Hobby Lobby Ruling Means Imposing Religion On Workers Or Something
The stupid keeps coming in from Leftists at an
alarming expected rate. Let’s look at what the Paper Of Record has to say, via their Editorial Board
The Supreme Court’s deeply dismaying decision on Monday in the Hobby Lobby case swept aside accepted principles of corporate law and religious liberty to grant owners of closely held, for-profit companies an unprecedented right to impose their religious views on employees.
The NY Times imposes their views on politics on its employees. Companies impose their views on employees all the time. How many have gone to being smoke free workplaces? How many restrict employees from being drunk or under the influence? How many have a dress code? I fail to see how the company refusing to pay for abortifacients within their insurance plan is imposing religion, when the worker can purchase their own with their own money.
BTW, it’s interesting to note that the NY Times constantly wants to impose their views on the citizenry, via government law/rule/regulation. Ones like a carbon tax. Obamacare. The contraceptive mandate.
It was the first time the court has allowed commercial business owners to deny employees a federal benefit to which they are entitled by law based on the owners’ religious beliefs, and it was a radical departure from the court’s history of resisting claims for religious exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability when the exemptions would hurt other people.
Employees now have a federal benefit to abortions? That’s what the Times is stating. This mandate, as I’ve noted numerous times, is not required by law, instead, it is an invention by Team Obama to patronize their hardcore liberal “give me free stuff” base. Neutral law? Not one Republican voted for it, and the majority of Americans still despise Obamacare.
Mr. Alito’s ruling and a concurrence by Justice Anthony Kennedy portray the decision as a narrow one without broader application, like denying vaccine coverage or job discrimination. But that is not reassuring coming from justices who missed the point that denying women access to full health benefits is discrimination.
That “denying access” is the #1 stupid argument from liberals, as noted by Sean Davis. Discrimination is #2. The Times continues the stupid with a “debate” about
You’re welcome to read it, the article is about as hysterical, and I don’t mean the funny type, as you would expect. Even crazier is that the article was written by a man. Liberal men sure seem concerned with women have abortifacients. Kinda like how the Editorial Board outnumbers women 11-7.
- Think Progress tries to tell us that the ruling is actually bad for people of faith. Also, the sky is purple and rain is made of chocolate.
- Eugene Robinson thinks the ruling is like segregation.
- At The Daily Beast, the court has declared itself the high priest or something.
- Jonathan Cohn says this means that all insurance should be in Government hands. You know, Single Payer.
And here’s a favorite
Ever since Citizens United, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision allowing unlimited corporate and union spending on political issues, Americans have been debating whether, as Mitt Romney said, “Corporations are people, my friend.” Occupy Wall Street protestors decried the idea, late night comedians mocked it, and reform groups proposed amending the Constitution to eliminate it. Today, however, the Supreme Court endorsed corporate personhood — holding that business firms have rights to religious freedom under federal law. Not only do corporations have rights, their rights are stronger than yours.
The stupid, it burns. All the ruling did was reaffirm the 1st Amendment, which, as I wrote yesterday, makes no distinction between the Individual and corporations in terms of Rights, because the First is telling Government what it cannot do.
We can surely expect The Stupid to continue for quite some time. I expect it to last through Friday, where abortionistas will use Independence Day to push their liberal notions.