Hobby Lobby Wins !: Where Do We Go from Here?

Christianity Today ^ | 06/30/2014 | Ed Stetzer

[SeekAndFind]

The U.S. Supreme Court has given the Obama administration (and, hopefully the world) a lesson in the first freedom. I'm sorry it was necessary, but it was—the government cannot (and must not) require people of faith to violate their sincerely-held beliefs.

The High Court's Ruling

The ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties underscores religious liberty as our "first freedom." The freedom to exercise religion, enshrined in our Constitution's Bill of Rights, has been called "the cornerstone of the American experiment" because it is from our religious freedom all of our other freedoms flow.

Below is a graphic from a LifeWay Research study conducted in November of 2012, showing that most Americans support mandatory contraception coverage through ObamaCare.

Before the ruling, former U.S. Solicitor General Ken Starr pointed out that religious liberty was certainly at stake behind the legalese of the arguments being made by the U.S. government:

If the Supreme Court accepts the government's formalistic argument (that a corporation cannot exercise a right to free exercise of religion), it will deal an unnecessary blow to the cause of religious liberty and simply create incentives for families of conscience to carry on their business enterprise in another form. The Greens will, win or lose, be able to carry on and continue their admirable mission to serve a cause higher and nobler than their own commercial success. But something very valuable—the nation's historic commitment to religious freedom—will have been needlessly compromised.

[Girlene]

Awesome news.

[Maurice Tift]

  We owe a lot to Hobby Lobby.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for the best laugh of the day and probably the week.

Of course the rats and their mediots will ignore this court decision.

[Campion]

Thanks be to God !!

[bigbob]

so, who really thinks this will put a dent in Obama’s “borrowing of authority” and “acting on his own”?

[jazusamo]

Great news. Libs took two hits today, this and Harris v Quinn.

[SeekAndFind]

A teeny tiny success, enjoy but keep on waving your pro life, heterosexual, liberty flag high.
Forward to life and freedom.

---

[Oldeconomybuyer]

“The first reactions from other news sources overread Hobby Lobby significantly. The Court makes clear that the government can provide coverage to the female employees. And it strongly suggests it would reject broad religious claims to, for example, discriminate against gay employees.
by tgoldstein 7:32 AM
Comment
- See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.N2zhDl12.dpuf

[don-o]

John Hayward is one of the sharper knives in the drawer.

[Travis T. OJustice]

WOOT!

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[Qiviut]

Evidently Kennedy is very troubled that this mandate/reg came from HHS/Sebelius and not a duly elected branch of government. I think he’s ‘on’ to something there .... [/s] although I’m very glad he’s troubled since there are lots of ‘regs’ being promulgated (EPA/HHS, etc,) to get what Obama/libs want done to transform America.

[FourtySeven]

Does anyone know how or if this affects the Little Sisters of the Poor’s case?

[Flint]

OK, now does the same principal apply to the cake maker?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Evidently Kennedy is very troubled that this mandate/reg came from HHS/Sebelius and not a duly elected branch of government.

Well, this is something that we should be concerned about. WHAT IF it came from Congress, is he then going to side with the liberals?

[GOPJ]

I wonder if this case could set a precedent for the Christian wedding cake makers and photographers being persecuted by the state for refusing to participate in gay marriage?

I suspect this one will be revisited...

[don-o]

so, who really thinks this will put a dent in Obama’s “borrowing of authority” and “acting on his own”?

Can we please enjoy a win here?

[lquist1]

“We owe a lot to Hobby Lobby.”

Indeed we do. Not a lot of businesspeople these days have the courage to stand up for their convictions even when their living is on the line.

[left that other site]

Praise The Lord.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Paraphrasing more from Justice Alito’s opinion: The dissent is concerned about the possibility of disputes among the owners of a privately held corporation about this coverage. State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by (for example) dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure, and courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving such disputes. -

See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.ydeCcrXN.dpuf