Ten ‘Right Wing’ Companies Liberal Wants You to Boycott

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom Force.

Liberals hate these companies this is the best reason to support them.



1. Chick-fil-A                                                          

CHicks This one is likely no surprise to you because their anti-gay stance has been in the news quite a bit over the past couple years. But not only are they completely against gay marriage, they also are huge donors to extreme right wing candidates and causes.

2. Hobby Lobby

1024px-HobbyLobbyStowOhioHobby Lobby is another business that has gotten a lot of media attention because of their extreme Conservative views. Hobby Lobby is not only against a woman’s right to choose, but they are also against birth control. After Obamacare was implemented they vehemently fought against the employer mandate for birth control to be included in their insurance policy. They actually took their fight all the way to the Supreme Court….and won.

You know, the really ironic part of this story is that Hobby Lobby and Conservatives claim that they were fighting this mandate because they are so against abortion. But without affordable access to contraception, there will surely be more abortions. I’m not sure that they thought this one all the way through…..((What the writer does not tell her readers is that these contraceptives cause abortions.))

3. Carl’s Jr.

carlsCarl’s Jr. has been notorious for objectifying women in most of their highly sexual and controversial ads. But they also have been huge supporters of extreme anti-abortion causes. And if that’s not enough reason to avoid this fast food restaurant, they are also totally against gay rights. As a matter of fact, gay rights groups actually started calling the food “Bigot burgers” after the company’s founder, Carl Karcher, came out in support for a 1978 proposition which would have allowed school boards to fire any teacher for being gay or for advocating homosexuality. In addition Carl’s Jr. is also a big time donor for Conservative Super PACs and the Republican Party.

4. Walmart

WalmartTestOver the past several years Walmart has consistently gotten into trouble for controversial practices. It is widely known that they pay their employees extremely low wages and are totally against any sort of raising of the national minimum wage. They are also famous for being anti-women. Many of their female employees have continually spoken out about wide-spread discrimination. In 2011 several female employees actually filed a class action law suit against Walmart and took it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Marriot5. Marriott Hotels

Marriott, along with their subsidiary Ritz-Carlton, are major donors to Conservative Super PACs and extreme right wing candidates. Their chairman, J.W. Marriott Jr., has contributed more than a Million dollars to Mitt Romney’s Super PAC, Restore Our Future.

6. Waffle House

Waffle HouseWaffle House is another restaurant run by extreme Conservatives who aremajor donors to right wing causes and candidates. As a matter of fact, 100% of all of their donations went directly to Conservatives. Waffle House’s CEO, Jim Rogers Jr., has been a big supporter of Republican causes for a very long time. In 2006 he joined the finance team for Mitt Romney’s Super PAC, Common Wealth PAC.

Angel Soft7. Angel Soft, Brawny, and Dixie

Angel Soft toilet paper, Brawny paper towels, and Dixie cups are all subsidiaries of Koch Industries, headed by the Koch brothers. And they donate Millions of dollars every year to groups like The National Rifle Association, The National Right To Life Committee, and Grover Norquist.

8. Exxon

ExxonExxon Mobil has a very long history of fighting against the LGBT community. As the Huffington Post reported in 2013, Exxon “has been fighting for years against non-discrimination protection and equal benefits coverage for their employees.” Moreover, as IdentitiesMic reports – “before Exxon acquired Mobil in 1999, Mobile had ‘policies to protect discrimination against gay men and lesbians, and even offered benefits to same-sex couples,’ but Exxon took that all away, according to LGBT news site the Dallas Voice.”

9. Cracker Barrel

Cracker BarrelCracker Barrel is yet another company who has had a long history of racist and anti-gay practices. They have been known to fire employees who did not appropriately display heterosexual behaviors. In 2004, the U.S. Justice Department declared that the restaurant had discriminated against both employees and diners based on the color of their skin or sexual orientation.

10. Urban Outfitters

Urban OutfittersUrban Outfitters has a very well known reputation for being both anti-women and anti-gay. In 2008, the company’s president and founder, Richard Haney, decided to back one of the Presidential nominees. And of all of the choices out there he felt he most aligned with the homophobic Rick Santorum. And in addition this company is also a major donor for extreme Conservative causes and candidates.


Harry Reid Slammed By Hometown Paper For ‘Race-Baiting’

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Dingy Harry Reid is a senile fool that needs fired, then put in a mental facility for the safety of the public.



The largest newspaper in Nevada is taking the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to task, saying that the Democrat’s recent comments about Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas highlight a pattern of race card rhetoric.

“Harry Reid is the da Vinci of distraction,” reads the editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which was posted online Friday.

“The moment any scandal, policy failure or political defeat crashes down on him — and there have been plenty the past few years — the Senate majority leader unleashes outrageous rhetoric,” the editorial continues, adding that Reid “has become especially fond of slinging race cards just to crank up the outrage.”

The trigger for the Review-Journal was a comment Reid made earlier this week after the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court sided with Hobby Lobby, allowing it and other “closely-held” corporations to skirt the Obamacare mandate that requires companies to provide health insurance plans to their employees that contain coverage for certain contraceptives. Companies like Hobby Lobby can now cite their religious principles in deciding to not provide coverage for those contraceptives.

An angry Reid criticized the decision, saying, “The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by the virtues of five white men.”

The issue there is that only four of the justices that sided with Hobby Lobby are white. The fifth justice was Clarence Thomas, who is black.

Sen. Reid’s slip was no accident,” reads the Review-Journal editorial. “He believes racial and ethnic minorities are ideologically monolithic constituencies who are incapable of independent or — gasp! — right-of-center thinking.”

“In the majority leader’s mind, Mr. Thomas is not an African-American because the justice doesn’t blindly subscribe to liberal orthodoxy,” the paper wrote, before pointing out other examples of Reid compartmentalizing minorities.

During his 2010 re-election campaign, Reid said of Latino voters, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?”


As the editorial points out, Nevada’s Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, is Hispanic.

“Never mind that Sen. Reid himself, like the entire Senate Democratic leadership, is as white as an Irishman in a snowstorm,” the editorial continues, arguing that after more than five years of Democrats controlling the White House and Senate, unemployment rates for blacks and Hispanics “remains scandalously high.” (RELATED: Harry Reid Apparently Thinks Clarence Thomas Is White)

Reid’s proposed solution to the problem, a higher minimum wage, will make the problem worse, according to the paper.

“Quit the race-baiting already, Sen. Reid,” the editorial continues. “You’re clearly colorblind — in all the wrong ways.”

Despite the brutality of its take-down, the Review-Journal left out one prominent example of Reid’s awkward race-based remarks. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Reid said that then-Sen. Barack Obama would be electable because he is “light-skinned” and speaks with “no Negro dialect.”

Reid apologized in 2010 for those comments.

Read more:

Top Five Liberal Myths About the Hobby Lobby Case


This is from Town Hall.

The biggest myth is Hobby Lobby is not providing any birth control.

Hobby Lobby covers 16 out of 20  forms of birth control

they will not cover anything that will kill your baby.


Judging from the seething reaction by liberals to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the “Hobby Lobby” case, one might easily forget that just two years ago they were singing the Court’s praises after it refused to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional. Then again, such extreme emotional swings should not be unexpected when one’s perception of justice is based not on law, but on politics and emotion. Therefore, in spite of a ruling that was far more limited in scope than could easily have been the case, the Left’s over-the-top reaction to Hobby Lobby is based on myth and delusion. Below are the top five liberal myths about the Hobby Lobby case, and how one might explain why they are wrong.

Case Overview

In a 5-4 decision on June 30th, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that the “contraceptive mandate” in ObamaCare violated the religious freedom of certain for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby, which are morally opposed to such forms of contraceptives. While the Court recognized that contraceptive coverage was a “compelling government interest” (as a matter of law), it did not consider that forcing business owners to pay for such coverage was the “least restrictive” way of fulfilling this interest because of the impact on the free exercise religious freedom. In short, the Court extended to “closely held corporations” the same protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) afforded currently to non-profit corporations.

Myth 1: “The Supreme Court just declared a war on women.”

For many liberals, the notion of a “war on women” underlies most conservative legislative or legal victories. It is therefore not surprising the Hobby Lobby decision precipitated indignant howls from feminists and liberals. Even though the Court ruled that business owners did not have to pay for coverage, the majority stated the government could pay for such coverage directly, or utilize the same accommodations afforded to RFRA-exempted non-profit organizations currently applicable. The party who pays for the cost of covering contraceptives, not access to contraceptives, is the only aspect changed by the Court’s ruling. Thus, if the Left’s true concern was access to contraceptive coverage, then its outrage over the decision would be entirely unwarranted; but, of course, it is not.

Myth 2: “What is next, blood transfusions and vaccines?”

Even before the Court decided the case, liberals were sliding down the slippery slope of what else was next on the chopping block should the Justices rule in Hobby Lobby’s favor. Perhaps this is why Justice Samuel Alito directly confronted this paranoia in his ruling; noting that the Court’s narrowly-tailored opinion applied only to the contraceptive mandate, and “should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates . . . must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.” Suggesting the ruling affords religious business owners a license for denying all other types of coverage is not only a gross misreading of the case, but contradicts what the Justices explicitly stated.

Myth 3: “The LGBT community should be concerned.”

Once again, such a claim falls well outside the intentionally narrow scope of the ruling, and directly contradicts the Court’s opinion. In the majority opinion summary, Alito wrote that the ruling does not “provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.” The intention of the Court with regard to the decision’s application to discriminatory practices could not be any clearer, which is why this myth is pure fear-mongering. Sure, a company might try to challenge anti-discrimination laws based on this ruling (courts cannot anticipatorily stop people from making frivolous challenges), but it is highly doubtful such a challenge would make it out of the lower courts based on this decision alone.

Myth 4: “Corporations don’t have a right to religious expression.”

The legal concept of corporate “personhood” dates back more than a century, and is the basis of much of modern corporate law. The concept of personhood protects individual shareholders from the actions of the business; so, for example, a person owning just a few shares of stock in General Motors cannot be sued directly if a Chevy Volt catches on fire. Furthermore, the courts have recognized certain fundamental protections for individuals should also be extended to corporations; preventing the government from seizing company assets without a warrant, or shutting down companies for speech with which government officials might disagree. The RFRA protects individuals from being compelled by law to take actions that violate their religious beliefs. This protection was then (naturally) extended to non-profit corporations, such as religious organizations. It seems unreasonable, as the Court stated, that a for-profit corporation ceases to be entitled to hold religious views simply because it makes a profit. After all, were not liberals protesting Chick-Fil-A two years ago for the company’s “religious expression” of Christian values?

Myth 5: “Employers can now mandate health decisions for their employees.”

When an employee agrees to work for a company, he or she agrees to certain salary and incentives as compensation. A mandate is not much of a mandate when it is a part of a voluntary agreement between two parties. Therefore, if an employee does not like the type of coverage offered by an employer — the same as he or she might not like the salary offered – they are free to find employment elsewhere. Hired employees have no more right to demand customized insurance coverage than they do a corner office.

Harry Reid Issues Bizarre Threat About Hobby Lobby, Then Makes Absurd Gaffe About How US Gov’t Works


This is from Independent Journal Review.

Why do the people of Nevada keep reelecting the senile old man?

Dingy Harry is an embarrassment to himself and  the state of Nevada.



Rattling off a laundry list of legislation the Senate needs to tackle, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made it clear that he is dismayed by the Supreme Court’s ruling that Hobby Lobby has the right to opt out of government-mandated reproductive services on religious freedom grounds.

In classic Harry Reid fashion, it appears that the Senate Majority leader is unaware that there are three separate branches of government, and might be a bit confused about what the Supreme Court does.

We have so much to address over the coming weeks, Mr. President. Sportsmen’s bill denied, the highway bill, emergency supplemental, manufacturing legislation… we going to do something about the Hobby Lobby legislation, we need to correct.

Hobby Lobby… legislation? Senator Reid, I don’t think you know how this works. The Senate cannot undo a decision made by the Supreme Court, unless it wants to act outside of the Constitution. Not a problem for some in the Democratic Party, but there you have it.

Here’s a refresher course, Mr. Reid, in case you need some brushing up on high school civics.


Megyn Kelly Takes On Sandra Fluke [VIDEO]

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Sandra Fluke is trying to reclaim her 15 minutes of fame.

She is a useful idiot for the liberals.



Fox’s Megyn Kelly passionately defended religious liberty on “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday after the Supreme Court sided in favor of Hobby Lobby in a 5-4 decision.

O’Reilly played a clip of Sandra Fluke on Chris Matthews’ MSNBC show Monday night, where Fluke described the decision as an attempt to limit women’s access to health care, saying “What this is really about at its base is trying to figure out as many ways as possible to limit women’s access to reproductive healthcare.”

Kelly wasted no time in launching into an explanation of the ridiculousness of Flukes allegation.

“It hurts, it hurts, it doesn’t matter how many times you say something,” she said. “It doesn’t matter whether it’s true if she says it over and over, it’s not true, just don’t believe that, she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.”

“So it’s a lot of corporations that could be affected, but only those who feel strongly about their religious beliefs,” Kelly explained. “Those folks aren’t going to have to provide abortion-related drugs: drugs that terminate an already-fertilized egg. That’s the only — out of 20 birth-control drugs that are available, they still have to cover 16. They just said we don’t want to fund those forms of birth control that end a fertilized egg.”

She charged on, barely letting O’Reilly get a word in, focusing on former United States Secretary of Health And Human Services Kathleen Sebelius: American women “were buying their own [birth control]; for the past 20 years and beyond, they’ve been buying their own. And then what happened was we passed Obamacare. And then Kathleen Sebelius had some of her HHS minions go down in the basement and write a regulation that said as part of Obamacare, you have to cover 20 out of 20 birth-control drugs — 20 out of 20. And then women like Sandra Fluke started saying, ‘I’m entitled. Oh my God, I didn’t realize how victimized I was all those years when I was paying for it on my own.’”

“And Hobby Lobby, which is an evangelical company, came out and said, ‘Alright, we’ll do it, we’ll do it for all of it except four that end a fertilized egg,’ going forward” Kelly said.

“The Supreme Court said, ‘You’re right,’” Kelly concluded. “This [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] law passed by President [Bill] Clinton, that all those Democrats who are now rejecting signed on to — also voted for — that law protects you, Hobby Lobby, and Kathleen Sebelius’s minions in the basement don’t get to take your rights away from you.”

Read more:

BREAKING: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

The Supreme Court got it right with their ruling on the birth control mandate of Obamacare.

However, Chief Justice Roberts had not screwed the pooch with his ruling on Obamacare this battle would have not been needed.



In a victory for religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled today 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (formerly named Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby). The case was the strongest legal challenge to Obamacare since 2012.

The case concerned the HHS Contraception Mandate, which mandated that employers provide certain forms of contraception at no cost to their employees.

While still a legal victory for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., the decision is limited to closely-held for-profit corporations, not non-profits such as Little Sisters of the Poor. The decision is also strictly limited to the issue of the contraception mandate, not other medical practices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion:

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

Alito was joined in his opinion by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Kennedy. Kennedy also wrote a concurring opinion, detailing how the government already has programs in place to pay for birth control. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. both claimed that the mandate violated their religious freedom. Both companies believe that certain forms of contraception induce abortion, which violates the religious convictions of their owners.

The Supreme Court is now adjourned until October.

This post has been updated.

Virginia Democrat: Those who support the NRA ‘pure trash’

1 Comment

This is from the Examiner.

Is this a sign of things to come from the DemocRats?

I look for the Dem’s to go full-blown Communist.



On Saturday, Mike Dickinson, the Virginia Democrat seeking the House seat currently held by Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., continued his online campaign of hate by denigrating all supporters of the NRA as “puretrash.”


What’s obscene to you? @HustlerMag or a group like the @NRA that supports trophy hunting and elephant killing,” hetweeted Friday.

“What on Earth does this have to do with your political campaign?” one person asked.

“[T]hat the NRA is a god awful fear mongering group and those who support the NRA are pure trash,” Dickinson said inresponse.

This is not the first time Dickinson has attacked members of the NRA.

In February, he called gun owners “little children,” saying guns needs to be titled and registered. He was also schooled after falsely calling the NRA “descendents of the KKK.”

Dickinson’s campaign — if it can actually be called that — has so far consisted primarily of unhinged, largely fact-free, hateful rants on Twitter.

In one tweet, for example, he called those who oppose abortion stupid, and said those who watch Fox News “ate paint chips as children.”

He has also demanded stores like Hobby Lobby close down, calling them “a wart on the face of lady liberty in the United States.”

Dickinson caught national attention when he said Fox News lies all the time and called for the FCC to monitor and regulate the network in a fashion reminiscent of the former Soviet Union.

While Dickinson’s campaign of unhinged hate is apparently designed to attract his far-left wing base — those known as “low-information voters” — it will not propel him to victory in November.

Dickinson has been called “the next Alan Grayson” by the Daily Kos, but Dickinson is nowhere near as popular among fringe progressives as Grayson.

His Facebook page, for example, has remained stuck at 27 supporters for weeks.

Democrats in Spotsylvania County are also unsure about Dickinson due to his inexperience and connections with local adult businesses.

Making matters worse, a post at Red Knuckle Politics brings to light some of Dickinson’s seedier online activities, including what the article says is his fondness for sending tweets to women in the pornographic film industry using alternate identities.

Tim O’Donnell said he has confirmation of Dickinson’s alternate identities through one of his online followers.

“One of his deleted accounts, confirmed by the same sources, is @theshieldVCU. Another is @MikeD_PhD, for which I provide screenshots of his comments from there in which he says offensive and misogynistic things about women, insulting people by speaking about their weight, requests to show their breasts, and other things too lewd for publishing here,” he said.

O’Donnell said another account is used to send messages and pictures that “are beyond the decorum even for the industry from which Mr. Dickinson has made his living.”

We reached out to Dickinson for comment, but so far have received no response.

Instead, he chose to smear supporters of the NRA as “pure trash.”



This is from World Net Daily.

The author is optimistic about the Supreme Court ruling in favor

of Hobby Lobby.

We know how the liberal justices will vote on this matter and we can be fairly  sure of how the conservative justices will vote.

The conservative chief justice has proven he can not be counted on to vote the right way.

So it will most likely come down to the enlightened moderate justice Anthony Kennedy.

His vote will depend his mood when he wakes up on the day of the vote.

So this means how knows how Kennedy will vote.


In a dramatic moment at the Supreme Court Tuesday, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told justices that U.S. business owners have no religious freedom to reject government mandates forcing them to cover abortions.

Justices and lawyers also sparred over whether businesses actually have religious freedom and whether striking down the Obamacare mandate makes women second-class citizens.

The notable abortion exchange between Verrilli and Justice Anthony Kennedy came during oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, two cases linked by the companies’ owners objecting to the Department of Health and Human Services requirement that businesses fully cover the contraception costs for their employees. That mandate includes coverage of abortafacient drugs, also known as the “morning-after pill.”

Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Legal Studies Cathy Ruse was in the gallery during oral arguments and said that was the most remarkable moment in the court session Tuesday.

“This was actually the most exciting part of the oral argument this morning, when Justice Kennedy asked the government’s lawyer, ‘So under your argument, corporations could be forced to pay for abortions, that there would be no religious claim against that on the part of the corporation. Is that right?’ And the government’s attorney said yes,” Ruse said.

“You could hear a pin drop, and I think that stunned Justice Kennedy. Since he’s always the swing vote, you want to stun him in a way that pushes him over to your side of the column,” she said.

Before the arguments reached that stage, a robust debate took place over whether businesses actually have religious freedom or whether those are only enjoyed by individuals. Ruse said she believes most of the justices are sympathetic to the companies and their owners on that question.

“Chief Justice Roberts raised the point that corporations can actually file racial discrimination claims. So he said if a corporation can have a race, why can’t it have a religious claim? The government’s attorney didn’t really have an answer for that,” Ruse said.

“I think a majority of justices believe that families who incorporate do not have to give up their religious freedom rights when they incorporate to do business,” she said.

The more liberal justices made two arguments in defense of the mandate.

First, they contend that striking down the mandate would allow employers to weed out any medical provision they want, leading to health-care chaos as every company would have their own plans. Hobby Lobby attorney Paul Clement rejected that fear, noting that every case filed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has to go to court, and not every claim will survive.

Second, Verrilli and the liberal justices posited women would essentially be second-class citizens if employers could single out contraception coverage for removal from their health plans.

“Paul Clement’s reaction was brilliant, so I’d like to adopt it as my own,” Ruse said. “If, in fact, the government has a compelling interest in providing free abortion-inducing drugs to all women in America – that’s their goal, and that’s what they’re doing with this – there are other ways to accomplish that goal without religious companies who have a religious objection to that.

“For instance, the government could simply provide insurance for these abortafacient drugs themselves. The government could do it through Title X clinics or another way. The government could provide subsidies or fund the providers of these items so that the women could get them for free from the provider, so he pointed out several ways the government could accomplish their goals without having to dragoon religious family based companies into doing something that violates their religion.”

While Ruse is “cautiously optimistic” about the court’s ruling, she does fear the liberal wing of the court will try to cobble together a majority that would just tell religious employers to drop their health coverage altogether and let their employees navigate the heath-care exchanges. A decision is expected in June.

Exclusive: Democratic senators file amicus brief in Hobby Lobby birth control case

1 Comment

This is from Yahoo News.

How do these people call themselves and their party Democratic?

There is not one Damned thing democratic about them.

DemocRats demand that everyone marches to the tune of their

freakish base.

They demand people worship Roe vs Wade like they do.


In a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, 19 Democratic senators are siding with the Obama administration against evangelical Christian businessmen who argue that paying for their employees’ birth control, a requirement under Obamacare, violates their company’s religious freedom.

The senators—five of them women—argue in their“friend of the court” brief that the owners of the Oklahoma-based crafts store chain Hobby Lobby are not exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate simply because some forms of birth control offend their religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby’s owners, David Green and his family, are suing the federal government over the mandate, which says large employers’ insurance plans must offer birth control without co-pays or else face steep fines.

A lower court upheld the Greens’ case, ruling that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects the Greens from having to adjust their insurance plans to cover contraception for their 13,000 employees. (RFRA says the government must have a compelling reason to infringe upon an individual’s religious beliefs, and that laws that do so must be narrowly tailored.)

The case is novel because religious freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment, typically has been thought to apply to individuals, churches and other religious nonprofits—not corporations. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, siding with Hobby Lobby, said the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 , which upheld a free-speech right for corporations, conferred a right to religious expression on businesses.

The 19 senators—all of whom voted for the popular RFRA in 1993—argue that the law’s religious protections were never intended apply to a for-profit company. Hobby Lobby’s “gross misapplication” of the law perverts Congress’ intent in passing it, they write in the brief, which was obtained by Yahoo News.

Congress intended RFRA to protect individuals and non-profits from government interference in their religious beliefs, and explicitly left out for-profit companies from its protection, they write. The Democratic senators argue that a decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would allow “a secular, for-profit corporations’ shareholders, through the corporation, to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and to deny employees health benefits and rights to which they are entitled.”

The case, which the Supreme Court will consider on March 25 and likely decide by June, is just one front in a widening war between Democrats and Republicans over gender and reproductive issues. Democrats have seized upon Republican opposition to the contraceptive mandate as proof that Republicans are waging a “war on women.” Some Republicans, meanwhile, say the mandate panders to women, as well as infringes on employers’ religious liberty. Just last week, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told a cheering audience at a Republican National Committee meeting that Democrats “insult the women of America” with the mandate, which he said suggested the government thinks women “cannot control their libido.”

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a Democratic senator who led the amicus brief effort, is planning to criticize Huckabee and other Republican opponents of the mandate in remarks on the Senate floor tomorrow announcing the brief.

“Allowing a woman’s boss to call the shots about her access to birth control should be inconceivable to all Americans in this day and age, and takes us back to a place in history when women had no voice or choice,” Murray will say, according to prepared remarks provided by her staff.

The case is the second big challenge to President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement to reach the Supreme Court in two years. The government fought back a challenge to the heart of the health care law, the individual mandate, in a split decision authored by Justice John Roberts in 2012. One of the lawyers who argued against the individual mandate then, Paul Clement, has joined Hobby Lobby’s legal team.

Meanwhile, cases brought by dozens of religiously affiliated non-profits against the birth control mandate are also likely to reach the Supreme Court soon. Last week, the justices ruled that a non-profit group of Catholic nuns does not need to comply with the mandate while their legal challenge is pending.

The Greens do not object to providing most birth control pills to their employees, but do not want to provide intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the so-called morning after pill. Neither contraceptive causes abortion, but they may prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus, which the Greens consider tantamount to abortion.

If the Supreme Court were to side with Hobby Lobby, it’s unlikely the justices would strike down the contraceptive mandate altogether, according to Timothy Jost, a law professor and health care reform expert at Washington & Lee University. Such a decision would instead allow religious for-profit corporation owners to opt out without paying the government fines.

The other senators who signed the brief are: Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Barbara Mikulsi (D-Md.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Family-Run Business Tells Supreme Court: Stop Obama’s HHS Mandate

Leave a comment

This is from LifeNews.

I pray the Supreme Court gets their ruling right on this matter.

No one should be forced by the Obama regime to violate their

Religious convictions.

A family-run business filed papers with the Supreme Court today telling the high court that it must stop the “unjust” Obamcare mandate that requires companies to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for their employees.

This is the companion case to the legal challenge the Supreme Court accepted from Hobby Lobby.

Alliance Defending Freedom and allied attorneys representing a Pennsylvania Mennonite family and its woodworking business filed their opening brief with the U.S. Supreme Court Friday in one of two major legal challenges to the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate that the high courtagreed in November to hear.

“Unjust laws are not valid laws. The government shouldn’t be allowed to punish Americans for exercising their constitutionally protected freedoms,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel David Cortman. “The administration has no business whatsoever forcing citizens to choose between making a living and living free.”

“Job creators don’t give up their fundamental freedoms when they get a business license,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “Every American has a right to fully and freely participate in every area of public life.”

The Hahns are Mennonite Christians in Pennsylvania who asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case, Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 against them. The decision conflicts with most other circuits and with the vast majority of rulings on the mandate so far.

The brief filed Friday explains that the Obama administration’s “argument is inconsistent with the reality of religious activity in Americans’ daily lives. There is no separating the Hahns’ faith from their business or its actions. The members of the Hahn family, as Mennonite Christians, practice their faith in everything they do, including the running of their business…. The Mandateforces them to choose between violating their religious convictions and incurring ruinous fines and lawsuits. No compelling interest justifies imposing such a Hobson’s choice, particularly given the government’s exclusion of thousands of other employers from the Mandate’s scope.”

“If the government can force Americans to violate their deepest, most heartfelt convictions, there’s no stopping what government can do. If freedom of conscience isn’t preserved, then all of our freedoms are in jeopardy,” said co-counsel Randall Wenger, chief counsel of the Independence Law Center.

The mandate could cost the family $95,000 per day if it doesn’t agree to live contrary to its Christian convictions, according to 3rd Circuit Judge Kent Jordan’s dissent in the case. The mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy financial penalties if the mandate’s requirements aren’t met.

The Supreme Court has set the date for oral arguments for Hobby Lobby’s challenge to the Obama HHS mandate. The nation’s highest court will hear debate from attorneys representing the Christian-owned business and the Obama administration on Tuesday, March 25 at 10 a.m.

The Obama administration is attempting to make it comply with the HHS mandate that compels religious companies to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for their employees. However, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions. This is good news to the Green family, who own the store.

“This is a major step for the Greens and their family businesses in an important fight for Americans’ religious liberty,” said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead lawyer for Hobby Lobby. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will clarify once and for all that religious freedom in our country should be protected for family business owners like the Greens.”

The Obama administration says it is confident it will prevail, saying, “We believe this requirement is lawfuland are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.

Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: