Posted on 11/25/2012 7:20:27 AM PST by NKP_Vet
A federal judge Monday rejected Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.'s request to block part of the federal health care overhaul that requires the arts and craft supply company to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after and week-after birth control pills.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
Judges, in particular, should be very concerned with that happening ~
Well, let’s just see if their convictions and commitment to their Faith is strong enough to ...just close up shop...
cancel all medical insurance.
let the govt supply it...which is what the zer0bama dirt bags want anyway...and pay the tax the company has to pay if they don’t supply it.
it is lose, lose but at least the company is not supplying the offending abortion pill.
Lock and load. Move to Idaho. Wait out the storm. Might be for the rest of your life, but Idaho is a place where an American can still be an American.
you live in Idaho?
I would close up shop. I would take this opportunity to make a stand. If this family was smart enough to start one business, they are smart enough to start another. Perhaps a business that is small enough that he doesn’t have to provide free abortions to people.
This is one of the reasons people left France and came to America...FREEDOM OF RELIGION!
Where will we go now?
Thanks for the offer. Am sitting in the Hornet’s Nest near the place of the Revolution’s turning of Cornwallis north. May not be the best place to be for what looks to be coming, though would prefer to be on the front-lines. Other family members will take your advice though. Too old here to run.
Stop running away from the fight. Take your stand where you are.
They can, and said they will, appeal.
I may be missing something, but legally these cases aren’t even close.
Freedom of religion is not a defense to violating the law. There have been several cases in the Supreme Court that have held that. Otherwise Rastafarians would be allowed to smoke pot, Scientologists wouldn’t have to pay taxes, and Mormons could practice polygamy.
The only case to hold contrary, that I can recall, was the Amish case, and I think most people agree that basically it was bad facts making bad law.
Let’s see: The constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That means, say the judges, that the federal government has the right to say that only churches have the right to practice religion.
Hint. It's in the constitution.
This decision is consistent with the progressive party line: The Constitution guarantees “freedom of worship.” I.e., you are allowed to go to church. Outside of church, you must obey the State.
When campaign finance reform was overturned by the supreme court they essentially gave freedom of speech rights to corporations. Why not free exercise of religion too? Both are in the 1st amendment.
I do not think that “closing up shop” shows “their convictions and commitment to their Faith.”
First of all, the commitment is to God and Christ (not to one’s “faith.” That commitment produces godly behavior in the power of His indwelling Holy Spirit—and it’s an individual thing.
Secondly, if an owner (eg. the owner of Hobby Lobby) who is a true believer is following the direction of God, he will remain steadfast in God’s ways, that is, take action according to God’s ways, step by step. That could be hanging in there and standing firmly in whatever way God directs, despite adverse consequences.
The text of the Constitution is not relevant. What matters is CASES. That approach to “Constitutional” law was introduced during the Progressive Era.
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.