Hobby Lobby ruling aids Michigan woman's lawsuit


#1

Ann Arbor, Mich., Jul 11, 2014 / 04:28 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Following the Hobby Lobby decision upholding religious freedom, a woman business owner has secured a court injunction against the HHS mandate requiring coverage for contraceptives and abortifacient drugs.

Karen Mersino, who co-owns Mersino Management Company with her husband in Michigan, welcomed the ruling.

“It’s a real win for religious freedom,” she said July 10.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/hobby-lobby-ruling-aids-michigan-womans-lawsuit-72379/


#2

From a constitutional perspective, we can’t deny the Hobby Lobby decision was a win for Religious Freedom. But, it falls far short of Catholic expectations, especially given the Hobby Lobby PR spokesman making it clear Hobby Lobby is NOT against contraception per se, just the medication that terminates life after conception…so Hobby Lobby has no beef with 16 out of 20 drugs.

This Michigan lawsuit is exactly what Catholics should laud…

But instead of being pleased with Hobby Lobby, we should be disappointed.

I propose a boycott of Hobby Lobby, and the offering of prayers to the owners to open their hearts to the truth and avoid support of all contraceptives, and not just some.

Maybe in addition to praying outside abortion clines and Planned Parenthood sites, we should also pray outside Hobby Lobby!


#3

Thanks for posting these types of legal decisions. It warms my heart. :slight_smile:


#4

Why? Probably 99% of the companies we use don’t have a problem with any birthcontol whatsoever and would be perfectly fine with abortion as well. If the point we are trying to make is that business owners should be allowed to follow their conscience, they why boycott Hobby Lobby for following theirs? :shrug:


#5

Yes, the point is not to secure approval for particular moral beliefs. The point is to secure religious liberty for business owners.


#6

No matter what your intention, a boycott now would be seen as support for those who oppose Hobby Lobby for being against abortion. Instead you should affirm a victory for religious liberty and help explain the argument against contraception in more positive terms.

We oppose contraception because we are for marriages that faithful, permanent, and open to new life. That is going to be a long battle in a culture that has rejected all of Saint Augustine’s three goods of marriage.


#7

This means that anyone who owns a business can claim a religious exemption from the health insurance laws. Will this extend to other forms of discrimination too? On this site I’ve read about religious business owners who don’t want to serve homosexual people if they are getting married. I know everyone is lauding this on this site. What if someone decides for whatever religious reason they don’t want to serve Catholics. This is dangerous territory to tread in.


#8

Ditto:thumbsup:


#9

No they can’t. This applies only the HHS mandate on contraception. If anyone wants to make an argument to get out of any other portion of the mandate, they will have to take it court. It is not a free for all.


#10

First, there is no discrimination going on regarding the Hobby Lobby decision, other than the HHS Mandate discrimination against the owners of Hobby Lobby.
If your question will people be further empowered to exercise their religious liberty without government interference in and confiscation of that liberty, I sure hope so. It is also a fact that, since contraceptives of many kinds are legal, women who do not share those religious beliefs still have access to them. Therefore, there is no limit of access to these products.

On this site I’ve read about religious business owners who don’t want to serve homosexual people if they are getting married. I know everyone is lauding this on this site. What if someone decides for whatever religious reason they don’t want to serve Catholics. This is dangerous territory to tread in

There is a couple of differences between the Hobby Lobby decision and your scenario.

When the baker is forced against his will and religious liberty to provide, for example, a wedding cake, he is not required to do so out of his own pocket. Even a same-gender couple has to pay for the cake.

Nobody dies in the transaction between the baker and the same-gender couple. An innocent life dies when an abortifaciant is used.

That said, if someone doesn’t want to serve me because I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I consider that his/her right under freedom of association. As a former business owner, I would also consider it a stupid business decision.

Jon


#11

It is not a matter of discrimination. Insurance companies have always had it in their power to deny coverage for voluntary procedures,as they continue to do. There is no equity for mental health, of which 25% of the population, both men and women suffer.
Anti-discrimination laws were mostly forged by men and women of conscience and religious conviction. The underground railroad was manned by Quakers who worked outside the law. Men and women of conscience, mostly Quakers and the Amish are exempted from military service because of consciensious status and religious belief. This is not new territory.
A person does not give up his or her First Amendment rights by starting a business. Do we or do we not want people with ethics running corporate America?
Moreover, I think the ruling specifically states that it cannot be construed to overturn anti-discrimination laws.
Life begins at conception and needs to be protected. It is the first of the three inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence upon which the Constitution of the United States was written. This right to life is also written into the bylaws of the United Nations.


#12

Well this is good news. The Hobby Lobby decision definitely helped to protect religious liberty but its sad that it wasn’t a unanimous decision for religious liberty.


#13

Holly,
I wouldn’t expect a unanimous decision on religious liberty any time soon. Religious liberty and belief always is counter to the secular progressive agenda.
The very basic foundational philosophy of American governance is that rights are from God, and not from government, and that government power has nothing to do with rights, other than to defend them. Secular progressive governance cannot succeed under that model. Therefore, God must be disposed of in the public forum.

Jon


#14

how is not paying for immoral drugs discrimination ? This is dangerous territory to tread in and hopefully the govt will realize the before they do even more harm to or freedoms But I doubt it.


#15

I’m glad you defend a business’ ability to implement a morality, even when that morality is different from your own.


#16

Hobby Lobby isn’t forcing their employees to do anything against the employees beliefs.


#17

Neither did the people the Polish doctor worked for.


#18

Baloney. Do it or get fired is very much force.


#19

Is it more or less forceful than “Do it or we won’t hire you?”


#20

Hobby Lobby is not forcing women not to use those drugs, they simply aren’t paying for them.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.