Posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:01 AM PDT by 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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
That goes to separation of powers and is a good thing.
Great News! The passengers on the Titanic can celebrate getting to move a deck chair from port to starboard.
Thank you Jesus. God bless the Greens.
Yeah... that’s a common thread in several of these rulings. There is a willingness on the side of the court to rule our dictator back in.
RE: Does anyone know how or if this affects the Little Sisters of the Poor’s case?
It should favor the Little Sisters as a PRECEDENT.
Just as Hobby Lobby headlined a group of for-profit businesses challenging the contraception mandate, the Little Sisters of the Poor headline a much larger group of non-profit ministries challenging the same mandate. The non-profit cases are about a year behind the for-profit cases in court.
It would be CONTRADICTORY of the Supreme Court to rule in favor of a for profit corporation and not rule in favor of a not for profit organization, especially an explicitly religious one.
I hope you mean REEL our (wannabe) dictator back in.
apillar wrote:
<<
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? If nothing else it should bolster their argument that you don’t lose your right to practice your religion just because you go into business...
>>
************************************************************
I’m wondering this very same thing... I don’t see how the Supreme Court can rule in favor of religious freedom for Hobby Lobby, but not for that of Christian small businesses. Not to mention, there is also a judicial precedence from 2000 where the Boy Scouts of America were ruled in favor of having the First Amendment right, as a private organization, to exclude people from membership. Why can’t the same right apply to private businesses that do not wish to cater its product to certain people for legitimate religious reasons?
It’s great news versus the alternative.
I suspect that Hussien Obama will again bypass constitutional law and implement this on his own. John Boehner will respond by having a meeting to talk about Immigration reform.
RE: Ginsburg has written a 19 page Dissent, not yet available.
The fight has just began. All we need is another Ginsburg sitting on the court REPLACING someone like Scalia, Alito or Thomas and we’ll be screwed.
This should give some second thoughts to those who insist that a president has to be “pure” during the elections.
These two decisions still make me feel like I’m trapped in the Alamo ... just sayin ...
Wait. What?
Yes.... thanks for that.
I did the same. Feels so good!
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?
************************
No telling. As the Bible says: Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)
The way things are going in the country now, I can’t “predict” which way anything will go since what was right is now wrong and vice versa. Thank God that the Hobby Lobby folks don’t have to comply with the evil that was the HHS mandate.
Shouldn't it mean just that? This is the problem with these narrowly-defined decisions because now the Supreme Court taking upon itself to decide what is really, truly a religious belief and what is only sort of a religious belief? Hobby Lobby argued that requiring coverage for certain types of birth control violated their religious beliefs. The court has ruled, correctly in my opinion, that if corporations have the same First Amendment rights to free speech as individuals have then why shouldn't they have the same First Amendment rights to freedom of religion as individuals have? But that does come with a cost. Birth control is not the only problems some religions have with medicine as practiced in this country. Now they have to sue to get their First Amendment rights recognized as well.
“The fight has just began. All we need is another Ginsburg sitting on the court REPLACING someone like Scalia, Alito or Thomas and we’ll be screwed.
This should give some second thoughts to those who insist that a president has to be “pure” during the elections.”
You are so right.
I held my nose and voted for Romney only for and because I believe that he would at least appoint Conservative justices, but we will never know if he would have.
Did he really say he regrets it or is that Drudge’s editorial comment?
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.