The Real Strategy Behind Hobby Lobby We’ll See Going Forward

In the following clip from The Posner Show, Sarah and Columbia Law School’s Kara Loewentheil discuss how a letter urging Obama not to include a religious exemption in a forthcoming executive order barring federal contractors from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity would interact with existing rules granting religious exemptions to religiously-affiliated contractors.

Sarah Posner, author of God’s Profits: Faith, Fraud, and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters, covers politics and religion. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Atlantic, The American ProspectThe NationSalon, and other publications. Follow her on TwitterRSS feed Email

  • Christopher

    This is wonderful news. Thanks so much. It is becoming more and more obvious that the violation of the religious practices of a specific group of women by the Hobby Lobby ruling, written about by Justice Ginsberg in her wonderful dissent, which allows Hobby Lobby et al. to be able to avoid paying for insurance that would pay for these four contraceptives, is that women that want these forms of contraceptive, that they can still purchase on their own so it cannot be that they are directly restricted from using them, is that their religious practices are still somehow hindered/ stopped/ limited/ etc. because other “persons” are no longer required by U.S. tax law (ObamaCare is a tax law) to pay for the religious practices (according to Justice Ginsberg) of this limited group (women that use these particular forms of contraceptives) of the other limited group known as females (these contraceptives do not affect the medical choices of men).

    So what religion is being restricted? The only one that I can think of is Civic Religion of Socialism. The only complaint that I can see caused by Hobby Lobby is that other “persons” are not forced by the IRS to pay for pro-contraceptive religious practices of this small discriminated against group of women.

    If there is something I am missing PLEASE let me know. This is very important to my legal research on tax avoidance.

    By the way, Does any one know why Justice Ginsberg claims that the RFRA does not apply to tax law? ObamaCare IS tax law.

    “JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins, and with whom JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN join as to all but Part III–C–1, dissenting.

    “In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

    The rest of Justice Ginsberg’s dissent is very enlightening but she was obviously dead wrong on the “saving only tax laws” comment. She agreed with Justice Roberts in the 5/4 ruling that allows for ObamaCare so how can she now claim the RFRA does not apply to tax laws? Did she forget ACA is a tax?

    Thanks.

  • Christopher

    Does ObamaCare pay for the kind of medicine I choose to take for Diabetes because of my religious beliefs. HELL NO it does not.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-larrowe-bergersen/diabetes-let-food-be-thy-_b_5585712.html

  • Christopher

    At the 1:30 to 2:00 section of the entire video that includes the section above: http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/30143 this “expert” talks about how religious organizations, which now include for-profit closely held corporations with religious beliefs, because of the Hobby Lobby ruling, have an exemption to discriminate in their hiring practices if their hiring “prefer[s] their co-religionists”.

    So when setting up business we can include this in our documents, mission statement etc., that we feel it necessary to prefer people that are our co-religionists when hiring.

    Because of the RFRA and the Hobby Lobby ruling we appear to be covered. This way we r anyone else can discriminate against ANYONE you do not want to hire as long as you have the right religion and remember that you can start your own religion if necessary. I sure did over 12 years ago.

    Now I do not encourage discriminating against anyone except former unrepentant government employees that have obviously been tainted toward evil by the Civil Religion of Socialism of which they are apart OR people with Social Security Numbers or voluntary slaves that pay voluntary income taxes. And because of the ruling in Lee and corresponding reaction and exemption for Amish on Social Security that followed the Less ruling it means that I am allowed to discriminate against people WITH Social Security Numbers as they are not of my faith and so are not “co-religionists.”

    It seems I can also discriminate against people that falsely believe that Federal reserve notes are dollars. AWESOME!

    I LOVE the Hobby Lobby ruling!

    AMEN AND PASS THE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION!

    The entire video is worth watching under the General Patton rule: “I read your book” aka Know your enemy.

    Thanks for posting it RD.

  • Jim Reed

    Your business can discriminate if you want. We may not want to be hired by you anyway.

  • Jim Reed

    Only legal drugs are covered.

  • bbmike

    Jim,
    Aren’t you a discriminating person? Aren’t you only discriminating about what you like to discriminate about?
    Doesn’t discriminating against people who discriminate on the basis of a conscientiously held private perspective rate as negative discrimination against the application of basic human rights, whether in the USA or elsewhere?
    Or don’t those human rights matter if they are held by people with whom you don’t agree?
    Aren’t you discriminating against people who hold a different religious commitment than you do? Seems like it to me.

  • Jim Reed

    The government is the government of all the people. You personally can discriminate in many things, but if you are taking government money for the common good, we shouldn’t allow you to use it in ways that discriminate. Maybe some times we do, but we shouldn’t.

  • Jim ‘Prup’ Benton

    Amazing that a Sovereign Citizen type should find us. (If you didn’t recognize the rhetoric, it’s pure SC with the comments about people who have Social Security numbers and elsewhere.)

  • Christopher

    I found RD when they wrote an article about my son’s Common Law marriage. So you found me.

    Sovereign Citizen? Every American is a sovereign citizen according to several SCOTUS rulings. Didn’t you know that?

    Of course most have sold their birthrights for voluntary slavery and Social Security and other “positives rights”.

  • Christopher

    Our only employees are me and my gay daughter.

  • Christopher

    Kara Loewentheil wrote in 2013 A.D.:

    “The contraceptive coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act promotes crucial equality rights for women, both practical and expressive. To that end, while the state might be well-advised to offer an accommodation that preserves those goals while also respecting religious objections—one much like the current accommodation granted to religious nonprofits, but with a rigorous enforcement mechanism—if religious objectors refuse that compromise, the state should be empowered to enforce the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious and nonreligious employers alike.”

    In other words. The State should be empowered “with a rigorous enforcement mechanism” to FORCE socialism on both religious and nonreligious employers alike if they refuse to compromise their religious beliefs.

    Thank God this type of thinking LOST with the HobbyLobby ruling. Thank God Congress passed the RFRA and RLUIPA or Hobby Lobby would have lost due to the First Amendment destroying SCOTUS Smith ruling.

  • Christopher

    Legal drugs, like food? That’s how I beat diabetes. Didn’t need big pharma just personal responsibility…a negative right. And I paid for it myself. Marijuana is legal drug in Nevada and Colorado and California and Washington. Will it cover that for my wife’s MS? And would that be a positive or negative religious right.

    If I have to pay for it and the government can’t stop me from using it then it’s a negative right? If you have to buy it for me then it would be a positive right?

  • Christopher

    I couldn’t hire you anyway. You have a Social Security Number and I don’t hire people that voluntarily carry the Mark of the Beast. I am allowed by law to hire people of my faith over people not of my faith so I can legally discriminate.