Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Judge: Businesses Must Obey Obama Mandates

November 23, 2012 by  

Judge: Businesses Must Obey Obama Mandates
PHOTOS.COM

A Federal judge rejected San Francisco-based Hobby Lobby’s request to block part of President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare plan that would require the arts and crafts chain to provide insurance coverage for morning-after and week-after birth control pills to employees.

A 28-page ruling handed down in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., vs. Sebelius by U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton rejects claims from Hobby Lobby and its sister company Mardel Inc. that the healthcare mandate violates the owners’ 1st Amendment rights as well as rights guaranteed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion,” the ruling said.

Hobby Lobby CEO and founder David Green says that his family’s religious beliefs are being persecuted by the government mandate.

“By being required to make a choice between sacrificing our faith or paying millions of dollars in fines, we essentially must choose which poison pill to swallow,” he said. “We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.”

The companies’ legal representatives, however, say they are confident that they will win an appeal in the case.

“Every American, including family business owners like the Greens, should be free to live and do business according to their religious beliefs,” Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Judge: Businesses Must Obey Obama Mandates”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • scared

    It is truly a shame what is becoming of our country. The lawmakers now say this is womens health? How sick is that. It has nothing to do with health it is control of people

    • Walter & Renee Agard

      I am not trying to insult anybody and I dont know too much about this but I can remember in olden days ( my time ) there were no birth controle and women protects themselves. How come they cant do that for themselves now, Sexually. when I see that, I remember SODOM & GOMORA in the bible.

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        “SODOM & GOMORA”

        Which were destroyed for in-hospitality. In what way is this similar?

        • Frank Kahn

          WHAT BIBLE ARE YOU READING? IF your Bible says that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they we not nice to visitors, I have a spare Bible I can send to you with the appropriate passages marked as the reason for God destroying them.

          They were destroyed because of evil, debauchery and sodomy. Have you never wondered where the word sodomy came from?

          • Jack Worthington

            Yes! You know the scripture. Thanks Frank. S&G were destroyed for practicing homosexuality!

        • Jack Worthington

          S&G were destroyed becasue they practiced perversion, i.e. homosexuality.

      • Texican

        I remember gasoline @ $ 0.14 per gal.,should I assume that the petroleum industy is trying to bankrupt the American Auto Industry ??

        • Frank Kahn

          please provide a line of logic that would connect those two items.

    • Robert Smith

      Corporations are CREATED BY THE STATE and thus can’t have any religion.

      Thy are created by the state so the individual owners can avoid responsibility and gain tax advantages for themselves.

      If they want to take advantage of their “creation” it must follow the rules of our nation.

      Rob

      • Sonny

        Thank You Robert for bringing truth to the discussion. Corporations are creatures of the State (Hale v Henkel). Corporations are fictional entities that do not have any God-given rights as humans do. Corporations only have priveledges granted by the State which can be taken by the State. Humans have rights given by God which no man can make null or void, but men wrongfully suppress, oppress, and violate rights these rights and eventually suffer the consequences of their actions. Hobby Lobby should dissolve the corporation and trade as men who have God-given rights… Leave the matrix.

      • Jim

        Yes, but corporations are created by people, and people have morals and values, some less than others, some more, and they should not be thrown under the bus.
        In the case of Hobby Lobby, as with Hostess, they can stand their ground, and close their business, and then who is better off?

        • Sonny

          Corporations are created by the State (not humans)according to the Supreme Court decision Hale v Henkel. Corporations have no morals since they are not human and they have no rights. Hobby Lobby owners (The Greens) have personal rights and morals that the corporation does not have. The Greens are not conducting business here … Hobby Lobby INC is engaging in commerce. Hobby Lobby is obligated by contract to abide any law the state passes and has no right to complain because the Greens consented to the terms when they incorporated. It is simple contract law. The Greens agreed to the terms. The Greens can however “choose” alternative forms of trading outside of the corporate rules. You have to seperate Hobby Lobby INC from the Green family and recognize them as individual and seperate entities under the laws. I hope this helps.

      • THA DUKE

        Sonny and Jim,
        The suit should be brought forth by the individual principals and employees of Hobby Lobby instead of the Corporation. The funding of the suit can be paid by Hobby Lobby if they so desire and the suit would carry the merrits of individuals vs the corporation and then the judge would necessarily have to look at individual religous freedoms and beliefs. I would think they should have discussed this with their attorneys ahead of the filing.

        • Sonny

          In a lawsuit, one must show how one was harmed and state a “claim of action”. If the corporation was created by the State and has to submit (by agreement) to every law the state passes, there is no harm because Hobby Lobby INC agreed to the terms of “the deal”. The individual employees (taxpayers) have consented and agreed to all the tax laws that apply to them. If you don’t like the applicable laws (Obamacare is this case), then stop being a tax payer. That doesn’t mean stop paying legitimate taxes…it means get out your agreement to be a tax payer. You have to research how.

          • Jack Worthington

            I agree. We need to know how to remove consent to tyranny, to cease voluntary servitude, as Murray Rothbard discussed in his The Political Thought of Étienne de la Boétie. Corporatism is a way to evade responisbility for one’s actions, it is protection offered by “law.” Corporatism is a device by which government attempts to encourage risk taking and then government turns round and regulates so as to undo the damage that government spawned by all its protectionism and regulations and deregulation and reregulation. Government intervention in the market is one of the root causes of our problems. The root cause, IMHO, is the fiat currency/credit systemp that government imposed on We The People in 1913; witness the slaughter of wars and the economic debacles like the Great Depression and recessions of post war eras, the early 1970′s, the early 1980′s and the present. Stephen Byington recognized the evil of fiat/paper currency back in 1890!

    • JJM

      The portions of the passed bill that I looked at are indeed Regulation and Control. A small % of the writing addressed Health issues and the majority of the rules are still being established by Appointed officials.
      Affordable Health Care?? Perhaps affordable (or FREE) to those who are subsidized by our tax dollars and policy premiums.
      Affordable? While my premiums increase 34% since passage and income decreases by 20%?
      I worry most about Availability and Quality Health Care when I may require it in a few years.
      Free Choice allows people to purchase their own BC and early Aborts if it is in the morals. I do object to being forced to financially contribute to immorality by use of my premiums and tax $$. I do object to being forced to to purchase a product and particularly without my choice of which options I want it to include.

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        “financially contribute to immorality by use of my premiums and tax $$.”

        Right. Who gets to decide what is immoral or not?

        • Frank Kahn

          That question can only be asked by an atheist, the answer is always the correct one, GOD.

      • Vicki

        tlgeer says:
        ” “financially contribute to immorality by use of my premiums and tax $$.”

        Right. Who gets to decide what is immoral or not?”

        This is precisely why government must stay out of it. Individuals can decide if the behavior is moral or immoral. If the individuals think to behavior is moral and they want to contribute they can. If the individuals think the behavior is NOT moral then they can choose individually to NOT contribute.

    • ibcamn

      everything im reading here so far is not remembering what started this all either,planned parenthood..the lady who started it wanted population control!!Obama made this part of his healthcare bill founded on that!he wants the government to control the population.Obama and that lady(founder of p.p.) are cut from the same cloth on this issue.You people need to read history on this and it will give you your answers to all this!its up to ourselves to use protection or not,its not the governments responsability..Obama just thinks it is!as for corperate tie ins,its just revanue and control which Obama drools over!

    • http://pweiters9.wordpress.com pweiters9

      11/24/12, The GOP made too much of this, that’s 1 reason why they lost to a hoodlum like BO. What’s at issue here is mandating that small businesses provide health coverage to people who, in fact, either don’t want it at their age or will not make careers out of such small biz. This provision will stifle growth.

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        “What’s at issue here is mandating that small businesses provide health coverage to people who”

        This is only for small businesses. According to the ACA, that is a company with 50 or more employees. Frankly, I know of know “small” businesses that have 50 or more employees.

        • http://pweiters9.wordpress.com pweiters9

          12/17/12, An auto dealer w/49, for example, might need to expand but may be unable to do so. Each employee, may or may not afford certain levels of coverage, depending on income, whereas a business may be thrown into another bracket the same as you would, depending on how much you make.

          So, tlgeer, sooner or later, you eventually run out of other people’s money.

        • http://pweiters9.wordpress.com pweiters9

          1/8/13, Suppose you have a supermarket, a pawn shop, a car dealership, etc w/49 people & you think you might need to add on a few more; crossing the 50 mark could throw them into a new bracket where they’ll lose money.

  • Flashy

    LOL…and what “religious beliefs’ are they denied? Taking the analogy, the family doesn’t use birth control in their private lives. hope the guy doesn’t have daughters…

    Now..the rendition of the result is very inaccurate…and typical of the ranting by the American taliban as it tries to force it’s religious mores upon the People.

    “President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare plan that would require the arts and crafts chain to provide insurance coverage for morning-after and week-after birth control pills to employees”.

    No it doesn’t. It has to provide coverage that gives the OPTION of birth control meds to the employee…the individual..to decide.

    If the “social conservatives’ want to have one overall religion in this nation…i suggest they go live in Iran or Saudi Arabia for awhile…a long while. We are not a “christian” nation. We are a NATION … leave religion out of it. It has no place being forced upon the People.

    • Airangel

      They are not protesting prevention with birth control, they are protesting “after the fact” pills…all of this sends the message of promiscuity and immoral conduct rather than decency and respect. Men need to be gentlemen and women need to be ladies and respect each other and learn more about each other before hopping into bed irresponsibly with no discipline whatsoever!

      • Flashy

        As Dean of Flashy’s School for Wayward Girls and Soiled Women, BC is available. Especially if the “patrons” continue to frequent in the numbers they have. Funny how many of them are carrying Bibles under their arm and quite voluntarily check them at the door when they enter to “interview” the ‘students” …

      • Chester

        Airangel, quite factually, Hobby Lobby was protesting being “forced”, their words, to provide birth control of any type to anyone, employees most especially. Seems they don’t believe a woman should be provided the means to prevent a birth at their expense, but by the same token, they will gladly terminate such woman should she become pregnant and not be able to provide for that child. Seems they prefer their female employees get pregnant so they can be released and replaced by new, cheaper blood.

      • Robert Smith

        From Air: “Men need to be gentlemen and women need to be ladies and respect each other and learn more about each other before hopping into bed irresponsibly with no discipline whatsoever!”

        Really? If that there right wing brutal god didn’t want people enjoying adult activities why did he make it feel so good?

        Oh, maybe it doesn’t feel good for them, but for those of us who do enjoy sex for recreation stay out of our bedrooms.

        Rob

      • ROGER, Irish-Canadian LIBERTARIAN

        Consensual SEX and MORALITY have no connection. ONLY RELIGION seems to believe there is a connection. It is only the NON-CONSENSUAL actions between individuals which enter the realm of Morality

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Chester, contrary to being educated into wisdom you were educated into idiocy.

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith writes:
        “Oh, maybe it doesn’t feel good for them, but for those of us who do enjoy sex for recreation stay out of our bedrooms.”

        They aren’t trying to get into your bed Robert. They are just objecting to being forced to pay for some of your bedroom toys.

    • Ted Crawford

      I see NO demand for “one overall Religion” here, just a simple request that their Second Amendment rights; “…or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof;:..”! There is absolutely no demand that anyone else believe as they do, but that they are permitted to believe and structure their live in accordance with that belief! No one is being forced to work for them! If their employees are unhappy with the offered benifits they are, temporarily as least, free to seek employment elsewhere!
      That will disappear as soon as Obama’s Mega-Government Corporation take the stage!
      ” The shaft of the arrow had been feathered with one of the Eagles own plumes! We often give our enemies the means to our own destruction” Aesop

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        And they are attempting to force their employees to adhere to their religious views.

        • Frank Kahn

          No, tlgeer, the government is trying to force the company to adhere to the employee’s morality. If the employee wants insurance that covers these things, they are free to get it on their own.

          You really dont understand reality do you?

      • Vicki

        tlgeer says:
        “And they are attempting to force their employees to adhere to their religious views.”

        They (the company) have no power to force their employees to have a particular religious view or indeed ANY religious view. The company is merely objecting to being forced by government to pay for the employees indiscretions. If employees wish to be indiscreet they can pay to clean up their own mess.

    • GiveMeLiberty

      Flashy, thank you! Your standard vitrol, non-productive, marxist, collective, large government instrustive position has managed to let my stomach let go of all that turkey and pumpkin pie! You should market that as a new weight loss program…oh wait, that would imply you are trying to be individually successful and productive…..not a good thing in your fantasy world.

      • Flashy

        Givemeliberty

        No problem. BTW, the beginnings of anorexia that you described are covered under Obamacare.

        BTW…if the CEO of your employer carries beliefs that medicine and hospitals are against his/her beliefs…would you accept not having health insurance offered to employees if such were the case?

        To whom should it be the decision for..the employer offering benefits, or the employee deciding based upon THEIR religious beliefs?

      • Robert Smith

        Question from Flashy: “if the CEO of your employer carries beliefs that medicine and hospitals are against his/her beliefs…would you accept not having health insurance offered to employees if such were the case? ”

        There is an answer to that. The Christian Scientists!

        ” “Truth is the power of God which heals the sick and the sinner, and is applicable to all the needs of man.” That’s from: http://christianscience.com/prayer-and-health/the-bible-and-science-and-health

        So, if we want to go by their rules there won’t be ANY health care.

        Rob

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “BTW…if the CEO of your employer carries beliefs that medicine and hospitals are against his/her beliefs…would you accept not having health insurance offered to employees if such were the case?”

        Sure. I don’t have to work for them. I have in fact worked for many companies that did not have “perks” like health insurance for employees.

        “To whom should it be the decision for..the employer offering benefits, or the employee deciding based upon THEIR religious beliefs?”

        The employer since they are the one offering. Those benefits are merely part of the agreed compensation for work.

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith writes:
        “So, if we want to go by their rules there won’t be ANY health care.”

        There won’t be any health care because there won’t be any NEED for man made health care as God provides all.

        Btw, why do we always get health insurance mixed up with health care in these discussions?

    • JL Kraft

      Read the Mayflower Pact …. This and always will be a christian nation. You want to live without Jesus Christ, that you business. I feel that you would not be so displeased if you gave Him a try. Hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving.

      • Flashy

        OK…so the Mayflower had Puritans. Big deal. This has NEVER been a christian nation. Got that? Easy to understand as a concept. Very much a reality.

        Tell you what. you live one year based upon my belief system…I’ll then live one year under yours. Deal?

        Seriously…you wouldn’t take that deal because my beliefs are quite different than yours. . So quit trying to insist everyone live under your belief system.

      • THA DUKE

        Flashy says,
        “Seriously…you wouldn’t take that deal because my beliefs are quite different than yours. . So quit trying to insist everyone live under your belief system.”

        You mean like you’re trying to impose with all your athiestic dribble? For you information, this nation WAS founded as a Christian nation and God’s name and his word is everywhere from the posting of his Ten Commandments to “In God We Trust” on our currency. Your stupidity is phoenominal and transcends any logic that you could ever possibly display. I can’t think of a single solitary soul that would ever want your style of life and would be willing to make such a trade as you suggest. I, for one, would be thoroughly disusted with myself as you should be with yourself. Trust me on this. God WILL get around to you.

      • Flashy

        “Trust me on this. God WILL get around to you.” < THA DUKE

        Ummm…two questions. Whose god and which one of the several available ?

      • John Woodbury

        Wow flashy, you pull facts out of your ____, just like all Progressives, Their were not Puritans on the Mayflower, there were Pilgrims on the Mayflower. “The same thing.” you say…not by a long shot. So now I know you education level, I will stick with the Pilgrims.

    • Nobody’s Fool

      Flashy, did you overdose on turkey and beer again?? Hobby Lobby should be able to opt out of providing insurance coverage for women who want to slut around and then use abortion for birth control. It is not mandatory for men and women to have random sex every time they see a bed. Call it abstinence, restraint, self-control, whatever. Good sense should prevail, and of course you and your commie cohorts that lurk on this website have no clue about good sense. It’s hard to explain to someone without any. But just like any pharmacist who wants to opt out of providing baby killing drugs should have that right, so should any business. And how you got from the issue of mandatory birth control to Christians wanting to rule the world, I cannot fathom. Christians don’t want to rule anything, we are ruled by the one True God, and again you have no concept. I’m sorry for you. Really. You are a lost soul, and that is a sad thing.

      • Flashy

        Nobody’s Fool…so you just called every maried woman a slut. Nice … hate to be your spouse, must be frustrating as all git out. What’s her monthly tab for batteries ?

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        “Christians don’t want to rule anything”

        You do. Instead of everyone (adult and consenting) living by their own beliefs, or lack of beliefs, you want to force everyone to live by your beliefs. If that’s not ruling, what is?

        • Jack Worthington

          Sandra Fluke, Leslie Marshall and Debbie Wasserman-Schults and the troika from Kalifornia Hell, Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer approve of using force to compel me to pay taxes to be handed over to them and their fawning sycophants for their sexual practices, which is the imposition of the scheme of looting A to satisfy B and that is criminal! As H.L. Mencken said, government is a broker in pillage and every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen property.

          • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

            ” troika from Kalifornia Hell”

            As soon as you posted this your post became irrelevant. It shows, quite clearly, that you are not dealing with reality.

      • Vicki

        tlgeer says:
        ” “Christians don’t want to rule anything”

        You do. Instead of everyone (adult and consenting) living by their own beliefs, or lack of beliefs, you want to force everyone to live by your beliefs. If that’s not ruling, what is?”

        Who is this you that you speak of? Christians do not want to rule you. There are, however, lots of people that pretend to be Christians who will use force (often of Government) to make you to live by their beliefs. We see that every day with the common progressive and “Social Justice”. These people may think they are Christian but clearly they are not.

    • CaroleAnn

      Thank you Flashy,

      What in the hell happened to FREE WILL, let everyone follow their own beliefs and let everyone else do the same. NO ONE has the right to bully or force their religous beliefs on others, let alone their employees.

      Many Christians seem to forget that we all have (or are supposed to have) free will. The right to choose for ourselves. They are the ones many times who want to take away freedoms. It is like the kettle calling the skillet black.

      • GRusling

        CaroleAnn: Since when was “Free Will” abolished for individual business owners? Hobby Lobby is not a “PUBLIC” Company you can buy stock in. It’s a Family Owned Company, with all stock privately held by that family, so what about THEIR “Free Will?”

        Nothing about Hobby Lobby’s activities is designed to STOP their employee’s from accessing birth control of whatever type they choose, including the use of abortion pills after-the-fact. The “FAMILY” owning that company simply objects to being “FORCED” by our federal government to SUBSIDIZE such activities, and under our constitution, they certainly have that right!

        People seem unaware of the fact that “Employer Provided Health Insurance” is fairly new in America, and only began here during WWII, when our federal government froze wages and employers needed to find some other way to attract the best available workers. “Health Insurance” (not healthcare) was one way they did that.

        Healthcare is each individuals responsibility, and there’s no way some “company” can mandate a healthy lifestyle for it’s employees without moving them into company provided dormitories, feeding and clothing them and controlling the entirety of their existence. Is this the sort of future you consider desirable? There’s a MAJOR difference between “Health Insurance” and “healthcare”, whether or not the LEFT would like to turn them into a single entity.

        Healthcare has been with us since the beginning of time, while “Health Insurance” has only become popular in America in the past 50-60 years. Once upon a time “individuals” took responsibility for the former, while few had ever even heard of the latter…

      • Vicki

        CaroleAnn writes:
        “Many Christians seem to forget that we all have (or are supposed to have) free will. The right to choose for ourselves.”

        I see some inconsistency in your application of free will for “we all”.

        You want government to force the employers to go against their free will choice to NOT offer a specific “benefit”.

        The employee has free will and can freely NOT work for an employer that does not offer a “benefit” the employee wants.

        Thus the free will right of both parties is maintained.

    • http://www.facebook.com/eugene.sevene Eugene Sevene-THE PATRIOT

      Flashy, what happened to taking responsibility for your own actions. It would seem that everyone wants someone else to pay for their mistakes. Sorry but I refuse to pay a prostitute for having sex with anyone. I know the word prostitute doesn’t sit well with a lot of people, however the last time I checked, a woman that received compensation for having sex was by definition a prostitute. If your employer is paying for your contraception, and you .are taking that service of value, then you are a prostitute. You are receiving monetary value for the sex you are having. Like it it or not look up the definitions for yourself.

      • Flashy

        “Sorry but I refuse to pay a prostitute for having sex with anyone. I know the word prostitute doesn’t sit well with a lot of people, however the last time I checked, a woman that received compensation for having sex was by definition a prostitute.” <—Eugene Sevene-THE PATRIOT

        So what's the monthly tab for your wife's batteries there Eugene…. psst…for martial harmony, and to ensure you don't get knifed in the middle of the night, i wouldn't go around letting your wife know you just referred to her as a prostitute.

        Be that as it may as far as your wife, you diss prostitution. You do realize do you not, the first prostitute using your definition and religion would be Eve. She received benefits from having Adam as her "boy toy" .. and..just askin' … but if there were only Cain, Abel and Seth as sons….where'd the grandkids come from? Seems "christian morality" would be screaming for the banning of the Book of Genesis seeing as incest or cross breeding amongst the brothers and sisters had to have occurred.

        So…before you toss out the definitions and then diss someone for not adhering to YOUR belief system…perhaps you should examine its basis …

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “So what’s the monthly tab for your wife’s batteries there Eugene”

        Since he is not asking you to pay that tab, what business is it of yours? Other than to try and make a connection between prostitution (a business) and the Holy Institution of Marriage?

    • Frank Kahn

      Trying to split hairs (with a butter knife), Flashy, is very dangerous. The problem with your attempt at doing it is this.

      The law REQUIRES them to PROVIDE coverage that ALLOWS them to use BIRTH CONTROL at the EXPENSE of the COMPANY that is REQUIRED to PROVIDE it.

      The OPTION you speak of is the CHOICE the EMPLOYEE has to UTILIZE the provision for BIRTH CONTROL.

      I am hoping that you can now see the difference between the PERSON REQUIRED and the PERSON who chooses.

      I dont care if your MORALS allow you to partake of this action, I just dont want to be FORCED to ASSIST you in your IMMORAL decision.

      This is, in fact, a religious, moral decision that is not something that our government is authorized to regulate. The 1st amendment to the constitution gives us not only freedom of speech and expression, it also gives us freedom of religious pursuits. It is not a matter of which the government is allowed to control, that is why things like birth control and/or abortion is a big issue. The government has no right to make laws either for or against them. Regulating (forcing) morality on citizens will never be accepted by true American Patriots because it is against the provisions of the Constitution.

      You can force us to tolerate the immoral actions of others (not able to legally stop it), but you cannot LEGALLY force us to say it is okay.

      • Jack Worthington

        Excellent refutation of Flashy’s fallacious philosophy of suicidal commie/socialism. You did not drink the “kool aid” of the deceivers, you may pass to “GO” and earn your reward of having maintained faith with those who founded this nation and which is sore need of rejuvination of their moral/ethical foundations. Good on ya mate!

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        So, according to your view I shouldn’t have taken birth control pills when I was 19? You do know that birth control pills are used for more than just to keep from having babies, don’t you?

        Are you aware of the fact that you not only do not have the right to know WHY I was taking them, you also do not get a say in whether I should have.

        • Frank Kahn

          I know of many reasons for taking birth control pills that is not pregnancy prevention. I dont care why you took them. I didnt say you dont have the right to take them. I wont buy them for you. Non of my business why you take them and not my responsibility to help you acquire them.

          IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT MY STANCE THAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND?

      • Vicki

        Frank Kahn writes:
        “The government has no right to make laws either for or against them.” (birth control and/or abortion)

        Objection your Honor. Abortion is the murder of a child so the government has a DUTY to make laws to protect that life just as it has a duty to make laws to protect your and flashy’s life. Now we might need to discuss which level of government should make those laws but that is a different discussion :)

        • Frank Kahn

          Objection, over ruled, it is the CONSTITUTION that says ALL CITIZENS have EQUAL PROTECTION under the law.

          I am not a legal scholar nor am I able to personally determine the intentions of the authors of that document. I do believe that it was intended to mean that no LAW may be enacted that benefits or harms any group of citizens with respect to others. Making a LAW that LEGALIZES abortion is such a law, by harming the rights of our youngest citizens.

          Therefor, we do not need a law against abortion (killing), we need a ruling in court or some other legal means of addressing the rights of a fetus. To do this, we need a firm and unassailable determination as to when LIFE begins. If, LIFE begins at conception, then so does citizenship, giving that fertilized egg all the rights afforded in the CONSTITUTION.

          So, in conclusion, we already have a law against MURDER (abortion), so we dont need a new law against ABORTION.

          • http://www.gingersplace.com Ginger Firestone

            What you say has merit. However, exactly when life begins, is not absolute. Some say at conception. Some say not until the fetus has been out of the womb for 7 days. Some say that life is in the blood, which I believe is around 18 days after conception.

            It seems to me, this discussion has broken down from the goverment’s rights to tell employers what they must spend money on to far more reaching topics such as birth control and abortion. Neither one of those is really an issue – it’s all financial and whose responsibility it is to pay for those extras. I can see all sides of this issue, but I still think that whatever benefits an employer chooses to provide or not provide is the decsion of the employer. If those who want to work for them don’t like it, they are free to work elsewhere. No one is forcing them to work for a particular employer. I love it that the Hostess people basically told the unions to go pound sand and sacked 18,000 employees who were just plain too greedy. I am totally on the side of Hostess. It seems the tail wants to wag the dog. Employers, not employees make the rules, risk their investment, and succeed or not based on all factors including their employees. Its still a free country (sort of) and no one is forcing anyone to work where they don’t want. The government should stay out of our businesses. This country was set with limited government and lot of personal responsibility – somehow, it has become more and more like a socialist (ok, so communist) country with large government stickin their noses into everything.

          • Frank Kahn

            God says it begins at the beginning, which is fertilization of the ovum.

        • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

          “Abortion is the murder of a child”

          In your opinion only. Until there is scientific evidence of when a fetus becomes a separate being, you only get to make that decision for yourself. No one else.

          • Frank Kahn

            The problem here is that most definitions have nothing to do with life of a child. Life, by definition, is there as soon as the egg is fertilized. It does, at that point, have all the SCIENTIFIC attributes of LIFE. The argument appears to be centered around, “when does it qualify as human?”

            I make this distinction, because it is a point of law, you cant murder something that is not Human. Therefor, killing a fetus, that has not attained Human attributes, is not murder.

            You have children, right? Did you feel them moving inside you around the 5th or 6th month? Did you ever notice that they react to outside stimulus? If you eat very spicy foods when you are pregnant, the baby will often object and become extremely active. Would you call this a living being, a human?

            Sometimes, a baby survives the abortion, it is actually alive when removed from the mother. Is this a human being? Was the abortion attempted murder?

            Yes, we need a better definition of when the baby becomes a human, and therefor a citizen of this nation. But, it is very clear, that in some cases, abortion is MURDER. This is not an opinion, nor is it a grey area, if that baby would have survived outside the mother but was killed, it is murder.

          • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

            “This is not an opinion, nor is it a grey area, if that baby would have survived outside the mother but was killed, it is murder.”

            I have not said anything different.

            What we were talking about was the scientific definition of when a fetus becomes a separate person. A human fetus is always human, and I never said otherwise.

          • Frank Kahn

            If the fetus is human, and by definition living, then it is definitely murder to kill it.

      • Vicki

        tlgeer says:
        “Are you aware of the fact that you not only do not have the right to know WHY I was taking them, you also do not get a say in whether I should have.”

        Are you aware that neither Frank nor I nor most of the conservatives on this discussion even care. We DO care that you want to use the force of government to make us PAY for your little indiscretions.

        • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

          “PAY for your little indiscretions”

          I have never had any.

      • Vicki

        Frank Kahn writes:
        “So, in conclusion, we already have a law against MURDER (abortion), so we dont need a new law against ABORTION”

        Amusing that you over rule my objection then go on to argue for it. But I do like the way you presented your case. I could have modified my objection to say that “government has a DUTY to make laws to protect that life just as it has a duty to make laws to protect your and flashy’s life. One such law is the law against murder.”

        Frank Kahn:
        “Making a LAW that LEGALIZES abortion is such a law, by harming the rights of our youngest citizens.”

        I know of no such law, do you?.

        Frank Kahn: “Therefor, we do not need a law against abortion (killing), we need a ruling in court or some other legal means of addressing the rights of a fetus.”

        Which is to say we need a ruling to overturn the Court decision (Roe vs Wade) that made murder of the (really) young child legal. Such a ruling might be along the lines of
        “The right of the child to life over rides the mothers right to privacy.”

        The really sad part of the Roe vs Wade logic that Privacy is violated comes from the observation that most murderers want privacy to commit murder too. They should rise up and demand equal protection under the law.

        You could, of course, claim that they are protected by the 4th and 5th amendments (when government bothers to honor those) and then it could be argued that the abortionist doesn’t need those protections because the court decision has stripped the child of the protections of a civilized society and allowed murderers of children to walk among us.

        Roe v wade decision
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

        • Frank Kahn

          The last item you quoted from me is essentially taken out of context when you fail to include the sentence that follows it. You cannot protect the rights of something that does not exist. Until it is determined that life begins at conception, you cannot protect the baby from an abortion.

          I did not say there is an actual law legalizing abortions, however, the R v W decision is given the weight of law in this country.

          Many people, civilians as well as members of government, think that the Supreme Court decisions are law. It is really quite the opposite, their rulings are supposed to define the true intent of the laws, and determine their legality under the constitution.

          The Supreme Court went to far in the Roe vs Wade decision, they should have struck down the states law as unconstitutional instead of changing the wording and authority of the law. That is a case where the Supreme Court violated its constitutional authority in that it in effect wrote a new law for the state.

      • Vicki

        Btw the actual Roe Vs Wade decision struck down laws against abortion. I do agree that those laws should not have even been necessary since murder is already illegal. Unfortunately at the time protected life began at birth (unless a DA wanted extra murder convictions against a defendant who had murdered a pregnant woman.).

        Roe Vs Wade did force the court to consider pre-birth protection of life which they did directly address in their ruling. Unfortunately many cases and laws since then have modified the ruling to allow murder most anytime during the pregnancy and for most any reason.

        The relevant parts of the ruling as it pertains to pre-birth protection of life:

        “3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

        (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

        (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

        (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.”
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

        • Frank Kahn

          In that case, the Supreme Court was correct in finding the law against abortion to be wrong. They, however, attempted to create judicial science in their determination of when Life begins. The Roe vs Wade decision should be removed from precedent findings in future abortion rulings because it is invalid in its opinion on the beginning of life.

    • livija27

      Corporartion are formed for liaility and tax reasons, not to forego Constitutional rights. No person and no business entity should be forced to pay for a service that violates their moral values. If the government is not stopped here, it will move on to the next Constitutional right. Sooner or later, they will attack one that matters to you and you will wish you would have stuck up for the people who run Hobby Lobby.

      As for the seriousness of the moral issue, do you realize most contraceptives abort an early pregnancy? They function by preventing implantation in the womb. They abort a baby. How many doctors tell their patients that? Where is informed consent here? Human lives are taken. The loss to mankind from our reckless sexual behavior is incalcuable. It is leading us into slavery and we had better shape up before it’s too late.

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        ” pregnancy”

        It’s not a pregnancy unless the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. Attempting to prove anything else is showing that you have a profound lack of knowledge of a woman’s reproductive system. A profound lack.

      • Airangel

        @tjeer – it doesn’t matter…your business is your business but complete strangers, fellow Americans should NOT have to pay for your choices, that’s your responsibility, not ours!

    • THA DUKE

      Seems to me, Flashy, that many of the problems we face today have risen since we allowed that “ONE” religion to enter this country. Islam, not a religon, but an entire philosophy and way of life is a cancer to free thinking peple and that belief system is not one that shares space with any other religon. It is totally intollerant of others and thus very anti-American by virtue of its core beliefs. We are trapped in a “catch 22″ senario where we find Islam to be an invasive problem and our Constitutional right to worship as we please. How do you deny one group of people their “Constitutional rights” while attempting to protect the “Constitutional rights” of another group or groups of people?

  • Michael

    Yes And the people keep Re-electing these people, But when the Economy Collapses entirely The people Pushing Obamacare will be suffering too.

    • Flashy

      Then i guess it will be dealt with if the economy collapses eh?

      Shall we ask the CEO of Hobby lobby if he or any member of his family shop at stores, stay at resorts, travel on planes etc… only with companies who adhere to his ‘religious beliefs” ? Those have much more impact on his “moral existence’ than providing his employees adequate health care in part payment for the labor they give on his behalf to afford his lifestyle.

      • Airangel

        This is no different than if I was a vegetarian that didn’t believe in eating meat and I open a restaurant. A patron comes in to my business wanting meat. I say I don’t serve meat as I’m a vegetarian and don’t believe in eating meat. Should the meat eater have a right to sue me or should he just go elsewhere that serves meat? Should workers that I hire sue me because there’s no meat on their lunch break and they need protein? The answer is “NO”. Work somewhere else or bring you lunch, do business with someone that aligns with your values. There are enough businesses to cater to everyone.

        Hobby Lobby is a private entity and entitled to run their business how they see fit. Don’t like it, don’t work there and don’t shop there but leave them to their faith and their OWN business. Why would anyone go into business today with this “screw you to the wall” government?

      • GiveMeLiberty

        YES Mr. Marxist Agitator……that’s a concept called FREE CHOICE!

      • Robert Smith

        “Hobby Lobby is a private entity ”

        Flase. It is a family owned corporation. Corporations are created by the state.

        Rob

    • Ted Crawford

      These poor delusional people have simply misunderstood the Addage; ” Don’t look a Gift Horse in the mouth”! They thought it was advice to be taken instead of a warning to be considered!

  • sean murry

    iwould tell to kiss my rear.

  • Linda

    I am a conservative, but I stand with the judge. When you incorporate a business, it is no longer you. You have turned it into an individual that is releases you from personal responsibility for any failure the company may incure. In so doing, it is no longer you and it doesn’t have a religious conscience. You can’t disinfranchise yourself from liability on one hand, and then on the other hand claim this entity has a conscience, because it doesn’t. I think the world would be a much better place if their were no corporations, and that businesses did represent the individual.

    • Airangel

      BS – work somewhere else or shop somewhere else..you can’t dictate someone’s conscience – that’s like saying make vegetarians serve meat in their restaurant! It’s a private business not a tax payer funded Government institution…Government is suffocating businesses and you’re going to see businesses just say “why bother” if I can’t run my dream, my business accordng to my ideas. If I’m risking my money, it’s my way and the population will determine if I offer a safe environment and products they like.. take what I offer or go somewhere else!

      • GiveMeLiberty

        SPOT ON Airangel….it’s called FREE MARKETS and unfortnately it’s being squashed at every opportunity.

      • Mike

        I agree.

      • Robert Smith

        Air says: “work somewhere else or shop somewhere else..you can’t dictate someone’s conscience”

        For an individual you can’t. That is for certain. However a corporation where I’m sure the family is ducking responsibility and enjoying tax advantages is a creation of the state and thus has no “concience.” Ink and paper are not a human being.

        Rob

      • Robert Smith

        Give says: “it’s called FREE MARKETS and unfortnately it’s being squashed at every opportunity.”

        No it isn’t. What about freedom for the employees? It’s completely gone when they are supposed to act under the provisions of someone else’s religion.

        And, remember, a corporation isn’t a person. It is a dodge for individuals to avoid responsibility for their actions and get tax advantages.

        Rob

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        “BS – work somewhere else or shop somewhere else..you can’t dictate someone’s conscience – that’s like saying make vegetarians serve meat in their restaurant!”

        It’s nothing at all like saying that. Nothing at all.

    • deerinwater

      Excellent argument Linda! ~ How can one deffer the responsibility by law to safeguard ones wealth in one instant and demand responsibly on moral grounds the next?

      • Airangel

        @Robert Smith, Tjeer, deerw…no on and I mean NO ONE forced people to go apply at Hobby Lobby, if you don’t like the soup, don’t eat it, go somewhere else that offers what you want, that’s freedom of CHOICE, no individual, government, corporation should pay for another’s behavior, it’s called SELF RESPONSIBILITY, consequences for actions…that’s the problem with anything Government ran, freedoms are lost – insurance should be affordable to pick a plan that works for that individual (i.e. guys don’t need mammograms, women don’t need prostate screening, some of us despise Big Pharma and would prefer alternative supplemention) it should be a pick and choose and insurance companies should compete across state lines for your business, that’s what drives costs down…and Chester the first paragraph of this article talks about the morning after pill and week after pill which is what I referred to in my response, not your ASSumption! Robert those privately held companies started as individual businesses and due to success were able to incorporate but that doesn’t changee the philosophy of the man behind the wheel and his vision which I’m sure when he incorporated didn’t state “in order to incorporate, you must pay for your employee’s sexual appetite”!…. All of you remember NOTHING is free and come with a price!!! 23 million already out of work and hundreds of thousands of job joss since Obama took office…this type of Government suffocation is killing jobs, incentive and motivation to even start up a company – you’ll reap what you sow by your lack of common sense and self responsibility!

    • GiveMeLiberty

      Typically, individuals start/build corporations and businesses. Ethics and values are critical to success and typically come from the owner(s) experience and core beliefs. If the owner(s) core beliefs are Christian-based, then so be it. In a free market, I have the choice to patronize that business or not to patronize . Again, in a free market, I don’t care what they do with their money….it’s theirs, NOT mine! In this case, it’s not the money, it’s the MORAL question of supporting a practice that MURDERS innocence.

      Gotta love mandated, penalty attached laws that suffocate our reasoning, our logic, our markets, our wallets and most importantly to me, our souls.

      • Robert Smith

        ROFL… “Ethics and values are critical to success and typically come from the owner(s) experience and core beliefs. ”

        Ever hear of Enron?

        Ever hear of Monsanto?

        Ever hear of BP?

        Rob

      • Flashy

        “ROFL… “Ethics and values are critical to success and typically come from the owner(s) experience and core beliefs. ”” …

        sorry about the cut and paste, but same reaction and described the mirth perfectly.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Ever hear of Abound Solar?

        Ever hear of Solar Trust?

        Ever hear of Energy Conversion Devices?

        Ever hear of Ener1?

        Ever hear of Aptera Motors?

        Ever hear of Massachusetts-based Beacon Power Corp?

        Ever hear of Solyndra?

        All were green-energy companies under Obama watch who received a combined total of almost 3 billion dollars in stimulus money, and are now bankrupt!!! And you want this man and his fascist idiots leading our economy, Robert?

      • GRusling

        A “Corporation” is where two or more individuals pool their resources to operate a business while protecting their separate, private property from the activities of their business partner. They follow the law set forth by their “State” to make their Corporation legal, but it’s ALWAYS the individuals involved who CREATE the corporation, and never the State.

        Under our federal constitution, the US Government has no authority what-so-ever to meddle in the running of such a business. We need SOME STATE (it really doesn’t matter which one) to stand up and enforce the FEDERAL Constitution, which was designed to limit and restrict the federal GOVERNMENT to certain areas only, and not individuals or the companies they may choose to create. In doing so that State should first demand the US Supreme Court identify WHERE in the constitution it gets the authority to “INTERPRET” that constitution, and when it fails to do that, because it can’t, demand that it refrain from doing so in the future. Next, that State should demand government identify where federal “COURTS” are authorized to create a law when no law exists. Our constitution clearly says “only Congress can make a law” so some ruling by some court CAN NEVER be a law, since it would be unconstitutional. “CASE LAW” is a concoction whipped up by lawyers, both on and off the bench, and needs to face a quick death at the earliest possible date. It’s, quite simply, unconstitutional on its face.

        We only need one State to refuse all federal “bribery” payments and demand the constitution be followed, in its entirety, and this nightmare could be ended…

        • Jack Worthington

          Good post. Well written. Why do folks who wish to form a businesses ask for permission from the state, thus making the state a third party to the agreement? I think it is because the state then offers protection for a price, not just from the evils between the partners but becasue the people have demanded protection. So the majority of voters force themselves and those who disagree with them, to pay via compelled taxes to support such tyranny of politicians and judges. People beg for voluntary servitude, as explained by Murray Rothbard in his review of The Political Thought of Étienne de la Boétie.

  • Ted Crawford

    Judge Joe Heaton, just one more, in a long and ever growing list of, Bush ’43′s mistakes!His appointments, Ben Bernanke, Justice Roberts and Heaton, along with his criminal, in my opinion, failure to properly exercise his veto powers, earns him the positon of third worse Presidents in my lifetime! One spot above Carter who, himself, is one spot above the bottom! The spot firmly held by Obama himself!

  • Deerinwater

    This is just another example of the foolishness associated with an Employer based Health Care system. ~ The two have little in common. Providing health care should never have been the responsibility of an employer in the first place but the responsibility of the individual.

    I fail to understand why this is so hard to see. People refuse to see it because something is being “taken away” for them that they once had.

    Most or should I say , many employers now skirt this responsibility by using part-time staffing while supply and demand “for” employment opportunities working in their favor. There is a man standing in line to fill the job that you don’t want where as this brings down the cost of “labor”

    There was once a time where Longshoreman enjoyed free heath-care that was provided by the Federal government on the notion that to serve in the capacity of a seaman, required an “able body” and to work for weeks on end, hundreds of miles off shore without any medical support other then aspirins and band aids as they served in commerce to our nation. If a seaman severed his arm caught in a cathead or becomes deathly ill, it’s a three days ride to port with vessel that cost $2,000.00 a day to man and operate if it’s just a small 140 ft. craft. ~ these sort of events greatly affect the bottom line in commerce and why the term “able-bodied seaman” are important. You can’t be able
    -bodied” with a mouth full of bad teeth or a bad gall bladder.

    Ronnie Reagan’s downsizing, and getting the Federal Government off the peoples back, dissolves this Longshoreman benefit while few employers confiscated Longshoremen for this loss. Longshoremen were left to “suck-it-up” and to work harder while receiving less for their efforts.

    So clearly this shifting of responsibility of health care to the individual is possible and has been done before.

    • Vicki

      Deerinwater writes:
      “This is just another example of the foolishness associated with an Employer based Health Care system. ~ The two have little in common. Providing health care should never have been the responsibility of an employer in the first place but the responsibility of the individual. ”

      Health care IS (or was prior to Obamacare) the responsibility of the individual.

      Health INSURANCE was a perk of some jobs where you would get paid in $$ and perks where that insurance or help covering the premium was one.

      Technically. Obamacare is still health INSURANCE. As such it is the government meddling in the the affairs of individuals right to contract between each other. Forcing some (remember those waivers) businesses to offer a specific perk. And then Obamacare goes on to force people to buy this product even if their employer doesn’t offer it. And further it forces the individual to buy only a government approved product.

      And then there are those other things in that bill that
      “We have to pass so that YOU can find out what is in it” – Thanks Ms Pelosi.

      • Deerinwater

        “Health care IS (or was prior to Obamacare) the responsibility of the individual.”

        It was still based largely on employment and still is today Vicky.

        • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

          What kind of health insurance, and when it kicked in, was a part of what I looked at before deciding on which company to go to work for. That and if the “clean” rooms were actually clean. I encountered a lot of wafer fab companies that did no regular maintenance and the floors were filthy. Ick. HP was one of them.

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        “remember those waivers”

        They expire in 2014.

  • Congress Works For Us

    Umm, why isn’t anyone on here zeroing in on the disgusting decision, and are instead focusing on birth control.

    The ruling states: “Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion”

    So, in other words, the judge is no longer willing (or capable) of reading the flipping Constitution and is wholely relying on previous court cases to render a decision.

    This judge just admitted in his ruling that he is refusing to uphold the Constitution. He needs to be impeached.

    • Michael

      Well Said!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/elton.robb Elton Robb

      Impeach the bum!

    • Flashy

      Ummm….next time you’re in church, look around..see any corporations in the pews? Jeesh….checked your brains in at the door this morning eh?

    • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

      Unlike what so many people believe, the courts do not have the right to make laws. They have the right, and the obligation, to look at the Constitution and case law. The Petitioner’s were not able to find a legal case that backed them up legally. Because of that they have no case, and the Judge cannot just make things up.

      • Frank Kahn

        Come on, tlgeer, think before you speak.

        It is not necessary for there to be a precedent for a case to be set by a previous case. If you followed that ignorant logic (false logic) you would never be able to have a judge preside over the violation of a new law.

  • http://www.facebook.com/elton.robb Elton Robb

    I think they should pack up their business and move their headquarters to a Nullification state.

  • http://navigatingthroughprophecy.net Erlene

    Let’s see you try to deny the “rights” of the Islamist’s religion. Ready for the riots and the beheadings? It seems fine to some of you folks to denigrate Christianity and its beliefs, but you don’t dare touch the wacky beliefs of Islam unless you are ready to die. Think about that, all you “oh so wise, sophisticated, free-wheeling liberals” I would hate to stand before the great white throne in your shoes.
    I guess you agree with the one who said, “if you have a business, you didn’t build that”
    Well, that is total nonsense as well as this goofy so-called health plan.

    • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

      “It seems fine to some of you folks to denigrate Christianity and its beliefs, but you don’t dare touch the wacky beliefs of Islam unless you are ready to die.”

      No, we’re not denigrating Christianity and it’s beliefs. We believe, based on our Constitution, that it is unconstitutional to incorporate your religious belief’s into our laws. Just as we believe that anyone else’s religious belief’s, including Islam, should not be incorporated into law.

      You have idea’s of what is moral and what is not? Good, you live by it. But you do not have the right to impose your idea of morals on the rest of the US. No matter how strongly you feel about it.

      • Frank Kahn

        When you say “we”, you are taking on the responsibility of all the liberals that speak against Christian values. Flashy obviously denigrates Christianity, are you trying to defend his atheist statements as friendly towards Christianity?

        Every IGNORANT person on this site that says the religious right are wrong are denigrating Christian values, are you going to try to defend them also?

        I believe that you might be claiming to be Jewish? I also understand that the Jewish faith is in strong alignment with Christian values in these matters. By this reasoning, if you are Jewish, these people are denigrating your religious values as well.

        You want Christian values to be eliminated from Law? Careful there, almost all LEGAL laws are derived from Christian values.

        The Bible does not say follow the word of God, unless it offends others, or is looked down upon by Human government. It says follow the word of God at all times in all facets of your life.

        • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

          “you are taking on the responsibility of all the liberals that speak against Christian values.”

          Not at all, and I am not a liberal. I am a Democrat.

          “Every IGNORANT person on this site that says the religious right are wrong are denigrating Christian values, are you going to try to defend them also?”

          If what they are saying is that the religious right have the right to make their religious views into law, then yes I am.

          “I believe that you might be claiming to be Jewish?”

          No, someone else is claiming that I said I was. She is wrong. Completely.

          “I also understand that the Jewish faith is in strong alignment with Christian values in these matters. By this reasoning, if you are Jewish, these people are denigrating your religious values as well.”

          The majority of society’s have the same rules/laws. They are not confined, by any means, to just Judaism or Christians. They are simply common sense. Claiming that common sense rules/laws are anything other than that makes no sense because they are obviously not confined to only certain religions or country’s or beliefs.

          • Frank Kahn

            Regardless of whether or not you are a liberal, you were defending liberals statements which means you were taking on their views.

            Since you are a liberal, it does not make any difference that you say you are just a Democrat.

            As with all LIBERALS you twist everything into some religious right wing agenda to force their religion into law. That is pure malarkey.

            As a LIBERAL you THINK that you are RIGHT about all this nonsense, when you are vastly mistaken.

            As a LIBERAL you think that all HUMANS have some innate sense of right vs wrong that is universally followed in all nations and by all religions. I AM SORRY THAT THIS IS SO VAST IN SCOPE BUT YOU FORCE IT WITH YOUR POSTS. History of the world will prove you and all LIBERALS wrong on these facts. Murder is acceptable (not considered murder) in Islam, if there is a good religious reason for the killing. Many Socialist governments believe that it is not only necessary, but good to kill people that dont follow the party line. Many people have advocated the extermination of third world minorities as being a drain on the worlds resources. Extreme racial and religious views have prompted attempted genocides all over the world.

            That is why we have the rule of law here, to prevent those atrocities from occurring.

            And, you might not like it, most of the civilized laws are found in the Bible. Most modern laws are based on Christian / Jewish values. If you are an atheist and believe the Bible is mans word, only given as Gods to have more authority, the rules are there in the Bible. Be it God or man made, the rules for modern civilization come from the Bible. Christians follow the bible, so the laws follow Christian values.

            And, if you want to veer off into abortions, that is covered in the Bible also. God clearly speaks of the person in the womb as a distinct human. He says that the child is a person at the time of fertilization. It is only man that has a problem deciding when that baby is a real person. And your statement in another post about it being a separate being is deceptive. Separate can mean physically apart from and not connected. In that definition, the baby is not a separate human till the umbilical cord is cut. So if you use that definition, we can shoot a baby as soon as it is born but still connected to the mother. Another definition for separate might be as a separate entity in itself. A baby is separate even inside the womb, it is only getting nourishment and protection from the mother, not unlike the first years after it is born.

      • http://navigatingthroughprophecy.net Erlene

        I am not proposing that anyone’s religious beliefs should be imposed on anyone else. First of all, that is impossible. That is a personal choice. The problem is government trying to do just that; either to obliterate completely all morality or impose secular humanism on everyone. That is what I am against. Hide and watch if you do not believe it. We are just about down the tubes as a nation regarding any decency and morality at all. Nudity, profanity, brutality and all immorality is now “in your face” whether you approve of it or not. That is what I detest. In the days when I was young, none of this filth was allowed in public; now one cannot escape it. It is like wading through a sewer and growing worse by the day.

  • Dee Andrews

    Its very simple; the company should cancel everybody’s health insurance and pay
    the fine which is legal under the Obama plan. The fine is immensely cheaper
    than covering every employee anyway. People never get enough freebees,
    they will never be satisfied so just tell them to get their own health insurance
    with whatever coverage they want.

  • Jack Worthington

    I agree with Linda. There is a “check” in the system of “checks and balances” of which we are woefully ignorant and that is: the jury has the power, right and duty to judge the law, as well as the facts, contrary to any judge’s deceit to the contrary. Juries can just bring in not guilty verdicts if the law is bad! An example is when juries refused to convict during Prohibition and eventually the dishonorable law using force to compel behavior had to be overturned.

    • Vicki

      The check in the system that you mention is the “Jury Box” (One of the 4 boxes given to us by our founders). It might work to nullify Obamacare but it has no chance to defeat NDAA 2012.

      For more on Jury Nullification see http://www.FIJA.org and your right, ney, your DUTY to judge the LAW as well as the facts of a case.

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        “The check in the system that you mention is the “Jury Box” (One of the 4 boxes given to us by our founders)”

        Jury trials are for individuals only, and only when the charge is criminal and the loss of freedom or life is involved. They are not to rule on whether a law is Constitutional or not.

        • Frank Kahn

          Actually, tlgeer, again you are mistaken. A jury is also used in equity cases when someone is suing for damages in a contract default. No loss of life or possibility of incarceration is at issue there.

          In most states, constitutions, it is written that the jury will rule on the LAW and the FACTS. This gives them the authority to decide if the law is just in that given case, or in fact if it is legal. It is THE PEOPLE who have the last say about every LAW in our nation. This is a part of our founding principles, that removes the possibility of oppressive power in the government.

  • Jack Worthington

    The law is bad because it uses tax funds taken from We The People by force or under coercion. When a state loots A to satisfy B it is a criminal and its dishonrable laws must be ignored, people must refuse to consent to tyranny, they must throw off voluntary servitude (Etienne de la Boetie).

    • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

      “The law is bad because it uses tax funds taken from We The People by force or under coercion.”

      Congress was given the power in the Constitution. Were you not aware of this? If you want to live in this country, or any other country, you have to follow the laws of that country, whether you belief they are fair or not. If you don’t think that they are fair, try and get them changed. But don’t throw a fit if what you are trying to change doesn’t changed.

      • Jack Worthington

        It is wrong to use force to take one’s property to fund the sex practices of Sandra Fluke/Flake. The fact that you don’t see this simple distinction between right and wrong evidences as corrupt ethic. Looting A to satisfy B is not what the taxing power was intendend to effect. In fact merchantilism was a form of such looting A to satisfy B and was one of the reasons for the revolution. It is you who might stand a bit of study. Try reading:

        Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
        The Inflation Crisis and How to Resolve It – also by Hazlitt
        America’s Great Depression – Murray Rothbard
        The Political Thought of Etienne de la Boetie – also by Rothbard
        The Law by Frederic Bastiat
        That Which is Seen And That Which is Not Seen, an essay (on the WWW) also by Bastiat

      • Vicki

        tlgeer says:
        “Congress was given the power in the Constitution. Were you not aware of this?”

        Where in the Constitution, and be precise, was Congress given the power to force you to pay for my birth control?

        • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

          “Where in the Constitution, and be precise, was Congress given the power to force you to pay for my birth control?”

          I was speaking about raising and collecting taxes. There is nothing that says what they have to use it for, other than to pay the accounts that we have run up.

          • Frank Kahn

            Are you serious? Do you really not understand the facts? Do you not see that FORCING us to PAY for HEALTH INSURANCE, that MUST cover BIRTH CONTROL, is forcing us to pay for others BIRTH CONTROL? And, on the subject of it being a TAX, that was decided by the Supreme court, so in your stance it is a TAX and therefor we are TAXED to pay for BIRTH CONTROL.

            Where does this logic fail you?

            And, based solely on your posting of your personal thoughts and ideas here, you a liberal Democrat.

  • http://www.wastewatchersinc,org Richard Ahern

    The laws are based on natural law which is eternal-The rule of law is the Constitution which President Obama and Congress and the Senate The Courts has ignored-We must get rid of Judicial Activism

    http://www.judgenap.com
    http://www.wastewatchersinc.org
    Read the 10th Amendment-State Rights

    • Vicki

      Richard Ahern writes:
      “Read the 10th Amendment-State Rights”

      States (being government) have NO rights. Only powers. Powers delegated to them by The People. Powers that the Constitution does not forbid the states. You will not find any version of “right or rights” anywhere in the 10th amendment.

      The 9th amendment DOES discuss rights. And they are exclusively listed as belonging to The People. I.E. US.

  • roger

    If you’re going to cite a case, at least show some of the content………..

    Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43(1906)

    Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states, in part:

    Page 201 U. S. 44 “There is a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation, and the latter, being a creature of the State, has not the constitutional right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State;”

    Page 201 U. S. 74 “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

  • Dee Andrews

    To all Liberals.
    Why do you think Obamacare is so full of outrageous requirements for
    companies to comply. Why should companies have to change their
    current health insurance plans??? ANSWER, so companies will opt out and pay
    a fine to the government. Eventually the government will be collecting
    millions of dollars in fines to disburse and redistribute to whoever they
    want, which is the whole purpose and agenda of Obama anyway.
    Do you really think Obama cares if American workers have health care?
    Wake up and smell the redistribution.

    • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

      “Why do you think Obamacare is so full of outrageous requirements for
      companies to comply.”

      I’m not a liberal, I’m a Democrat, but I’ll answer you anyway.

      What, exactly, are the outrageous requirements for companies? In the published law, what section, what page can these be found?

      • Frank Kahn

        Forcing them to comply is outrageous in and of itself, what is in the illegal act is unimportant. And, by unimportant, I mean since it is illegal we dont have to comply.

  • Lee Pearce

    Frankly, the judge has no Constitutional right to pass such a judgement. Fire him and put someone in there that will obey the Constitution, and stand by the law.

    • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

      “Frankly, the judge has no Constitutional right to pass such a judgement. Fire him and put someone in there that will obey the Constitution, and stand by the law.”

      What facts lead you to believe that judges have no constitutional right to decide if something is legal or not? That is their job.

      • Airangel

        You do realize Judges have been arrested for NOT doing their job and being subject to corruption and bribery…just because they are a judge does not make them ABOVE the law and just because they are a judge does not make them HONORABLE!

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        Airangel,

        You did not answer my question.

  • http://www.gingersplace.com Ginger Firestone

    Oh, where to begin with such interesting comments. First of all, and right off the top of my head, corporations do not need 2 or more people to start up. One will do nicely. I know because I had a corporation. When the taxes/licenses became too expensive, I just closed up shop – sort of like Hostess, only I was nowhere as large.

    Hobby Lobby didn’t say his employees couldn’t do whatever they wanted to do on their own time, what they said was that they didn’t want to pay for it. No one is taking away birth control, in any form away from anyone, just saying “not on my dime”. You want to play? Fine, but you pay, not me.

    As to being a Christian nation – perhaps you should re-read the constitution and the bil of rights. Yes, I know how dreary – just forget about those old documents. We were created as one nation under God. And, just to be clear, there is nothing that says a separation of church and state. What it says is that the state cannot create a nationwide religion. Most people don’t care if you are Christian or Jewish. Islam is taking a beating right now for understandable reasons. If the terrorism were to stop, so would public opinion. Not all Islam based people are terrorists, but it seems all terrorists affecting our country are Islam based.

    It would appear a lot of you want the government to take care of you – to have no personal responsibility. You want to put your hands into the pockets of those who have made successes of themselves. You can vote in all these wonderful “give mes”, but it’s not the rich who will eventually pay for it all. They just pass on the cost to you in higher prices and cutting out jobs and/or hours of employees.

    If you want really good government, make the politicians follow the same rules they pass on to us. Stop their lifetime benefits and make them stop getting paid when they leave their jobs. Let’s take their penion fund and put it into social security like the rest of us poor slobs and have that, just as we do. Watch them fix things if they have to abide by the same playing field. Citizens are not children that need parents to take care of them. They need the tools to do for themselves and yes, there is a need for those who truly are not able to do so. But this generation after generation of single parents living on welfare has got to stop. Help the old and the needy, but get able bodied people out working again.
    There was a time when you had to report for work to get a welfare check. I’m sure the government could find something for those who were able bodied to do to earn their keep. A lot of jobs need no previous experence or skills. Give the people back their dignity and freedoms.

    • Jack Worthington

      Mostly agree. I would draw the line at SS. Better if we opt of of it or phase it out over say 80 years or so. Government intervention in the market is one of the big errors. The root cause of our debacle is the fiat currency/credit system, a consort of the Fed and politicians/government. The slaughter of wars and peacetime depressions and recessions are caused by the fiat currency/credit. Stamp it out, as Stephen Boyingtion said in 1890.

  • Dee

    If these companies are forced to give out the moring after pill, obummer is committing murder. now we can call him murderer-in-chief

  • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

    “Hobby Lobby CEO and founder David Green says that his family’s religious beliefs are being persecuted by the government”

    This is nonsense. The family’s religious belief’s have not been allowed to affect their employees before this. Why would they think that this would?

    Every employer has the right to decided when they are open. That has not changed.

    I would like to know if the insurance that they contracted for before this for their employees had anything in it that was restricted for religious reasons. As far as I’m concerned it shouldn’t matter what religious views the employer has, what matters is what the patient and doctor decides is the right path. The employers should not have any say in it.

    • Frank Kahn

      JUST PLAIN WRONG. You are so not in this reality that it hurts me to know of all your delusions.

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        In what way, Frank?

        • Frank Kahn

          Read the responses to your other posts and you should get an idea of some of the ways you are wrong

  • Baldmurph

    Detail clarification, if you please. Is the law written: You MUST provide insurance which offers optional coverage which you find morally offensive, or IF you provide insurance then it must include optional coverage which you find morally offensive? If the latter, end the company insurance program (with explanation if you wish), give everyone a raise equivalent to the company’s expense in providing the insurance and let those who want it find their own. Again, with apology, if you are so inclined. If the former, perhaps the legal eagles can suggest a restructuring to an alternative more palatable than closing. People do tend to be a little less insistent on doing objectionable things when they have to pay for it themselves. Well, sometimes.

  • Marty S.

    The main result of this legislation is that it will shut down or reduce many companies’ employee numbers and hours resulting in even more people looking for a government handout and basically destroy our economy even further. Those who are still working will see their efforts are robbed of them through heavy taxation not only of their wages but in their investments by the ravenous people/government of this once great country and do the bare minimum to get through the workday just like they did in communist bloc countries under the USSR. Productivity will cease and it will be unsustainable. This will be the Great Depression II. I hope all you libs are going to be happy with this because it is not a question if but when it happens.

    • John Woodbury

      I would give us 6 to 18 months, barring a miracle and God is not too happy with us as it is. Someone once said a democracy can only survive until the people find that they can vote themselves largess. I predict the 53 % will shrink as people get tired of working or paying for others lifestyles. Tigeer, I pray you do not believe half of what you wrote, but I do bot hold out much hope of that being true. You do know birth-control pills cause cancer, right? You do understand abortion causes many mental problems? Well, whatever, enjoy life in Hades, AKA USA.

  • FreedomFighter

    The government Eugenics program:

    Population control, you must kill your unborn children to reduce the excess workforce, resource use.

    Robots are now the choice for the workforce, you as a human being are not needed in the quanity previously needed.

    Robots are more effecient workers and do not need healthcare, food or lodging. No, robots are neither smart enough or capable enough take over at the moment, but in about 20 years they will be… hence no need for your children — please kill them, its your choice. Yes we will need a some humans to maintain the robots and such, smart people not the labor types, thats why we place most of the “Baby extermination Units” like planed parenthoods in inner city ghettos and have our democrat puppets fight continually for your right to murder your children…stupids.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

  • AJ

    I suggest that Viagra and like drugs and birth control and abortion drugs ALL be removed from insurance plans! Neither are expensive…get a prescription and go pay for your recreation folks! Why should this be included in “health: insurance for men or for women. If married and wanting to use bc, the cost of the pills is so much less than raising a child or even having an abortion…why should government or insurance be involved?

  • Texican

    Just occured to me that when gasoline prices went up it was President Obamas fault now that we are enjoying lower gasoline prices who’a fault is it

    • deerinwater

      Willards?

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.