Comments on: Religious Freedom Day

By: Brad Osborn

Brad Osborn — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:35:04 +0000

Obamacare is a flagrant attempt to restrict our freedom, religious or otherwise, to not be forced to participate in the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies, as well as a flagrant attempt to bridle our economic freedom.

Political freedom is not possible without religious or economic freedom.

By: Boonton

Boonton — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:23:29 +0000

katie,

Lots of passion but you haven’t answered a very basic question, what religious rights are you being asked to give up by running a small corporation?

By: Brad Osborn

Brad Osborn — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:04:10 +0000

Right on Katie.

Our fathers and grandfathers sacrificed to
defeat Nazi Germany, and we stood against the evil of communism, but this honorable history will be voided if we adopt those respective regime’s disregard for religious freedom and wanton disregard for innocent human life.

Our rights come, not from government, especially this administration, but from God
alone. They are not to be trampled on by any administration or court.

By: katie

katie — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:16:56 +0000

Also David, it does not matter what YOU or I think about Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs concerning abortificient drugs. (I do happen to agree with Hobby Lobby) But this is about THEIR beliefs and they don’t lose their rights just because someone (especially the government) disagrees with their religious beliefs. That is why we have the first amendment.

By: katie

katie — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:09:19 +0000

@David, I am disagreeing based on principle, not current law as determined by our courts. I am not a constitutional lawyer either, (obviously) but I have owned a corporation. Actually, my husband was the CEO and I was “Secretary” or something. (It was a roofing company) No one else had a position of authority in our corporation. Where do individual rights end and the “corporation” begin? Should I have to give up my religious convictions whenever I want to participate in my business?
I think the problem is that people tend to think of corporations as big businesses like BOA that have shareholders, etc. My husband and I were the only “shareholders” in our corporation. Our corporation was an entity that had OWNERS with rights guaranteed by the constitution. I do not think that owners should be required to give up their rights as individuals, in order to engage in business. We are exercising our individual rights simultaneously while we are engaging in business. An owner of a corporation is a “natural” person that represents a business. I don’t cease to become a person when I am operating my corporation. The government has passed a law that requires Hobby Lobby OWNERS to compromise their religious faith in order to continue to operate their private business. To me, that is a violation of the first amendment. I understand that the courts will make this decision, but I don’t see how they can grant corporations one part of the first amendment (free speech) and not allow another. They may rule that way, but that doesn’t mean its right. Regardless of what the courts say, I think we could agree that the Founding Fathers NEVER intended the federal government to have this much power over the lives of its citizens. This will be the death of religious freedom in this country, if it is allowed to stand. Does anyone seriously think it will end here?

By: Boonton

Boonton — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:21:38 +0000

Even if Hobby Lobby qualifies as a ‘religious person’ that has nothing to do with the Health Care law.

I’m a person, you’re a person. You give money to the Salvation Army and get a tax donation. I don’t because I belong to the Church of Ayn Rand. I pay more taxes than you because of that. Am I free to practice my religion, which consists of NOT giving to charity? Sure.

Hobby Lobby is perfectly free to not provide health insurance. The fact that the tax code makes such a policy less advantageous hardly qualifies as preventing it from practicing a ‘faith’.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:48:45 +0000

Mr. Obama has not yet voided the Bill of Rights, sir.

Brad Osborn,

No, he absolutely has not. But while you are entitled to your opinion about what the Bill of Rights guarantees, the courts make the actual decisions. I guarantee you the Obama administration will abide by any decisions the courts make regarding any and all aspects of Obamacare.

Incidentally, I think Hobby Lobby is incorrect in its belief that emergency contraceptives are “abortifacients,” especially Plan B. That is a scientific question, not a moral one. And if they are wrong on the science, their case for a religious exemption is nonexistent.

By: Brad Osborn

Brad Osborn — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:19:38 +0000

To Mr. Nichol,

Mr. Obama has not yet voided the Bill of Rights, sir.

Hobby Lobby is within its rights to not assist in the murder of unborn babies.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:40:07 +0000

Hobby Lobby is a company that is within its spiritual, moral, ethical , legal rights to offer insurance with or without coverage which its leaders find to be within those very guidelines of spirituality, morality, and ethics.

Brad Osborn,

This simply is not the case. For example, do you suppose they have the right to offer maternity care to married women and refuse it to unmarried women? Or may they declare marriage indissoluble and offer to give spousal benefits only in cases of first marriages? May they give insurance coverage only to Christians and not to Jews or atheists? May the refuse to hire non-Christians? The answer to all of those questions is no. We don’t know yet whether they have a right to refuse coverage of contraception (or what they consider abortifacient drugs), but they don’t have some kind of absolute right to act according to their religion or conscience and ignore the law.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:32:27 +0000

David, So, can a for-profit company practice free speech?

katie,

Yes, they can, but that was only affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2010. (And there are those who disagree with the decision.) It is just a fact that the question of whether a for-profit corporation has a First Amendment right to freedom of religion is unanswered. Don’t get mad at me! It’s not my fault! Don’t shoot the messenger! I am just pointing out that it is an unanswered legal question. If Hobby Lobby is claiming that, as a corporation, it has a First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the government is claiming a for-profit corporation can’t in any meaningful way exercise religion (and thus corporate freedom of religion makes no sense), that question has to be answered by the courts.

I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I do not believe corporations have the right to peaceably assemble, because it would be essentially meaningless. Only natural persons (real people) can assemble (that is, gather together in a group). Regarding Fourth Amendment rights, Wikipedia says, “In the case of a constructive search where the records and papers sought are of corporate character, the court held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply, since corporations are not entitled to all the constitutional protections created in order to protect the rights of private individuals.”

It simply can’t be assumed that a corporation, because it is a legal person, has the same rights as natural persons.