Republicans Need To Own Hobby Lobby Decision
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell issued the following statement today regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case: “Today’s Supreme Court decision makes clear that the Obama administration cannot trample on the religious freedoms that Americans hold dear.
As Steve Benen points out, let’s hope they keep saying this:
Do Republicans believe it’s a winning election-year message to tell many American women their access to contraception must be based in part on their bosses’ religious beliefs? Because that’s the line the party is taking right now. They wouldn’t put in those terms, exactly, but as a practical matter, that’s effectively the real-world consequence of the Republican position.
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
62 responses to Republicans Need To Own Hobby Lobby Decision
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
fancypants June 30th, 2014 at 14:49
Betsy P.
Villa Park, IL
0 friends
29 reviews
Share review
Compliment
Send message
Follow Betsy P. Stop following Betsy P.
8/2/2013
This place is a mess! And good luck getting out of there without waiting in the longest lines ever. Maybe things would speed up if they ever started using barcode scanners, like even my public library did in about 1990.
I came here for some crafty merchandise, but it seems like HL is trying to be more of a home decor store than a craft place. They have a tiny amount of supplies for a large amount of crafts, maybe enough to get you started in a new hobby, but you’ll need to look elsewhere if you want to expand beyond puff-paint t-shirts and basic scrapbooking.
Their home decor stuff is inexpensive, but it is so, so cheaply made. If you are decorating your house in poor-quality, scratched up Chinese garbage, this is the place for you! They also carry an inexplicable amount of rooster-themed decor. Weird
The big question, though, is do the sweatshop workers who make this junky stuff get Sundays off to spend with their families, too?
————————————————————————
Another satisfied customer OR not
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 16:24
Looks like her Hobby Lobby (last year) must not have carried:
-model cars
-HO scale railroads
-science experiments
-floral arrangements
-fabric
-wood craft
-holiday craft (in August, the Christmas stuff is hard to miss)
-framing
-cake decorating
fancypants June 30th, 2014 at 17:21
from what she wrote
The 7-11 down the street can get customers out the door quicker. Its probably a rumor.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 17:39
Hah! Yeah, I can’t recall the last time I saw a 7-11. :)
fancypants June 30th, 2014 at 17:50
it doesn’t matter rj Anwhere you can get a cup of java and a tank of gas will out perform HL at the register.
sometimes it takes a while _____________ You know the rest……
Bunya June 30th, 2014 at 20:37
Most of their stuff is made in China. You know, the country where abortions are a way of life. Funny, HL has no problem buying, marking up and selling crap from a country that basically encourages abortion.
fancypants June 30th, 2014 at 14:49
Betsy P.
0 friends
29 reviews
Share review
Compliment
Send message
Follow Betsy P. Stop following Betsy P.
8/2/2013
This place is a mess! And good luck getting out of there without waiting in the longest lines ever. Maybe things would speed up if they ever started using barcode scanners, like even my public library did in about 1990.
I came here for some crafty merchandise, but it seems like HL is trying to be more of a home decor store than a craft place. They have a tiny amount of supplies for a large amount of crafts, maybe enough to get you started in a new hobby, but you’ll need to look elsewhere if you want to expand beyond puff-paint t-shirts and basic scrapbooking.
Their home decor stuff is inexpensive, but it is so, so cheaply made. If you are decorating your house in poor-quality, scratched up Chinese garbage, this is the place for you! They also carry an inexplicable amount of rooster-themed decor. Weird
The big question, though, is do the sweatshop workers who make this junky stuff get Sundays off to spend with their families, too?
————————————————————————
Another satisfied customer OR not
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 16:24
Looks like her Hobby Lobby (last year) must not have carried:
-model cars
-HO scale railroads
-science experiments
-floral arrangements
-fabric
-wood craft
-holiday craft (in August, the Christmas stuff is hard to miss)
-framing
-cake decorating
fancypants June 30th, 2014 at 17:21
from what she wrote
The 7-11 down the street can get customers out the door quicker. Its probably a rumor.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 17:39
Hah! Yeah, I can’t recall the last time I saw a 7-11. :)
fancypants June 30th, 2014 at 17:50
it doesn’t matter rj Anwhere you can get a cup of java and a tank of gas will out perform HL at the register.
sometimes it takes a while _____________ You know the rest……
Bunya June 30th, 2014 at 20:37
Most of their stuff is made in China. You know, the country where abortions are a way of life. Funny, HL has no problem buying, marking up and selling crap from a country that basically encourages abortion.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 15:39
We do. Proudly.
jasperjava July 1st, 2014 at 14:09
Proud to be anti-woman scumbags, wanting to impose your disgusting “values” on everyone else. Keep saying it, and dig your political grave.
R.J. Carter July 1st, 2014 at 14:56
You’re silly.
RAPTOR555 July 4th, 2014 at 16:10
Nobody is anti-woman and, FYI, my ‘disgusting value’ on this subject is protected by the constitution and affirmed by the SCOTUS.
Gindy51 July 4th, 2014 at 16:41
Sure you are, just read your avatar. That alone makes you a misogynistic moron.
Bunya July 2nd, 2014 at 13:59
Of COURSE you do, but then the republican intellectuals consist of Todd Akins, Richard Mourdock and Louie Gohmert.
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 14:13
You left out Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman. Why are you discriminating against females? #waronwomen
RAPTOR555 July 4th, 2014 at 16:08
How so?
RAPTOR555 July 4th, 2014 at 15:52
…….as opposed to the unintelligent like obama, pelosi, reid, feinstein and the rest of their ilk.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 15:39
We do. Proudly.
jasperjava July 1st, 2014 at 14:09
Proud to be anti-woman scumbags, wanting to impose your disgusting “values” on everyone else. Keep saying it, and dig your political grave.
R.J. Carter July 1st, 2014 at 14:56
You’re silly.
James E Bailey July 4th, 2014 at 16:10
Nobody is anti-woman and, FYI, my ‘disgusting value’ on this subject is protected by the constitution and affirmed by the SCOTUS.
Bunya July 2nd, 2014 at 13:59
Of COURSE you do, but then the republican intellectuals consist of Todd Akins, Richard Mourdock and Louie Gohmert.
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 14:13
You left out Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman. Why are you discriminating against females? #waronwomen
James E Bailey July 4th, 2014 at 16:08
How so?
James E Bailey July 4th, 2014 at 15:52
…….as opposed to the unintelligent like obama, pelosi, reid, feinstein and the rest of their ilk.
Phil DaPill June 30th, 2014 at 15:47
support a constitutional amendment that would define a person as an individual human being. http://wh.gov/lFlvY
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 16:06
Based on DNA? (Which SCOTUS ruling are we trying to overturn?)
Phil DaPill June 30th, 2014 at 16:47
Hobby Lobby is a corporation. It should not be granted freedom of religion. There has even been proposed legislation that would give corporations the right to vote. This is getting beyond ridiculous. Do we now have to test religious affiliations each time there is a change in the board of directors? This is not about any particular SCOTUS ruling, it’s about protecting real citizenship.
RAPTOR555 July 4th, 2014 at 16:07
FYI, The freedom of religion was not affirmed to the corporation but to the owners (the family) of the corporation. Maybe you should read the judgement of the majority. You can disagree with the ruling but it was the ruling and it stands just like the ruling on obamacare that I disagreed with but it stands. What I don’t understand about liberals is the name-calling against those who disagree with their positions instead of arguing their positions with facts as they relate to the constitution. Name-calling just points toward their lack of knowledge of the subject matter and their inability to intelligently debate it. FYI, freedom of religion only, not citizenship, is addressed in this ruling.
Gindy51 July 4th, 2014 at 16:41
Fine if they don’t want to use birth control, then they don’t have to but they cannot prevent their employees from uisng it via their insurance. After all the employees are paying for the insurance not the employer.
Oh and their religious beliefs sure don’t stop those hypocritical Greens from having 401K’s with abortion chemical producing companies in their investment portfolio does it?
Phil DaPill July 4th, 2014 at 22:43
I most certainly did read them. First, it was Hobby Lobby, not David Green that brought the suit. David Green is an employee (CEO) and owner of the controlling stock.They are legally separate entities. That is what a closely held corporation is for, to provide a legal buffer. HL was the one that brought the suit. it is HL’s name on the case but if that’s not enough, here is some of the language in the case.
“Tenth Circuit held that the Greens’ two for-profit businesses are “persons” within the meaning of RFRA and therefore may bring suit under that law.”
“We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners”
This clearly indicates that it is about the corporation and whether or not the greens beliefs can be applied to the corporation.
Also, I called no one a name. But trust me when I say that “name-calling” is bipartisan.
When you give freedom of religion to a legal fiction, a corporation it contradicts the definition of inalienable rights.
No, I don’t like the decision. That does not mean that I have to sit back and do nothing. That is why I support a constitutional amendment to declare personhood to be a right for natural people and not corporations. http://wh.gov/lFlvY and https://movetoamend.org/
Phil DaPill June 30th, 2014 at 15:47
support a constitutional amendment that would define a person as an individual human being. http://wh.gov/lFlvY
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 16:06
Based on DNA? (Which SCOTUS ruling are we trying to overturn?)
Phil DaPill June 30th, 2014 at 16:47
Hobby Lobby is a corporation. It should not be granted freedom of religion. There has even been proposed legislation that would give corporations the right to vote. This is getting beyond ridiculous. Do we now have to test religious affiliations each time there is a change in the board of directors? This is not about any particular SCOTUS ruling, it’s about protecting real citizenship.
James E Bailey July 4th, 2014 at 16:07
FYI, The freedom of religion was not affirmed to the corporation but to the owners (the family) of the corporation. Maybe you should read the judgement of the majority. You can disagree with the ruling but it was the ruling and it stands just like the ruling on obamacare that I disagreed with but it stands. What I don’t understand about liberals is the name-calling against those who disagree with their positions instead of arguing their positions with facts as they relate to the constitution. Name-calling just points toward their lack of knowledge of the subject matter and their inability to intelligently debate it. FYI, freedom of religion only, not citizenship, is addressed in this ruling.
Phil DaPill July 4th, 2014 at 22:43
I most certainly did read them. First, it was Hobby Lobby, not David Green that brought the suit. David Green is an employee (CEO) and owner of the controlling stock.They are legally separate entities. That is what a closely held corporation is for, to provide a legal buffer. HL was the one that brought the suit. it is HL’s name on the case but if that’s not enough, here is some of the language in the case.
“Tenth Circuit held that the Greens’ two for-profit businesses are “persons” within the meaning of RFRA and therefore may bring suit under that law.”
“We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners”
This clearly indicates that it is about the corporation and whether or not the greens beliefs can be applied to the corporation.
Also, I called no one a name. But trust me when I say that “name-calling” is bipartisan.
When you give freedom of religion to a legal fiction, a corporation it contradicts the definition of inalienable rights.
No, I don’t like the decision. That does not mean that I have to sit back and do nothing. That is why I support a constitutional amendment to declare personhood to be a right for natural people and not corporations. http://wh.gov/lFlvY and https://movetoamend.org/
VALERIE MARTIN June 30th, 2014 at 17:12
I believe the Hobby Lobby’s argument is flawed
and the SCOTUS knew it.
All one has to do to ferret out the truth is to define
the terms pregnancy, abortion and abortifacient .
Pregnancy: After the egg is fertilized by a
sperm and then implanted in the lining of the uterus, it develops into
the placenta and embryo, and later into a fetus
Abortion: : the termination of a pregnancy, a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus.
Abortifacient: a drug or agent that causes abortion.
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, object only to
emergency contraceptive methods, such as Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd’s Plan B morning-after pill, and ella, made by the Watson Pharma
unit of Actavis PLC.
The specific drugs HL object to, DO NOT cause ‘abortion’.
These drugs PREVENT a pregnancy from occurring.
Therefore, if you have no pregnancy, you have no abortion.
You have no argument.
mea_mark June 30th, 2014 at 18:10
Of course HL’s argument is flawed. Facts aren’t important when it comes to religion. They just want to force their religious idiocy down the throats of their employees.
RAPTOR555 July 4th, 2014 at 13:50
Their employees agree with Hobby Lobby’s stand.
Gindy51 July 4th, 2014 at 16:38
Link or it’s lies.
Esteban Rey June 30th, 2014 at 18:12
This current majority doesn’t care about the law. They don’t care about facts.
WILLDYE4U June 30th, 2014 at 17:12
I believe the Hobby Lobby’s argument is flawed
and the SCOTUS knew it.
All one has to do to ferret out the truth is to define
the terms pregnancy, abortion and abortifacient .
Pregnancy: After the egg is fertilized by a
sperm and then implanted in the lining of the uterus, it develops into
the placenta and embryo, and later into a fetus
Abortion: : the termination of a pregnancy, a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus.
Abortifacient: a drug or agent that causes abortion.
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, object only to
emergency contraceptive methods, such as Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd’s Plan B morning-after pill, and ella, made by the Watson Pharma
unit of Actavis PLC.
The specific drugs HL object to, DO NOT cause ‘abortion’.
These drugs PREVENT a pregnancy from occurring.
Therefore, if you have no pregnancy, you have no abortion.
You have no argument.
mea_mark June 30th, 2014 at 18:10
Of course HL’s argument is flawed. Facts aren’t important when it comes to religion. They just want to force their religious idiocy down the throats of their employees.
James E Bailey July 4th, 2014 at 13:50
Their employees agree with Hobby Lobby’s stand.
Esteban Rey June 30th, 2014 at 18:12
This current majority doesn’t care about the law. They don’t care about facts.
Obewon June 30th, 2014 at 18:41
Women have long decided our elections & 98% of all U.S. women who use birth control aren’t in favor of the Trans Vaginal Probing GOP’s War on Women and against all legacy minorities. Great Job repubs in motivating as many women as possible to just no and defeat the War on Women in November.
Obewon June 30th, 2014 at 18:41
Women have long decided our elections & 98% of all U.S. women who use birth control aren’t in favor of the Trans Vaginal Probing GOP’s War on Women and against all legacy minorities. Great Job repubs in motivating as many women as possible to just say no and defeat the War on Women in November.
RAPTOR555 July 4th, 2014 at 13:48
There is no war on women by republicans. Any woman can get free contraception from many different sources if they want it. Why should I pay for someone else’s contraception and/or abortions if they can’t keep there knees together.
Gindy51 July 4th, 2014 at 16:38
Misogynist much, buddy, your avatar proves it.
RAPTOR555 July 5th, 2014 at 11:30
Don’t recognize levity when you see it, eh? Geeeeeez!
jasperjava July 4th, 2014 at 22:46
“There is no war on women by republicans.”
And yet two sentences later you accuse women who use contraceptives of being sluts “who can’t keep there [sic] knees together”.
Your sense of respect for women is even worse than your grammar.
Right-wingers have always hated women. Even the female right-wingers hate women. People like you prove it every day.
Phil DaPill July 4th, 2014 at 23:28
“Why should I pay for someone else’s…” If you are Christian, because Jesus said so. If not, then you should consider the social contract.
RAPTOR555 July 5th, 2014 at 11:28
LMAO, You liberals haven’t got a clue about life or most things for that matter.
James E Bailey July 4th, 2014 at 13:48
There is no war on women by republicans. Any woman can get free contraception from many different sources if they want it. Why should I pay for someone else’s contraception and/or abortions if they can’t keep there knees together.
jasperjava July 4th, 2014 at 22:46
“There is no war on women by republicans.”
And yet two sentences later you accuse women who use contraceptives of being sluts “who can’t keep there [sic] knees together”.
Your sense of respect for women is even worse than your grammar.
Right-wingers have always hated women. Even the female right-wingers hate women. People like you prove it every day.
Phil DaPill July 4th, 2014 at 23:28
“Why should I pay for someone else’s…” If you are Christian, because Jesus said so. If not, then you should consider the social contract.
James E Bailey July 5th, 2014 at 11:28
LMAO, You liberals haven’t got a clue about life or most things for that matter.
James E Bailey July 5th, 2014 at 11:30
Don’t recognize levity when you see it, eh? Geeeeeez!