« Cabin Fever... | Main | Black History Month »

February 10, 2014



The 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Now let's say that someone can make a plausible case that the exercise of their religion includes refusing to facilitate the offering of certain kinds of health insurance to their employees (who are the ones paying for it, by the way, regardless of the rhetoric used. Employees pay for their benefits with their labor.) Leaving aside the issue of whether they shouldn't just stop employing people (the way the Amish choose not to drive, for example), here's the most important question in all this in my opinion: How can a corporation have a religious belief?

If we start pretending that corporations are persons capable of freely exercising a religion, where do we draw the line on what other human rights and characteristics we imagine these imaginary "persons" to have?

Paul B

Since the corporation has status as an individual under our current body of law I would think the Hobby Lobby CEO is well within his rights. I would imagine the court will side with the government here as if they allow Hobby Lobby they would begin to strike down the ACA.

As to Islam, I would give any practitioner of that "faith" 30 days to vacate the country before I round them up into interments camps and send them back.

But since the ACA carves out exceptions for them, it cannot deny the exception for Christians, regardless of who or what brings the suit.


But Green is not making a choice for them....He is just choosing not to be forced to pay for it , in reality. The insurance that he provided prior to obama care did not have that coverage in it and there was no problem....It was their decision at the time not to have that coverage or not to allow it. Now that obama care is forcing them to provide it -- key word is "forcing" -- I believe that the .gov is violating their civil rights in regards to forcing them to do something that is against their moral and religious beliefs.... This is key because the insurance that they provided prior was not mandated by a union contract or forced agreement but as a company benefit, which can be changed at any time. I think this whole mish mash goes way further than a religious Freedom issue -- it is basically whether the .gov is allowed to force it's "belief" system upon us. And I do agree on the idea that corporations' as a whole are not friends of the Constitution....

PS: I think we are closer to agreement on this issue than it seems.....:)


Scott, I was also very tempted to support CEO Green's position, but I cannot do that. My position is that, no matter how desirable a well-run company of this size is to the economy and as a good example for other companies, the one thing which MUST remain sacred are the principles of the Constitution as written and properly interpreted.

What I'm saying then, is that the Bill of Rights outlines and protects our basic rights as INDIVIDUAL citizens, not as corporate entities. Of course the Socialists want us to believe that everything is corporate, everything is group-related, it takes a village, community is king, etc, ad nauseam. Ayn Rand wrote extensively and supportively of corporate power, but as the Left has shown us recently, being a large corporation CEO does NOT mean that you protect the rights of citizens. In fact, it is VERY easy to corrupt the corporate structure with enticements such as tax breaks to favorites, awarding of generous contracts, access to POTUS and the Congress.

Sad to say, US corporations are not now, maybe never were friends of the Constitution. The day "corporation" can be plugged into the Bill of Rights alongside or in place of "individual", the Constitution is gone, done, stick a fork in it. Tossing in the divisive issue of religious freedom can never obscure the fact that this argument is about corporate vs. individual choices. If CEO Green is allowed to make First Amendment choices for his 16,000 employees, there for your reference are 16,000 examples of the Constitution being abused.


Also ...a .gov mandated Insurance is not a Federal "benefit" in any way, shape, or form.....and yes, by abortion I mean the morning after pill......


They are not requiring that all of their employees follow a certain religious belief -- what they are saying is that they (company) will not be forced to provide abortion coverage as part of their company provided (.gov forced) health insurance....Reasonable. If an employee wants abortion coverage let them pay for it on a separate policy or out of their own pocket......If an employee of the company does not like that idea then they can find another job -- No one is forcing them to work there. They are not establishing a "religion" in any form, they are just refusing to allow the government to dictate a requirement to them that goes against the religious beliefs of the company's owner and founder. This is nothing more than an attempt by the .gov to force a belief set upon everyone thru coercion and threat of force.......Basically " You will comply"....

Richard Bergerson

I ain't gonna waste my (semi)hard-earned (and dearly hoarded) money on a fool's bet, no matter what generous odds you might choose to offer. If we can learn anything from history, one thing should be that militant Islamists will use every right that we offer (that they disrespect when they are in power) in order to screw up and screw over our system. And side note: the so-called moderate or reasonable Islamists will never call their brethren out, or wrong.

But then onto the actual court case itself. I would like to state that I don't believe in abortion, but I do believe in it more than I believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, since it does exist. So maybe better stated, I don't believe for myself, where I have input. I also don't believe that I have any right to tell anyone else how to live, or that they must live by my religious, moral or social standards.

Hell, it seems completely wrong to kill an unborn innocent with the potential to become an Einstein (or a Hitler). It also seems completely wrong to bring an unwanted child into the world where it is not loved, wanted and cherished. (Of course, a good person can come out of a lousy environment - and a "bad" person from a loving and caring environment.) But it is a individual personal decision. First wife and I discussed the possibility of Down's syndrome (since it came later in life, and we knew a couple with a DS child). We agreed that we would keep it, but I wouldn't force my decision on anyone else. (Wasn't a problem.)

I could tolerate, even endorse, a hospital refusing to perform abortions for "moral" reasons. I find it bogus for an insurance company (or those who contract with them) to refuse to cover contraceptives. Not only is that fiscally irresponsible, it is the flip side of the coin of refusing to cover pregnancy because "we offer contraceptives".

Does anyone know if the looney Hobby Lobby CEO offers a corporate pay bonus for each of both married and unmarried employees' kids? If he don't, aren't his concerns a bit two-faced? Don't tell me to go forth and multiply because that's your religious bent unless you (and all the non-kid workers) volunteer to help me with all the finances.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad