to do then?
I am in no way saying this business supported Obama because I have no clue but I will say this about any business owner. If you supported bHo in 2008 and are still supporting him today you deserve any fine they can impose on you.
Any business supporting this Marxist is just as bad as he is and deserves to be run out of business.
Believe it or not, they are on fairly firm ground here. Read through the supreme court decision that allowed the govt to ban the use of hallucinagens in religious ceremonies.
Another gift from the war on drugs. Aren't
Bump
Muslims are exempt I bet
If this private family owned business refuses to comply with the HHS mandate, the government will fine them $1.3 million per day.
Ping for later
There is a continuing war against Christianity in this country. Federal judges wrapped in a misunderstanding and abuse of the Establishment and Free Excercise clauses of the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
These two clauses form one whole statement. Congress cannot create a national religion or prohibit someone for practicing it. Judicial tyranny has driven prayer and God from our classrooms and to ill effect. They overstep their authority because the overstep the Constitutional bounds set. They use Thomas Jefferson’s private letter to buttress their absurd stance.
It doesn’t mean that a prayer should be torn out of a school: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston
Atheism is a belief system. Humanism isn’t neutral, but anti-God, anti-religion and anti-Christian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humanist_Association
Their reason rally is in direct opposition to religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Rally
The abominable Hugo Black ruled in 1962 (6-1) that prayer had no part in government education.
There is no neutral in moral and spiritual education.
What you never hear about is Justice Stewart’s reasoned and rational dissent:
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting.
A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence upon God and asking His blessing upon them [370 U.S. 421, 445] and upon their parents, their teachers, and their country. The Court today decides that in permitting this brief nondenominational prayer the school board has violated the Constitution of the United States. I think this decision is wrong.
The Court does not hold, nor could it, that New York has interfered with the free exercise of anybody’s religion. For the state courts have made clear that those who object to reciting the prayer must be entirely free of any compulsion to do so, including any “embarrassments and pressures.” Cf. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 . But the Court says that in permitting school children to say this simple prayer, the New York authorities have established “an official religion.”
With all respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an “official religion” is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.
The Court’s historical review of the quarrels over the Book of Common Prayer in England throws no light for me on the issue before us in this case. England had then and has now an established church. Equally unenlightening, I think, is the history of the early establishment and later rejection of an official church in our own States. For we deal here not with the establishment of a state church, which would, of course, be constitutionally impermissible, but with whether school children who want to begin their day by joining in prayer must be prohibited from doing so. Moreover, I think that the Court’s task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the “wall of separation,” a phrase nowhere to [370 U.S. 421, 446] be found in the Constitution. What is relevant to the issue here is not the history of an established church in sixteenth century England or in eighteenth century America, but the history of the religious traditions of our people, reflected in countless practices of the institutions and officials of our government.
At the opening of each day’s Session of this Court we stand, while one of our officials invokes the protection of God. Since the days of John Marshall our Crier has said, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” 1 Both the Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer. 2 Each of our Presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy, has upon assuming his Office asked the protection and help of God. 3 [370 U.S. 421, 447]
The Court today says that the state and federal governments are without constitutional power to prescribe any particular form of words to be recited by any group of the American people on any subject touching religion. 4 One of the stanzas of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” made our National Anthem by Act of Congress in 1931, 5 contains these verses:
“Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto `In God is our Trust.’”
In 1954 Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words “one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” 6 In 1952 Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a National Day of Prayer. 7 Since 1865 the words “IN GOD WE TRUST” have been impressed on our coins. 8 [370 U.S. 421, 450]
Countless similar examples could be listed, but there is no need to belabor the obvious. 9 It was all summed up by this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 .
I do not believe that this Court, or the Congress, or the President has by the actions and practices I have mentioned established an “official religion” in violation of the Constitution. And I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case. What each has done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation - traditions which come down to us from those who almost two hundred years ago avowed their “firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence” when they proclaimed the freedom and independence of this brave new world. 10
I dissent.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421
The goal as always has been to drive Christianity from America.