52 share
Hobby Lobby Heard at Supreme Court Tuesday: Reminder – National Council of Churches Boycotted Hobby Lobbyby Maggie |
Tuesday, March 25, 2014 is the day the much-watched case of Hobby Lobby is heard before by a three-to-one margin, in favor of Hobby Lobby.
the U.S. Supreme Court to defend against the ObamaCare morning-after birth control provision. Let me set the stage for you, as it's been occupied with a real cast of characters for quite a while now. To all my Christian friends, if you are not aware that the National Council of Churches joined with MoveOn.org (yes -- MoveOn.org) to oppose Hobby Lobby's resistance to providing, not birth control or sterilization, but abortifacients (Plan B in US), you know it now. And they called for a boycott of the Oklahoma-based company. Eighty-four Friends of the Court briefs have been filed -- an historic number --
Hobby Lobby - Tulsa, Oklahoma
Faithful America, a creation of the National Council of Churches, has joined forces with a far left feminist organization called UltraViolet (led by former MoveOn.org activist Nita Chaudhary) to pressure Christian-led business Hobby Lobby to give up its quest to maintain its ethical standards. Read the details here.
Nita Chaudhary and MoveOn.org were behind the General David Betray Us ad. Remember that? Proud feminist that she is, you won't find her railing against the plight of Muslim women around the world or the vile lyrics and uber-sexual stage machinations of those who are adored by young girls and boys everywhere.
Now that I've had my National Council of Churches rant (haven't had one for awhile -- but be assured, they always deserve it), I'll move on to another rant.
After the Tenth Circuit Court decision ruled that the Green’s do not have the right to their well-known, long-held and mainstream religious belief that every human life is precious and should be protected, Hobby Lobby appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency injunction, which Catholic U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared was not an emergency at all, and refused to grant temporary relief for the Company during the Appeals process.
“Yet, as Laura Ingraham pointed out, in a previous case Sotomayor ruled for a Muslim inmate who was denied Ramadan meals. In Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 2003), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that reversed a district court decision holding that a Muslim inmate’s First Amendment rights had not been violated because the holiday feast that he was denied was not a mandatory one in Islam. Sotomayor held that the inmate’s First Amendment’s rights were violated because the feast was subjectively important to the inmate’s practice of Islam.“
Hobby Lobby is privately-owned by the David Green family. Joining the case is Conestoga Wood Specialties, owned by Mennonite Norman Hahn in East Earl, Pennsylvania. It employs 1200 with seven factories in five states. Hobby Lobby employs 13,000 in 602 stores in 47 states.
Attorneys general for 18 states including Georgia, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Texas and Florida have sided with the religiously affiliated companies. California and Washington have joined with 13 other states in supporting the mandate.“Corporations, of course, cannot suffer. They are not sentient. They have no soul,” said Caroline Mala Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. “Religious protection only makes sense when it applies to actual people.”Others disagree.“Followers of kosher rules run catering companies,” attorneys for Conestoga Wood Specialties wrote. “Families that observe the Sabbath operate fast food restaurants and craft stores. And those who value sacred texts publish and distribute books. Whatever the legal status of their organizations, owners and operators do not check their beliefs at the door each Monday morning.”Ironically, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that conservatives might use to strike down the contraception mandate was a congressional reaction to a 1990 opinion by strictly conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia’s 1990 opinion reasoned that religious objectors are not exempt from a “neutral law of general applicability.”Adding even more judicial spice, the conservative-dominated court that will decide this question is the same court that likened corporations to people in erasing limits on corporate campaign spending.“Political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation,” Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote, wrote in the court’s 2010 Citizens United case.The potential consequences, moreover, reach beyond the 80-plus federal lawsuits that have been filed by colleges, charities and others challenging the contraception mandate. Source: Bradenton Herald
Owner David Green says his business is not a secular business. The company faces an estimated $1.3 million-a-day penalty if not in compliance. Visit the Becket Fund for updates on SCOTUS action. A decision is expected by June 2014.
Visit the National Council of Churches website from time-to-time and please read this about the NCC position on Israel and social justice, in general. Let's send prayers winging that the NCC's effort to thwart David Green's and Norman Hahn's religious freedom are unsuccessful.
Thanks to Southern Peony!
If you would like to receive Maggie's Notebook daily posts direct to your inbox, no ads, no spam, EVER, enter your email address in the box below.
[jetpack_subscription_form]
[jetpack_subscription_form]
David Green says his business is not a secular business. "Us and them" ... religion rears it's ugly divisive head again. Church is big business in America. Our economic future as a nation could be secured if only the tax evasive churches paid their fair share, while their preachers get rich off their mega churches ... like Bishop TD Jakes worth 150 million. Billy Graham is worth $25 million.
ReplyDeleteYour statement, "Our economic future as a nation could be secured if only the tax evasive churches paid their fair share," is probably as far off base from reality, as anything you have written to this blog. The rich of this nation, pay more than half their earnings (Federal, State and local including property taxes) which equals 40% of all taxes collected in this country. If we doubled the rich tax, leaving the rich with NOTHING, if we took all their money including church “incomes,” each year, we would fall short of the total tax collection by 20%. Your fantasy that if we just had all the tax money churches escape paying, our future would be secure, is beyond laughable. But sense you people do not know addition and subtraction and believe that the flow of American dollars is endless, how would I expect you to think differently?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, Jakes and Graham's "worth" should not be equated to their individual worth. Their ministry and their individual incomes are very different matters. I do not know how much each makes, as an individual, but I am certain each pays their 60%, just like all other well-to-do's in this country.
Most importantly, you cannot answer this question: What is the value of their individual ministries? Jakes $150 million and Graham’s $25 million, assuming you tell the truth, are the values of their individual ministries - not taxable income. And you have a "P.h. D?" What was your thesis, "The environmental lessons learned from playing in a sandbox, 12 hours a day?"
You happened to pick on two of Christianities finest. How much good do these men accomplish, in terms of monetary value? Let's compare those percentages to your giving and what you do for the poor and needy. I give well over 10% to individuals and organizations needing help. How about you, slick.
Religious tax evasion is costing America $71 BILLION annually in Federal taxes. Additionally, states bypass an estimated $26.2 billion per year by not requiring religious institutions to pay property taxes.
ReplyDelete…
Capital gains tax exemptions for religious institutions may be as much as $41 million a year.
…
U.S. clergy may claim as much as $1.2 billion in tax exemptions annually via the parsonage allowance..
Taxing all Americans to subsidize religious institutions that only some Americans utilize is unfair, undemocratic, and against constitutional principles. Religious groups have far too much power in Washington and they’re not about to ask the government to remove their special privileges.
Church leaders that we subsidize use the pulpit to oppose civil rights for gay Americans, speak out against affordable/accessible health-care for women, and use the extra money to buy themselves a larger mansions because Jesus wants them to be prosperous ... like the $1.75 million mansion of the Reverend Randy White.
So what did you come up with, slick? Maybe $150 billion in religious related potential taxes, right? That is oo.000088 of the 1.7 trillion dollars collect in income tax, alone . . . . and you think this is the difference between disaster and national financial security?? Good grief !! AND you have no idea how much in taxes, any of the paid TV evangelists pay, or how much they give away, do you? I am not defending any of them, but it is clear that your "I hate rich people" nonsense is not credible. Like I said before, you could steal ALL of the income of our rich, and you would not have enough money to cover the taxes we need to balance our budget. You would rather borrow from our buds in Communist China, right? I mean, they ARE our friends, right? I mean, they would never demand payment for what we own like they are about to do with Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteSmithson likes religious entitlements to wealthy pastors and churches, but not to the poor, vets, elderly. That is consistent with his world view.
ReplyDeleteDon't take up "political dialogue" as a profession. You talk or write like you "know." Of course, you haven't a clue which means, of course, that you are just calling names . . . . something most of us quit doing back in the 1st grade.
ReplyDelete