Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 01/01/2013 12:43:07 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2973844/posts



Skip to comments.

Pizza Magnate [Monaghan] Wins Temporary Ruling on Contraception Coverage Dispute
CNN ^ | 12/31/12 | Bill Mears

Posted on 01/01/2013 9:02:10 AM PST by marshmallow

(CNN)– The billionaire founder of Domino's Pizza has won a temporary court victory, with a federal judge blocking enforcement of part of the health care reform bill requiring most employers to provide a range of contraception and reproductive health services.

Some business owners and their staff see that as a violation of their religious rights.

Federal Judge Lawrence Zatkoff issued his order late Sunday, saying Thomas Monaghan had "shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion."

"The (federal) government has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its actions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest," said Zatkoff, a 1986 Reagan appointee. "Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs have established at least some likelihood of succeeding on the merits" of their claim.

Monaghan filed the emergency petition this month, on behalf of himself and Domino's Farms Corp., a Michigan property management firm he operates, not directly related to the pizza-chain empire. Monaghan sold his majority interest in the pizza company in 1998.

(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: monaghan

1 posted on 01/01/2013 9:02:14 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Why him and not Hobby Lobby or the Catholic organizations? Same complaints so what is different about the ruling? I am becoming conspiratorial because my first thought was Dominoes must have contributed to O and this is the means to get them off the hook. Terrible thought on my part but lately I see conspiracies in every single issue.


2 posted on 01/01/2013 9:19:14 AM PST by EmilyGeiger (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

We should have promoted the democrats “War on Religion” as much as they promoted the phony “War on Women”.


3 posted on 01/01/2013 9:20:56 AM PST by FreeAtlanta (bahits.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EmilyGeiger

You only see them because of all the past evidence that Obama is a corrupt, vindictive thug.


4 posted on 01/01/2013 9:22:21 AM PST by FreeAtlanta (bahits.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EmilyGeiger
We have to get this to the Supreme Court NOW. Best way to do that is to get different district courts issuing conflicting rulings, then appellate courts issuing conflicting rulings. The Supremes get to resolve those conflicts.

Now, that's the 'best way' ~ but there are other ways ~ infrequently used but viable.

5 posted on 01/01/2013 9:22:52 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; nickcarraway; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; ArrogantBustard; Catholicguy; RobbyS; ...
Time to go order a pizza from Dominos!

May all these lawsuits against the HHS mandate succeed; pray for us, St. Thomas More.

6 posted on 01/01/2013 9:26:11 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EmilyGeiger
Why him and not Hobby Lobby or the Catholic organizations? Same complaints so what is different about the ruling? """"....

That is my question as well, what gives?

7 posted on 01/01/2013 9:28:12 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I suspect that each of these cases will go back to the Supreme, with the same outcome as before.

Any reason to think it wouldn't? I'm open for Hope. What will Roberts do?

The whole healthcare package is so convoluted, each piece of it will wind up in the courts, but giving the administration time to rethink and revise at will.

8 posted on 01/01/2013 9:35:15 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EmilyGeiger
Different judges, different rulings, different lawyers, different briefs, different pleadings, different districts, etc. The courts are not a monolith.


9 posted on 01/01/2013 9:47:49 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro can't pass E-verify)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: annieokie
The issue that won the day for Obamugabe was whether or not ObamaKKKare was a tax or a justifiable action taken under the commerce clause.

Roberts said it was a tax that was constitutionally permissable and the four witches had to go along with him ~ or lose.

So, what will Roberts say about religious rights?

It may go something like this ~ (1) you gots' ta' pay your taxes boy, (2) but an insurance premium isn't a tax, (3) you don't have to buy a policy that causes you to violate conscience.

Now that ought to put enough administrative burden on the death panel part of the whole shebang to bring it crashing down.

My logic follows pretty much from the route taken in justifying non-profit group postage rates ~ it's an immense body of law but it comes down to two simple ideas ~ you have to pay taxes, but you can evade actions that cause you to violate conscience. So tax resisters go to jail, but conscientious objectors do noncombat duty.

Roberts knowingly laid down the basis for extracting the federal government from personal affairs.

10 posted on 01/01/2013 9:52:12 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EmilyGeiger
"Why him and not Hobby Lobby or the Catholic organizations? Same complaints so what is different about the ruling? I am becoming conspiratorial because my first thought was Dominoes must have contributed to O and this is the means to get them off the hook. "

Why Monaghan?.....because he had his case go before a Reagan appointee rather than an O appointee like Sotomaior, the "wise Latina". I can't imagine any of Tom Monaghan's interests, (including Ave Maria University), would have contributed one penny to O and his colleagues. I've never been a big fan of his pizza, but his politics are solid and his faith-walk consistant

11 posted on 01/01/2013 10:00:51 AM PST by Reo (the 4th Estate is a 5th Column)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Roberts knowingly laid down the basis for extracting the federal government from personal affairs."""""""".......

Yet, it will be MANY many years to break it down one issue & lawsuit at a time, I would think.

That will give this adminstration time to regroup think and make changes equally detremental to society. They will continue their fight until we give up, & our children are used to Obamacare and say no big deal.

With the courts it will be a very lenghty, and in the long run fruitless.

Lord, I hate living in this world any longer to have to think everything is hopeless, but alas it is. Each generation grows up with the laws and gets used to them as if nothing is wrong.

12 posted on 01/01/2013 10:11:49 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

So far we have Dominos, Chik Filet, and Hobby Lobby.
I wonder if anyone is building a list of the good guys.


13 posted on 01/01/2013 10:13:12 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: annieokie
Glad you used the word "think" ~ that does not apply to your modern Democrat.

They rarely get past the titles of the bills hill staffers write up for them to pass.

I'm never worried that any Democrat will outhink me. They always do the thuggish thing. Can't help it. Their mothers drank vodka and picked up STDs while they were in utero. Their lifespans are shorter. They wear shoes for fashion rather than as protective coverings for their feet.

14 posted on 01/01/2013 10:15:22 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
It may go something like this ~ (1) you gots' ta' pay your taxes boy, (2) but an insurance premium isn't a tax, (3) you don't have to buy a policy that causes you to violate conscience.""""".......

#2 & 3: you don't have to buy a policy that causes you to violate conscience....?

Well, that would apply to all of us, so then that COULD mean that each can pull out of the Employers health benefits on the grounds of Conscientious objections...

If all pulled out on those grounds, it would implode.

Just looking for angles and hoping for something here.

15 posted on 01/01/2013 10:30:59 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: trebb

There were a couple of colleges that won suits too.

No, I’m not keeping a list.


16 posted on 01/01/2013 10:42:06 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: annieokie
The whole thing hinges on the policy ~ if you are an employer, you pay part, the employee pays part, might even be the gub'mnt pays part ~ but WHICH part. It's not possible to disaggregate insurance. The government's argument will be it's prepaid medical ~ not actually insurance, so it can be disaggregated ~ and the government buys 'this part' ~ the government will also be making the argument that you can't actually disagregate it by sex because ...... or race ..... or whatever. They'll lose on those points, and next thing you know you, as a man, or an elderly woman, or a young chil' will no longer need to pay a share of some young woman's 10 abortions per year! And if you're an employer, corporate or otherwise, you can exclude what you want lest one of your employees be offended handling the paperwork for those 10 abortions, or 5 vasectomies, or genital mutilations.

I think Roberts thought this all out, saw the ultimate weak point in any federal mandate, and laid a landmine field for them all. Plus, the ultimate problem for ObamaKKKare is the year the government is ruled by a single faction that decides it doesn't want to pay for any of this ~ just cuts off the funds right down to IRS agents' salaries to enforce rules, ~ and suddenly everybody's back to 1944 and serious rationing.

17 posted on 01/01/2013 11:09:45 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
if you are an employer, you pay part,""""....

The employer can/may opt out and pay a penalty anyway.

"You pay part", so opt out of your part being an objector under some of these new court rulings. the employee then can purchase his own insurance if wanted. The employer can pass the portion of benefit $$$ to the employee that they have earned anyway.

Not sure if I am getting this expressed like I want. Still clinging to hope for a Citizens out.

I think what I am trying to boil it down to, is to flood the Courts with continual lawsuits based on some objection or another.

18 posted on 01/01/2013 11:30:04 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Thank you for being the voice of reason! I don’t know why some people find the obvious so hard to locate!


19 posted on 01/01/2013 11:48:15 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EmilyGeiger

Thomas Monaghan is a solid conservative and a practicing Catholic.

He happens to have a ton of money that he is willing to throw at the issue and he has a non-compromising attitude.


20 posted on 01/01/2013 12:26:13 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson