Federal government says Hobby Lobby cannot raise religious objections to insurance requirements.

The federal government is asking a judge to rule against Hobby Lobby, whose owners do not want to provide their employees with insurance coverage for “abortion-causing drugs and devices.”

Founder David Green and other owners of the Oklahoma City-based retail chain…are asking U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton to prevent the government from enforcing new health care rules on their business “and other individuals and organizations that object on religious grounds to providing insurance coverage for abortion-causing drugs and devices and related education and counseling…”

In a response this week, government attorneys argued the owners cannot raise religious objections to “the preventive services coverage regulations” because Hobby Lobby is a for-profit, secular corporation.

“To hold otherwise would permit for-profit, secular corporations and their owners to become laws unto themselves,” the attorneys wrote.

“Because there are an infinite variety of alleged religious beliefs, such companies and their owners could claim countless exemptions from an untold number of general commercial laws designed to protect against unfair discrimination in the workplace and to protect the health and well-being of individual employees and their families…”

The government responded that the Greens want to block regulations intended to give women access at no cost to approved contraceptive methods “that medical experts have deemed necessary for women’s health and well-being.”

“The Greens’ theory boils down to the claim that what’s done to the company (or the group health plans sponsored by the company) is also done to its owners. But, as a legal matter, that is simply not so…”

As a nation that respects the intellectual freedom built into our constitution, that right is deliberately broad. Equally broad, the citizens of this land should only be governed by civil and criminal laws that don’t allow favors for religions, exemptions from civil practices on the basis of one or another religion.



  1. Dallas says:

    The last one is hilarious. Thank you Eideard for this wonderful post.

    Never heard of HL until now but when I buy Arts and Crapt, I will avoid HL and head over to Jo-Ann Fabrics.

    I WILL go and check to see if Hobby Lobby sells Halloween shit because that is a devil worship holiday. If so, I’ll speak to the manager as to why devil worship items are on sale and if they are truly a bible worshiping business.

    • MAC says:

      You really are an idiot if you think Halloween is about devil worship. But maybe you can not help your ignorance.

      • Rickem says:

        Too bad Dallas didn’t use a “sarcasm” label. You would not have had to waste your time.

    • Nate says:

      Dallas, I’m sorry to say that Hobby Lobby does cater to those that wish to party with the devil.

  2. Hyph3n says:

    As a small business owner, paying minimum wage is totally against my religious freedom… as is not shackling employees to their desk and having them be organ donors for me.

    • dusanmal says:

      You fail to notice that employee can’t be a slave to any small business owner and can’t be forced by any legal means to work for him. If someone wants to work shackled to the desk for the given wage and is free to go after work hours, etc. – it is his choice and it should be. Bureaucrats should not have control of every aspect of our lives.

      • Gwad his own self says:

        You intentionally conflate the concepts of “any” and “every”.

        Your strawman is invalid.

      • Dallas says:

        Are you talking about China or the US?

      • Hyph3n says:

        Who said anything about slavery… my religion states that I have to send young children into the mines because they are the only ones who fit. We only lose 2 or 3 a day.

        Damn Gov’t bureaucrats telling me I can’t keep slaves and that my employees can quit? Don’t they know keeping slaves is in the Bible?

        • stormtrooper 651 says:

          Don’t you know keeping slaves is in the constitution (like you I choose to ignore new testaments or amendments) and it’s traditional for presidents to keep slaves.
          In fact, the entire country are technically slaves, and cannot gain freedom from US citizenship with buying it, and even then you may be pursued.

  3. Crug says:

    It’s because of attitudes like this, that a good Christian company, who refused to be open on Sundays, and who takes care of it’s employees so much better than many many atheistic companies, should say screw you… we won’t provide insurance for our employees at all.
    I am so damn tired of the government telling good people that they can’t run their companies they way they want as long as they aren’t causing physical or mental harm to their patrons & employees.
    How about we make a law that Christian hating is just as bad as black hating, or muslim hating. Then let’s arrest all the atheists and social reformists and lock them away for sensitivity training.

    • Gwad his own self says:

      You conflate the concepts of “hating” with “not doing what I think you should do”.

      Your strawman is invalid.

      • Mextli says:

        Practicing the word of the day are you?

        Use conflate in a sentence.

        • Gwad his own self says:

          Gwad bless your pointed little head.

          I already used it in two sentences.

          And your point was???

          • bobbo, one Real Liberal making Obama a Moderate Conservative by comparison says:

            Nextlie is conflating responding at all with having an insight.

            Personally, you have informed me to look for strawmen whenever an instance of conflation is spotted.

            A take away insight for us all.

          • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

            Agree with B.

          • I'm ugly and my mother dresses me funny says:

            Blessings upon you, and upon you.

            And so on and so on, etc etc.

    • LibertyLover says:

      Actually, he should just shut the doors on all his stores and cash out.

      It’s hard to force someone to do something if that someone doesn’t exist anymore.

      That is the difference between a Right and a Privilege.

  4. MikeN says:

    I don’t understand the post. Pres Obama assured us all that he had made an accommodation for religious employers that would handle their objections. Was the Eiditor lied to again by this President?

    • Hyph3n says:

      Religious organizations… Catholic charities running hospitals for example. Hobby Lobby is a good ole American business ran by a private family. They may be Christian, but they ain’t a church.

  5. Dallas says:

    “..should say screw you… we won’t provide insurance for our employees at all…”

    Agree. They should provide insurance for all their employees or none of them. Raising any number of infinite ‘religious objections’ to EVADE federal anti-discrimination laws is something God hates.

  6. dusanmal says:

    “As a nation that respects the intellectual freedom built into our constitution, that right is deliberately broad. Equally broad, the citizens of this land should only be governed by civil and criminal laws that don’t allow favors for religions, exemptions from civil practices on the basis of one or another religion.” – Please re-read the Constitution… And maybe works of Jefferson who pioneered item on religious freedom before USA existence. Guess what Jefferson wanted to fight and prevent by it in his own words: economic support by means of public taxes (social justice opponent? Jefferson?), use of government authority to RESTRICTING religious behavior, observation and gatherings… It is religious freedom always, not “freedom FROM religion”. By Constitution Government has absolutely no authority to meddle in religion of anyone, nor is it supposed to RESTRICT religious freedom of any kind by any government authority. From the founder. From the one who pushed for that Constitutional right. It is about denying government authority any rights over any religious issue. You want your interpretation, please change Constitution first in a legal manner.

    • Dallas says:

      Weak. There is nothing there about freedom to discriminate. Try again.

      • Crug says:

        I’ll see your weak, and raise you a bullshit.

        What the government mandated coverage does IS discriminate. You are imposing your belief system on someone else. Just because you think you are right and they are wrong does not make it so. I don’t care who you are, you can not discriminate against religious freedom. I don’t force you to go to church, nor do I force you to work for me. Simply because I start a company or build a church does not mean I need to give up my beliefs and follow yours. Stupid secular humanist…

        • Whatever says:

          Right, because the law says you must take the pill and that you must have abortions.

  7. Jason says:

    John, you support “gay marriage,” right? What happens if the federal government passes a law allowing gay marriage? I think the next thing will be forcing all churches to allow gay wedding ceremonies in their buildings. Would you support that?

    As a libertarian, I don’t think the government should be in the business of issuing marriage licenses to anybody. Ever hear of “separation of church and state?”

    • Whatever says:

      You’re not keeping up…the law won’t force churches to have gay marriages, it will force people to marry horses.

      Duh.

        • ckd says:

          Not a church; a beachside pavilion, which was described as a public facility and given tax exemptions on that basis, which was agreed to by the owners.

          http://custapp.marketvolt.com/link/gpmk7Loysw?CM=270668677&X=38489405

          “At a public hearing conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation. Following the hearing the Department approved the tax exemption on certain conditions, one of which required the property to be open for public use on an equal basis.”

          “Respondent also solicited business for the Pavilion in a web page that advertised “An Ocean Grove Wedding.” There it presented itself to the public at large as a wedding venue without any mention of preconditions along doctrinal lines.”

          “Respondent can rearrange Pavilion operations, as it has done, to avoid this clash with the LAD. It was not, however, free to promise equal access, to rent wedding space to heterosexual couples irrespective of their tradition, and then except these petitioners.”

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Say Jason, I was surprised how right you were reading the decision until near the bottom I found this:

          “Metzger ruled that, since the facility allowed non-Christians to use its facility for marriage, it had no doctrinal limitations. But Methodists do not limit their sacramental ministry to Christians and historically do not recognize marriage as a sacrament.”

          Seems the particular church is not pure enough to discriminate as it wishes. Not a huge attack on the church, all things considered.

          Let’s be careful though about CONFLATING religious FREEEEEEEDOM to believe as we wish with requiring OTHER PEOPLE to conform to what we believe. Lots of wiggle room between the two. This case with a foot in both camps.

    • ReadyKilowatt says:

      The problem is marriage is tied to the tax code and property. Get rid of all the tax loopholes for married couples and most of the problem goes away.

      Eliminate inheritance taxes (along with spousal exceptions) and a good chunk of the rest of the problem will be gone too. Just make sure your significant other keeps the will up to date.

      About the only thing that remains is custody of children, which while it is a big deal, seems to get worked out all the time in cases of divorce.

  8. tcc3 says:

    Another mark against tieing employment to healthcare. Its a fundamentally broken system thats bad for employers and workers.

    • Dallas says:

      Agree. Employment and healthcare should be separate – a great case for universal healthcare for all. This fixes a lot of things – freedom to seek new/better employment without affecting ones healthcare needs.

    • JMagee says:

      Exactly.

      1) Insurance, of any kind, is a benefit.

      2) The employer sets benefits based on what it thinks will attract and keep the best people.

      3) If your company/organization changes the benefits offered (#2) and you do not like it, you can choose to find a new job.

      • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

        And it should be taxed like any other income.

  9. Jason says:

    Mercans are just F’in nut jobs

  10. deowll says:

    And the next step is we got a union boss, big donor that is a match and you are going to donate your liver.

  11. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Yea, we want the same progressives who misspent billions to increase poverty in America, established security protocols for Libyan Ambassador—running our health care system.

    Their one size all really works well.

    • shooff says:

      I missed you protesting when George W. resumed diplomatic relations with Lybia or when they freed the Lockerbie Bomber.

      I did. Where were you?

      • shooff says:

        In fact I just looked up all the Lockerbie posts on this site.

        Mike N and Taxed enough (cause he has no income) did not post anything in the comments when we resumed diplomatic relations.

        My wife and I wrote the President, our rep and emailed the State Department.

        Hypocrites both.

        Move to Isreal they will love you there.

  12. MikeN says:

    They should add coverage for anti-gay therapy as mandatory, as well as abortions for sex-selection, and to abort gays. Throw in some mandatory coverage for bullet purchases, and liberals might change their tune. I say might, because Planned Parenthood’s bottom line is very important. It’s why they risked not passing ObamaCare, and why they banned over the counter RU486.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      I’m surprised the gender challenged don’t apply for disability, think of all the men who want to conceive, bear and give birth to children…

      Real men like Dallas and bobbo…

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Adoption rights come close enough dontcha think?

        Ooops, I forgot….. you don’t.

      • Captain Obvious says:

        Gender challenged? How politically correct.

        Obviously everyone wonders which Romney boy you are?

      • Mextli says:

        And they can’t even avail themselves of the handy turkey baster except maybe as a surrogate.

  13. Nate says:

    “Don’t force us to pay for something”

    or

    “Don’t force us to force you to pay for something”

    If you approached these two statements, (probably flawed in their logic)without any prior knowledge of what was being discussed, you would probably deem one side to be hypocritical.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Except at the key “dot” there is no forcing.

  14. msbpodcast says:

    The prime flaw in Nixon’s employer paid HMO plan is just what was revealed in the cartoon. :-)

    Eventually, not too far into the future, there won’t be any employer paid health care because it costs the wrong, uh, people.

    Corporations don’t get sick, and according to Mittenz corporations is people, therefore corporations don’t have to pay… (I know its a non-sequitur, but its what passes for logic amongst the believers of some guy who lives up in the sky.)

  15. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Statists hate freedom, being free to spend money according to your own conscience, and not the tyrannical state.

    Thankfully the silent majority is waking up to your yearning for domination…and from 2010 onward we are purging you serfs longing to be dominated from Government offices and then the courts.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      You progressives should start your own communes…where your every step is directed and regulated by authority….

      Otherwise the Tea Party will make living in America unbearable for you….with out agenda of restoring personal freedom and responsibility.

      Instead of a Julia married to Government on cradle to grave welfare, well Sarah (Palin) will rise, self sufficient freedom loving pioneer of the American Dream where all are free to follow life, liberty and happiness.

  16. RS says:

    Apparently one has the right to religious freedom in thought alone.
    Action, however will be commanded strictly by the state.

    And this seems fine to progressives.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Thats exactly correct. FREEEEEEEDOM to think as you wish and to act as you wish BALANCED against other people’s Freedom to be left alone.

      NOT TO BE CONFUSED by the Freedom of YOU to do whatever you goddamn please.

      Freedom is for grown ups.

  17. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Progressive Anti-human religion, where all are made to fund baby killing etc for any who wants to, regardless of their conscienceless objection to such things….

    Will rise or fall with Obama…

    This election will decide what America will be, either the land of the free, home of the brave….or a nation of freeloaders fearful of being on their own without Government nanny dictating when, where, how and if they will live.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      Every aspect of the “progressive religion” is anti-human, starting with its program of making abortion another form of contraception, to favoring “the planet” over the well being of humans who live on it….raising their cost to live, denying them freedoms…all in the name of “saving the planet” without one scintilla of proof they can even predict what the weather will be like tomorrow….and they would impoverish us now for the sake of their long range predictions of global warming.

      DDT illustrates progressive insanity, a perfectly harmless way to end malaria in Africa was outlawed….because progressives lied it was harmful to some birds….millions of Africans died on the altar of Progressivism.

      • So what says:

        To quote Ronald Reagan “there you go again” thinking you know something about science. DDT is not outlawed.

        http://tinyurl.com/65utn4m

        “Since 1996, EPA has been participating in international negotiations to control the use of DDT and other persistent organic pollutants used around the world. Under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, countries joined together and negotiated a treaty to enact global bans or restrictions on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which includes DDT, known as the Stockholm Convention on POPs. The Convention includes a limited exemption for the use of DDT to control mosquitoes which are vectors that carry malaria – a disease that still kills millions of people worldwide.

        In September 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared its support for the indoor use of DDT in African countries where malaria remains a major health problem, citing that benefits of the pesticide outweigh the health and environmental risks. This is consistent with the Stockholm Convention on POPs, which bans DDT for all uses except for malaria control.

        DDT is one of 12 pesticides recommended by the WHO for indoor residual spray programs. It is up to countries to decide whether or not to use DDT. EPA works with other agencies and countries to advise them on how DDT programs are developed and monitored, with the goal that DDT be used only within the context of Integrated Vector Management programs, and that it be kept out of agricultural sectors.”

        Maybe you should try reading a nonfiction book occasionally.

        • Nate says:

          Yes, but all the relief agencies and humanitarian organizations can’t sell the idea of purchasing DDT for use to their supporters, as nets are so much more organic/holistic/green/safe/blahblahblah, and so it isn’t getting used despite it’s not being outlawed.

  18. Uncle Patso says:

    So should businesses owned by Orthodox Jews be able to mandate insurance that covers nothing at all on the Sabbath?

  19. MikeN says:

    So, Hobby Lobby would like to be able to buy insurance for their employees that covers lots of medical situations. Liberals would like to withhold this coverage because of abortion politics ans a hatred of Catholics.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      Obviously you’re still hurting from that circumcision you got as a delivery boy for Minkman’s Kosher Pizza. They have a nice pie, at a reasonable price.

      • I'm ugly and my mother dresses me funny says:

        I HAVE noticed that pretty much anything kosher is better than its non-K equivalent.

        However, empirical evidence shows that a kosher diet makes people stupider.

  20. gildersleeve says:

    Year 2112 – doctor says to patient: “Sorry we can’t treat your xyz – Obamacare says you’re Methodist and your church hasn’t paid its taxes for 2 years. If you file form 99332 and amend it to your form 1040 for this year, you can renounce your beliefs retroactive to last year, and the treatment will only cost you shipping and handling. Next year.”

  21. Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

    This is an issue, but it’s yet another one that shouldn’t even be discussed until every American has a big house and a long commute to work in a vehicle the size of a Suburban.

    Priorities. The rest of the world can do what it wants, but there’s a minimum standard of living that’s worthy of an American Citizen and we aren’t there yet.

  22. Mextli says:

    I am sure there would be no objection if Hobby Lobby provided marijuana to all employees or employed “undocumented workers”.

  23. GregAllen says:

    The conservatives are paranoid about Sharia law coming to America, yet their paranoia about affordable healthcare opens the door to it.

    Your company owned by fundamentalist CEO? The Republicans think your health care should be determined by Sharia law!

  24. Rick says:

    What has modern medicine done for us anyway?

  25. David Wei says:

    Medical insurance for Christian Scientists must be really profitable…