Atheists Decry Court’s Grant of Religious Rights to Corporations in Hobby Lobby

Cranford, NJ—American Atheists denounced the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby on Monday that declared a closely-held corporation is a person with religious rights. Using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Court ruled that owners of closely held corporations may opt out of the so-called “birth control mandate” of the Affordable Care Act. The mandate requires corporations that offer health insurance to employees, in exchange for tax benefits, to offer plans that  include birth control coverage at no cost to employees.

“This is a disgrace and an indignity to Americans’ right to be protected from the abuses of other people’s religions,” said American Atheists President David Silverman. “Shame on the Supreme Court, which has effectively told Americans that if you can come up with a religious excuse, you are above the law. This is an injustice of the highest order for separation of religion and government, for equality, and for the constitutional protections guaranteed to all Americans.”

“The Court has granted religious liberties to some corporations, claiming they have the same rights as citizens. What about the rights of the women, the workers? We fear the consequences of this decision on publicly traded corporations in the future,” said Managing Director Amanda Knief, a lawyer and public policy expert.

Click here to read the full ruling in PDF form.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that defends civil rights for atheists, freethinkers, and other nonbelievers; works for the total separation of religion and government; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy. American Atheists was founded in 1963 by Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

 

American Atheists, Inc.

P.O. Box 158

Cranford, NJ 07016

Tel: (908) 276-7300

Fax: (908) 276-7402

 

###

  • Ben Fraley

    So one person is allowed to force their religious views on all 21,000 employees at his company? That’s definitely protection of people’s rights… I don’t think this battle between religion and freedom will ever be over.

    • Cassandrus

      But it’s okay to force your secular views regarding things such as gay marriage and abortion on employees?

      From a purely rational, scientific point of view, neither homosexuality nor abortion make biological sense. If we’re evaluating belief systems based on rational logic instead of “belief”, what is the justification for these two practices?

      • Cthulhu21

        Nobody is forcing you to accept gay marriage or abortion (a least not the civil ones I know of). There are people who don’t want these to be denied for no go reason.

        First point: sexuality is not, in it of itself, rational. I mean, there are both men and wemon who like watching two people of the same sex respectively kissing each other and otherwise; that’s not logical in any real sense but there you go.
        Second point: if the woman in question isn’t ready for a child why should it be born if it can’t be taken care of properly or is unwanted? Forget biological sense, think practical sense and what would be best for women in these situations.

        • Do your homework

          Practical sense would be to avoid sexual intercourse if you’re unwilling to accept the risk of getting pregnant. Don’t expect other people to pay for your irresponsibilty.

          (Disclaimer: I have no problem with abortion in cases of rape or similar).

          • Ben Fraley

            You sound Catholic.

          • Cthulhu21

            You can make the same argument about driving a car and having insurance for the car. I don’t disagree with not having mooches get off scout-free but let’s not treat everyone like a mooch.

          • Patrick Edwards

            Abortion is either immoral or it isn’t.

            Is it possible that you believe that it is an horrific moral atrocity that an abortion “kills a human being”, but that because that blastocyst is the product of rape it’s okay to “kill a human being”?

            That is the sort of cognitive dissonance that can only be produced by developing a world view from dogmatic principles rather than rational reasoning.

      • Ben Fraley

        This post is not about homosexuality or abortion. It’s about birth control.

        I’m not trying to force anything on anybody. I’d just like the many legal protections for myself and my husband that are currently denied by my state.

        • Do your homework

          Do your research. Hobby Lobby is perfectly willing to provide contraception (condoms, the pill, etc.) to employees. Their issue is that they do not want to provide abortificants (so-called “morning after pill”, etc.).

          I don’t believe employers should be required to pay for medicines that end a human life. THAT is the issue.

          Next time, do a little research instead of simply parroting inaccurate and misleading propaganda. Hobby Lobby has been providing contraception coverage to its employees for a long time.

          • Ben Fraley

            The morning after pill is not abortion. All the mother is doing is expelling the egg like she normally would. It’s the same concept as taking birth control, except you only take it when you sleep with somebody, saving you the hassle of trying to remember your birth control every day. The fertilized egg is not a baby yet. It’s just a few cells that share the DNA of both parents. The regular birth control pill sometimes does the same thing if sperm happens to reach the egg. It actually makes the lining of the womb inhospitable to a fertilized egg, forcing it to be expelled. Do your research.

          • Lyng to yourself

            Nonsense — a fertilized egg will turn into a human being if left alone. Saying that a medication simply makes the womb “inhospitable” to a fertilized egg is no different than saying abortion simply moves the fetus to an “inhospital” environment outside the womb where it dies shortly thereafter.

            How about simply using effective contraception and/or avoiding sexual intercourse? it’s a sad statement about our values as a society when your sexual desires and personal irresponsibility are more important than a future human being.

          • Ben Fraley

            Contraceptive does exactly what I explained on top of preventing the egg from being fertilized in the first place, so really the way you think sound the same as this to me:

            “You shouldn’t have sex at all unless you want a child. Doing anything that MIGHT result in the loss of the fertilized egg after sex should be illegal and considered abortion.”

            Did I capture your thoughts correctly?

          • Do your homework

            No, and from your straw-man attempt to put words into my mouth, it’s clear you’re not interested in honestly discussing this issue. I’ve been very clear about my position, and rather than respond to my comments, you invent phony quotes that you claim represent my beliefs. I can respect people I don’t agree with, but it’s very hard to respect people who resort to cheap tactics like that.

            Contraception prevents children from being CONCEIVED. Once an egg has been fertilized, any methods taken to stop its further development is no longer contraception. Hobby Lobby’s health plan already provides employees with 16 different forms of artificial contraception.

            http://www.becketfund.org/hobbylobby/

            And yes, if you don’t want to risk getting pregnant, you should avoid sexual intercourse. Asking other people to pay for aborting your inconvenient pregnancy is both irresponsible and immoral.

          • Ben Fraley

            The point is that standard contraceptive, if it fails to prevent fertilization of an egg, will prevent that fertilized egg from developing past the first few days.

            I’m not sure how you can call the morning after pill abortion. It’s not like you’re killing a baby. You’re just expelling an egg with a few tiny cells that resemble an amoeba.

          • Montanaboyssareeasy

            Why the hell is the notion of ‘conception’ of any interest to you whatsoever?

          • Patrick Edwards

            He probably thinks women should have all their eggs harvested and frozen at the age of 14. Then they could have them reimplanted and fertilized every nine months for the rest of their lives, thereby making certain that no potential human ever goes unmade. I can’t imagne what he might suggest for little boys…

          • Ben Fraley

            Little boys do that anyway. They’ll just require them to do it into a cup and deposit it into the sperm bank every time. I’m pretty sure that would kill Kleenex’s profit margin, though.

          • Patrick Edwards

            They’d probably run out of cups.

          • Patrick Edwards

            No it won’t.

            It will only turn into a human being if it is tended for approximately nine months, 24 hours per day and is then successfully delivered. About one third of fertilized eggs are ejected before developing into a fetus, often without the woman’s knowledge. And plenty more end in ways that don’t produce a human being. And this is the way nature works.

          • Montanaboyssareeasy

            Millions of sperm and eggs die every minute, each of them potentially half of a future human – where’s your outrage about that? Just garbage.

          • Montanaboyssareeasy

            How about YOU do some homework? They completely missed the basic science of what they claimed to be abortifacients – they actually aren’t.

  • Pingback: Now for American Atheists » Butterflies and Wheels()

  • Forrest Tiffany

    Can’t we just say paying taxes is against our religion?

    • Guest

      Which religion would that be now? Unless it is officially recognized than I doubt you will ever be taken seriously 🙂

      • Grazzly

        The only difference between a religion and a cult is that with religion, the cult leader is dead. You can’t even prove god exists, yet you want special treatment. I’ll give you special treatment.

        • Guest

          How nice of you to jump directly over the question and avoid it as typical atheists do.

          “Special treatment” as in what the Christians are getting from this lawsuit? 🙂

          • Taxavoidism

            My religion, taxavoidism believes as its central tenet that tax is something that the devil uses. Your point? A religion is a belief in a God. I can make out anything and it will be a religion/cult. Oh, and the God of my religion preaches that all those who vote for taxes should be punished with anything from stoning to torture.

          • TheatreVirgin

            Too bad you just made it up and it isn’t a sanctioned, recognized religion that has existed for thousands of years 🙂

            Fucking dumbass

          • Waiting for a mature argument

            Stoning? Torture? Please provide examples of modern mainstream Christian denominations that advocate or practice stoning or torture. I suppose “turn the other cheek” and “cast the first stone” are too inconvenient to quote.

            Histrionics make *you* look desperate and uninformed.

        • Grazzly

          Self-serving, self-created definitions don’t add anything to the discussion.

      • Forrest Tiffany

        I could pick pretty much any non-Christian religion (Christians are required to give Caesar what s Caesar’s). So, as an example I’ll pick Buddhism. Paying for wars is against my religion and I therefore won’t pay for it.

        • Guest

          We don’t have a Caesar, though, thank God. Also, you pay those taxes as an American citizen, not as a Buddhist (or any other religion). A church, temple, or mosque, cannot pay taxes, but the people who attend them that live in American must.

          • Forrest Tiffany

            OK, I answered the first time because you didn’t understand the statement was made sarcastically. Now you show more ignorance by not understanding the Caesar reference. You do the coup de gras by bringing up religious organizations. I said nothing about them (and it is “don’t have to pay taxes” not “cannot pay taxes” anyway). The entire point of my post is that I HAVE to do things in this society that go against my personally held beliefs all the time. Everyone does. This is just another example of that. Now, however, we can argue that we don’t have to because it goes against our religion and we have precedent to back up that argument. No, I in no way believe we would be able to get away with not paying taxes. However, there are plenty of things that we now can based on this decision. Did I explain my point well enough?

    • Justin

      Unfortunately, no. This is from a recent politico.com article:

      “The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling
      breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of any law
      (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held
      religious beliefs.”

      • Forrest Tiffany

        Woosh…the sound of sarcasm rushing over your head. Don’t jump, you might hurt yourself.

    • Joyce Lusk

      I did’nt know that being a atheist was a religion. I’m a christen but I dont believe in religion ,People today use religion to make money,use it for politics, ect. To me it’s false, I believe in one higher power and go by the laws He asked us to do,which is commen sence in this world, murder,stealing, ect. IT”S ALL SCREWED UP.

      • Jordan

        “I did’nt know that being a atheist was a religion”
        It’s not.

        “I believe in one higher power and go by the laws He asked us to do”
        When you say “He” you mean the jewish pharisee in the bronze age?

        ” IT”S ALL SCREWED UP”
        Not really, go back 150 years before public education was given, child labor was allowed, slavery… etc. Poverty and crime in the USA has never been lower.

        If you think it’s getting worse you don’t know history.

  • Tommy Ferrugia

    When 5 of the 4 Justices are devout Christians (brainwashed since child-hood) and conditioned/programmed to cede authority to the Roman Catholic Church (ie, old men who wear ridiculous costumes to create the illusion of authority), they are naturally going to bend over backwards to help the church maintain power. It doesn’t even matter that the state’s interest in the good of the populace and public health trump individual interests. Christians always get special consideration; when American Indians argued that smoking peyote was part of a religious ceremony, the court didn’t want to hear it. You can imagine what the decision would have been if peyote was used by Catholic churches.

    • dvmil

      I think you meant “5 of the *9* Justices”. Tripped up by the 5-4 ruling?

    • Jack Smith

      And I think you meant bent over FORWARD to take it up the ass from the priests as they are like to give it to other men (or altar boys if they’re available)…

    • Janet

      The following is from Wikipedia (not the best source, I admit, but it’s better than talking out of your, well, you know)

      Where there is exclusive federal jurisdiction or state law is not “racially” limited, peyote use by Native American Church members is legal and “racially” neutral in the United States.[31] This exemption from federal criminalization is as old as creation of federal law creating peyote related offenses.

      This law has been codified as a statute in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, and made part of the common law in Peyote Way Church of God v. Thornburgh, (5th Cir. 1991);[32] it is also in administrative law at the 21 C.F.R. 1307.31. The C.F.R. part dealing with “SPECIAL EXEMPT PERSONS” states:

      Section 1307.31 Native American Church. The listing of peyote as a
      controlled substance in Schedule I does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, and members of the Native American Church so using peyote are exempt from registration. Any person who manufactures peyote for or distributes peyote to the Native American Church, however, is required to obtain registration annually and to comply with all other requirements of law.

      U.S. v. Boyll, 774 F.Supp. 1333 (D.N.M. 1991)[33] addresses this racial issue specifically and concludes:

      For the reasons set out in this Memorandum Opinion and

      Order, the Court holds that, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 (1990),
      the classification of peyote as a Schedule I controlled substance, see
      21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I(c)(12), does not apply to the
      importation, possession or use of peyote for ‘bona fide’ ceremonial use by members of the Native American Church, regardless of race.

      United States federal law (and many state laws) protects the harvest, possession, consumption and cultivation of peyote as part of “bonafide religious ceremonies” (the federal statute is the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1996a,
      “Traditional Indian religious use of the peyote sacrament,” exempting
      only use by Native American persons, while some state laws exempt any
      general “bona fide religious activity”). American jurisdictions enacted
      these specific statutory exemptions in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872
      (1990), which held that laws prohibiting the use of peyote that do not
      specifically exempt religious use nevertheless do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Peyote is listed by the United States DEA as a Schedule I controlled substance.

      • Tommy Ferrugia

        There’s a marked difference between ‘talking out of your ass’ and pasting a huge section from Wikipedia and boring anyone who may otherwise care. Peyote may be used SOLELY by the ‘Native American Church,’ however NO
        OTHER Native American groups can use it. Other Native American churches have petitioned for the legalization of peyote, but
        have been unsuccessful. The Native American Church got in because of a legislative oversight and the Utah statute did not address the
        situation the court had to determine; where a drug is listed as a controlled
        substance under one state schedules but simultaneously listed as exempt under
        the federal schedules.

        • Tommy Ridiculous

          Wow. You really are your own (and, most likely, only) biggest fan, aren’t you?

    • Tommy Ferruga

      Believers are brainwashed since childhood? You’re barely out of childhood yourself but can’t see beyond your own inaccurate stereotypes of believers. Ah, the arrogance of youth ….

      • imallgone.com

        brainwashed = persuasive teachings. believers are persuasively taught to believe from childhood. arrogance isnt so bad when your right

  • prof rumblesnore

    I simply cannot wait for a business owner to start using religious exemption as an excuse for not paying their workers and expose the ridiculousness of this decision. “But my Christian Bible not only allows slavery it promotes it! Did I say slavery? I meant indentured servitude.”

    • Janet

      Since the Bible neither allows or promotes slavery I doubt that anyone but someone like you would ever say that. And every employment contract, where the employer agrees to pay an employee a certain salary for a certain number of hours/years of work could be called indentured servitude. I don’t think the NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL would like it much if you called the players slaves.

      • Sieben Stern

        oh wow. really? someone needs to go back and read his bible OO;;;
        http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible

        • Tommy Ferrugia

          Why should anyone give two shits about a randomly assorted collection of ancient Hebrew mythology? If you actually believe that the words in there were telepathically divined by invisible man in space to a few hundred middle eastern cave dwellers (while everything written about astronomy, biology and geology is wholly inaccurate) then I have a bridge to sell you

          • Tommy Self-obsessed

            You’re really in love with your own perceived cleverness, aren’t you? In your world, all Christians are biblical literalists who are clearly your intellectual inferiors. The idea that there may be many Christians for whom belef in God does not equal a litteral interpretation of a single book is highly inconvenient, isn’t it?

          • Patrick Edwards

            As I replied to Cassandrus above, you are claiming not to be a Biblical literalist. However, a significant percentage of Christians (loud if not large) DO believe just that and vote and pass laws to that effect.
            Until moderates like yourselves begin addressing the madmen in your midst, you will be tarred by them with the same brush. Do you think all muslims are mad bombers? Probably not. But do you think that no one should speak out against mad muslim bombers? Of course, they should. And until sensible moderate muslims begin to do something about the madmen in their midst, they also get some of that blame.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            You’re missing the point entirely. Regardless of if you’re a moderate, extremist or just observe the holidays is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT to the whether the bible is anything but a work of fiction. The amount of faith someone has in the text (or how literally they interpret it) does nothing, whatsoever, to overcome the burden of FIRST proving that the words of the bible were, indeed, the telepathic transmissions of a ghost in space (rather than just the personal thoughts of the scriber). And since that hurdle has yet to be overcome, by anyone, there is no reason -at all – to pretend it’s the ‘word of god.’

          • Patrick Edwards

            I would say that you are the one missing the point, at least the one that I and some others here are making.
            Of course, to claim that this text is factual at all let alone inerrant, proofs need to be presented. And, of course, no one has yet provided any compelling proof of any sort. But that does not change the fact that many people do believe it to be inerrant and that they do live their lives and often try to make others live their lives by those beliefs. That is the problem and the point.
            Cassandrus is arguing that ‘modern christians’ don’t believe these things, but has offered no list of what they do believe.
            My point is that as long as Cassandrus and other christians who claim not to believe the entirety of their bible, continue to claim that the bible is the holy book of their religion and do not publically repudiate the portions they disagree with, they will be viewed through the same lens we see the extremists who do believe it all.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Correction: You missed MY point.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            You’re missing the point entirely. The fact that I am more clever than you or more rational than you is completely irrelevant to the conversation. You’ve built a straw-man (that atheists consider Christians inferior) even though NO ONE has ever actually said that. The difference between religious zealots and atheists is that theists require credible, testable evidence in order to accept something as true, while religious observers believe that ‘faith’ (the belief in things without evidentiary support – look it up) is a legitimate foundation to accept the unproven as true. Regardless whether you’re a moderate, extremist or just observe the holidays is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT to the whether the bible is anything but a work of fiction. The amount of faith someone has in the text (or how literally they interpret it) does nothing, whatsoever, to overcome the burden of FIRST proving that the words of the bible were, indeed, the telepathic transmissions of an omnipotent space deity (rather than just the personal thoughts of the scriber). And since that hurdle has yet to be overcome, by anyone, there is no reason -at all – to pretend it’s the ‘word of god.’ Sorry 🙁

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Only a delusional nutjob would imagine that someone asking for EVIDENCE that a book was telepathically dictated by an omnipotent space deity believes himself to be ‘clever.’ It’s the same sad, pathetic little ‘argument’ that a lot of people use when they desperately want to cling to a point they know they cannot win. Instead of even attempting to debate the topic you choose to apply all these false and nonsensical assertions about the motivations of the person who’s argument you cannot overcome. It never works for anyone and you are no different.

            Belief in a deity requires some level of self-delusion because you take the LACK OF EVIDENCE and argue that it’s irrelevant to whether or not a deity exists. In no other discourse in your life would you just arbitrarily choose to believe in magic. However, you convince yourself that once something becomes your ‘religion’ then no facts, evidence, reason or independent corroboration are necessary. That may be a satisfactory conclusion inside your own imagination, but when you are affirmatively asserting it and want the world to believe your hypothesis, then your point must have supporting evidence or it collapses on itself. Sorry 🙁

      • Tommy Ferrugia

        I guess you’ve never read the bible then? There are more than 60 biblical verses that reference slavery, and many either instruct slaves to obey their worldly masters or provide instructions to slave owners on how to treat their slaves.

        It’s funny how religious zealots just accept what their parents and religious instructors tell them, without actually researching the texts they pretend to hold so dearly.

        • Janet

          They reference something that was a fact of life at the time. In the New Testament especially, the Roman mindset prevailed over everything; no one would have considered that slavery would end any time soon. For the people of the time, it was a fact of life, something that could happen to them and if it already had, was something they needed to learn to live with if it was God’s will that they were in the right place (to influence others, maybe?).

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            #1) You claimed that the Bible neither allows or promotes slavery. So, by your own admission, you were either lying or just wrong (but it’s interesting how the mind of the apologist works). #2) If the time of events is relevant to this particular ‘word of god’ then isn’t EVERYTHING in there also subject to revision and updating as times change? And, if that’s the case, and morality is dependent upon the age we live in and the current constructs of the society,,then what relevance, at all, does a 2000 year old book have in 2014? #3 ) So, instead of intervening and prohibiting slavery (or changing things so that people would not suffer), this god instead thought it best to telepathically transmit messages into the brains of specific desert nomads so they could write down HOW the enslaved could be useful to their masters? And that makes sense to you?

          • prof rumblesnore

            I could kiss you. Perfect breakdown of the circular logic apologists twist themselves into just to preserve their fragile cognitive dissonance. It’s tragic that each person who replied in defense of the bible and Christianity can so thoroughly deceive themselves and sit high and mighty while replying thinking “Oh yeah I just schooled that atheist with my superior bible knowledge” and just truly not understanding the flaws in their logic.

          • Cassandrus

            Excellent job attacking something (slavery) that no modern Christian engages in or supports. Is that really the best you can do?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            So, in other words, you accept that an ancient, decrepit text was telepathically dictated by a supernatural deity who knows everything and is perfect. However, you’ve decided that many of the things that your prefect-deity has instructed you to do – such as owning salves, kill unruly children, kill neighbors who work on weekends, refrain from eating meat on Friday, allow rapists to go free as long as they pay off the victim’s father and marry her – are morally gruesome and you choose to ignore them? Hmm. Interesting; it’s almost as if you, like every other Christian, just do whatever you want (based upon your own moral code) and simply follow your precious bible whenever the text coincides with whatever you already want to do.

            Since that’s the case, and – according to you – Christians are free to ignore the bible whenever they choose, then why even go through the charade of pretending that the book is of any value at all? Why maintain the delusion that it has special powers and that the men who wrote it were getting divine inspiration (instead of just making up bullshit as they went along)?

            Sorry that didn’t go the way you thought it would. You will have to try a little harder next time 🙂

            PS – typical Christian garbage. I did not bring up the issue of slavery, I was responding to christian pretending that the Bible does not endorse slavery. If you notice, I did not start this thread. However, this is another typical Christian tactic. They throw something out there, get their asses handed to them, and then try and pretend that they are on the receiving end. Sorry, but that crap doesn’t work on someone who has a brain.

        • Cassandrus

          Fascinating — you seem to be intellectually incapable (or perhaps simply unwilling) to separate modern Christian beliefs and actions from a literal interpretation of the entire Bible.

          You might be taken seriously if you spent less time scouring atheist websites for ammunition attacking a single book and more time actually researching what modern Christians believe.

          The existence of God and the nature of belief is FAR more complex than a literal reading of a collection of ancient (and often outdated or even contradictory) books.

          • Cthulhu21

            He wasn’t saying modern Christians indorse slavery,
            he was saying the bible indored slavery in response to a claim that there wasn’t.
            In what part of Tommy’s response did it say that modern Christians indored slavery?

          • Patrick Edwards

            You seem to be arguing that the Bible is not a good guide for modern morality or at least that your version of Christianity does not follow it the way we seem to think it is does.
            If that is the case, then you need to be making these arguments to your fellow Christians who DO claim that the Bible is innerrant and to be taken literally, not to people here who agree with you on that point.

          • Mark

            First, which modern Christians? Christians are not all the same. There are many that do believe in the exact literal interpretation of the Bible (although there are problems with this, such as a 6,000 year-old Earth and how this claim is crushed under the weight of scientific evidence). Children have died because transfusions are considered against God (Jehovah’s Witnesses). There is no such thing as a typical Christian just as there is no such thing as a typical atheist.

            Second, the book is attacked because it is used to justify and support some terrible things in this so called modern world – not necessarily by your brand of Christianity, but by those who don’t see it as outdated or conradictory – (e.g. witch burning in Africa, Catholic Church not wanting the use of condoms in AIDS torn countries, blowing up abortion clinics, crimes agains gays). You can’t separate your religion from the text that drives it. Text that has been changed and added to through the centuries (Google Dr. Bart D. Herman – a well respected scholar – not a preacher). The point of showing the Bible is not inerrant is to show that you can’t use it to defend your prejudices or morality.

            Finally, the point of this article is that Hobby Lobby’s objections is based on an archaic belief system – one base on an outdated book riddled with contradictions and errors. Having faith without evidence means you can believe in anything – no matter how it affects others.

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            I guess you didn’t bother to read the previous portion of the thread or (like most Christians) ignore the portions of the texts that don’t serve your purpose. I never, at any time, claimed that Christians endorse slavery. I was pointing out the FACT that the BIBLE endorses slavery. I was correcting a previous posters lie/mistake that the bible does not endorse slavery. Sorry 🙁

    • Aaron Dana Pendlesteiger

      maybe instead of reading the bible you should try and understand it then

      • Sieben Stern

        do not read. just ‘understand’. did you just write that? the bible tells you how to own slaves. period. you can’t whitewash that even though it’s an embarrassment!

        • randyness

          The Bible also clarifies that we are all slaves. So yes, I would think that under the belief that we are all slaves it would give instructions.

        • randyness

          Rom 7: 14 So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The
          trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin.

          1 Cor 7:22
          For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the
          Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is
          Christ’s slave.

          Romans 6:5

          5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

          God has no problems with slavery because we are all slaves to either sin or Christ. The Bible, I hate to tell you, is not about human rights. We have a right to go to hell and anything better than that is grace. Was not the Roman rule over the Jews wrong? Was it not an injustice? Yet Christ did not say “Rise up and kill your oppressors”, he said render unto Caesar what is his. Christ did not care about your rights. He cared about your soul. Christ had a right to rule the universe unscathed by the wickedness of this world but still he gave up all his rights and left the majesty of heaven to be born and laid in a pig trough only to be crucified abandoned and hated as an adult… all by his own creation.

          • XaurreauX Pont DeLac

            Yeah, quoting the Bible on an atheist website is bound to convince us that God impregnated an engaged virgin in order to give birth to himself in order to be sacrificed to himself in order to sit beside himself in order to save the world from…himself.

          • Guest

            is this the best you can do? Seriously? You simply don’t have a clue of what you are saying… Please try again… and stop rushing to the keyboard.

          • Bayor

            @XaurreauX, is this the best you can do? Seriously? You simply don’t have a clue of what you are saying… Please try again… and stop rushing to the keyboard.

          • XaurreauX Pont DeLac

            I think it was an adequate reply to someone who made statements based upon no evidence. In fact, the overwhelming evidence is that scripture has been forged, misquoted, re-written, altered, made up out of whole cloth and sometimes cherry-picked in order to appear to have been prophesized. The latter is known as “typology.” See: http://www.theopedia.com/Biblical_typology and note the second paragraph..

        • randyness

          Doulos is the Greek word used in the verse you are refering to and in Greek it means “bond servant”. A bond servant was an indentured servant… a man who came to someone and sold themselves so that they would have food and shelter.

          • opo

            I’m a devout Christian but your understanding of the word doulos is inaccurate. There are many places in both Christian and secular writings where it refers to people who are involuntary slaves in the modern sense of the word.

            (I have been a language scholar for many years and read Greek)

          • Brendan

            That is nice and all thinking this applies, but the Bible specifically says that you can beat these slaves to near death, and as long as they live through the night you cannot get in trouble since they are your property. I don’t care what translation of the word servant you decide to use, there is no getting around it.

        • Cassandrus

          No modern Christian would support the owning of slaves.

          Claiming that Christians must literally follow every word in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is either ignorant and/or dishonest

          • Cthulhu21

            The point isn’t whether or not modern Christians support slavery. It’s about what the bible says and what certain Christians say to the contrary. If you’re don’t agree with following everything in the book, fine. But Seiben was just saying that the person he was replying to before can’t deny that it’s there.

      • Tommy Ferrugia

        LOL. What does that mean? You mean, be like you who hasn’t read it but imagines he ‘understands’ it because of what other people have told him are in there? But, more importantly, who gives a $hit what the bible says? For some reason, a 2000 year-old collection of Hebrew myths doesn’t seem like the best place to base ones morality.

        Perhaps. we should just admit that everyone does what he or she wants to do, based upon his own perceptions? It amazes me how Christian apologists cling to the bible whenever the text tends to support what they already believe, but always reach new heights of mental gymnastics to make excuses and fantasize that ‘we just don’t understand it’ when the texts promote horrific acts of violence.

        • Modern Buds

          and people like you cling to those people who read the bible wrong! thank you for Continuing the Cycle. your just as bad as the christian baptists!

          • prof rumblesnore

            Lol uhh I think you have grossly misunderstood the situation, what’s funny is that on some level many atheists have more respect for fundamentalist readings of the Bible because at least they are honest with themselves. When we point out to a Christian that “interpreting” whatever you want in between the lines isn’t accurate, we aren’t then saying the literal interpretation is any more valid when it comes to it being true. We are simply exposing the hypocrisy of believing in a religion that isn’t true to the bible and still calling it Christianity

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            What do I ‘cling to’ exactly? The notion that nothing is real unless it’s proven so by evidence? The idea that people who refuse to demand proof for outlandish claims of supernatural phenomena are intentionally remaining ignorant? Or is is that christian apologoatsa imagine they can have it both ways – those who adhere to the parts of the bible (or any other man made ‘religious’ text) that you happen to agree with are reading it ‘correctly,’ but those who also advocate for the evil, nasty bits are somehow reading it ‘incorrectly?’ Please.

            You’re remark makes nonsense! You’re just as bad as Mussolini!

          • Cassandrus

            False choice : either you literally adhere to every word in the Bible or you’re not a Christian.

            Anyone who makes that kind of argument is either ignorant or dishonest.

          • Cthulhu21

            A fair point; but then what is a “real” Christian?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            Please inform me of what argument you think I was making? As far as I’m concerned – how literally someone interprets the bible is utterly meaningless so I have not presented any ‘choice.’ The book (just like every other religious text) is a collection of myths assembled from, in the case of the bible, a random assortment of writings by Middle Eastern nomads. No one has ever proven that the words were REALLY telepathic messages divined into their brains by a deity in space (the very notion is just ludicrous). Accordingly, anyone who argues that the bible is the ‘word of god’ is delusional.

        • Grow up

          So young and already so cynical. The fact that you are guided by nothing greater (religious or otherwise) than your own personal and selfish desires does not mean that everyone else shares your blind self-interested view of life.

          • Cthulhu21

            What part of Tommy’s post indicates that he’s not guided by anything or is a cynic?

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            @ GROW UP: Your argument is a loser. Here’s why: I am guided by logic, reason and a quest for knowledge. Those are, quit obviously, much larger than myself. The fact that it’s more important to me to be RIGHT (ie, have evidence to support my conclusions) rather than COMFORTABLE (ie, just make $hit up whenever something seems too complex to grasp) is a problem for you; not for me.

            it’s also ironic that a religious zealot, who wholly accepts that the words of a 2000 year old book are the telepathic messages of a deity in space (who got EVERYTHING about biology, geology and astronomy totally wrong) would call ANYONE’ blind.’ Got back to school – you need it.

  • Janet

    With today’s Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court has declared that

    t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶d̶e̶-u̶p̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶i̶g̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶f̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶b̶u̶s̶i̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶t̶r̶u̶m̶p̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶l̶t̶h̶
    ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ e̶m̶p̶l̶o̶y̶e̶e̶s̶ bu̲s̲i̲n̲e̲s̲s̲ ̲o̲w̲n̲e̲r̲s̲ ̲d̲o̲ ̲n̲o̲t̲ ̲h̲av̲e̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲l̲e̲a̲v̲e̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲i̲r̲ ̲f̲a̲i̲t̲h̲ ̲a̲t̲ ̲h̲o̲m̲e̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲ ̲r̲u̲n̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲i̲r̲
    ̲b̲u̲s̲i̲n̲e̲s̲s̲e̲s̲ ̲i̲n̲ ̲a̲ ̲w̲a̲y̲ ̲t̲h̲a̲t̲ ̲h̲o̲n̲o̲r̲s̲ ̲t̲h̲a̲t̲ ̲f̲a̲i̲t̲h̲.̲

    This is absolutely appalling. W̲e̲ ̲j̲u̲s̲t̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲’̲t̲ ̲h̲a̲v̲e̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲s̲e̲ ̲r̲e̲l̲i̲g̲i̲o̲u̲s̲ ̲p̲e̲o̲p̲l̲e̲
    ̲s̲u̲c̲c̲e̲s̲s̲f̲u̲l̲l̲y̲ ̲r̲u̲n̲n̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲i̲r̲ ̲b̲u̲s̲i̲n̲e̲s̲s̲e̲s̲ ̲i̲n̲ ̲a̲ ̲w̲a̲y̲ ̲w̲e̲ ̲d̲o̲n̲’̲t̲ ̲b̲e̲l̲i̲e̲v̲e̲ ̲i̲n̲;̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲y̲
    ̲s̲h̲o̲u̲l̲d̲n̲’̲t̲ ̲b̲e̲ ̲a̲b̲l̲e̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲t̲r̲u̲m̲p̲ ̲o̲u̲t̲ ̲r̲i̲g̲h̲t̲ ̲n̲o̲t̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲b̲e̲ ̲o̲f̲f̲e̲n̲d̲e̲d̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲s̲o̲m̲e̲t̲h̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲w̲e̲ ̲(̲s̲a̲y̲)̲
    ̲ w̲e̲ ̲d̲o̲n̲’̲t̲ ̲b̲e̲l̲i̲e̲v̲e̲.̲ We will continue to fight against ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶r̶e̶a̶t̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶the ̲f̲r̲e̲e̲ ̲p̲r̲a̲c̲t̲i̲c̲e̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲F̲a̲i̲t̲h̲ in public p̶o̶l̶i̶c̶y̶ life.
    There, Fixed it For you.

  • Pingback: Atheists & Catholics Respond to Supreme Court's Contraceptives Fail()

  • Aaron Dana Pendlesteiger

    you people are all so ignorant….its not a religious thing

    the reason it passed is because no one should be held responsible for your choices and if you chose to have sex then you can chose to buy your own shit to stop pregnancy

    • Guest

      Yeah, let them clean up their own messes.

    • Sukoshi

      Except that the ‘no cost’ birth control really isn’t ‘free’. Workers pay a part of their insurance premiums also, or all of their premium, depending on what their employer’s policy is. The ‘no cost’ birth control is really ‘no additional out of pocket cost’, just like the other preventive care services are ‘no additional cost’.

      Not to mention the fact that birth control pills are prescribed for other valid medical reasons besides preventing pregnancy.

    • Cthulhu21

      So if there’re people who don’t have the money to pay for their own pills that’s just too bad? That hardly seems just to stick it too them just because you subjectively view it as sinful to have sex without the risk of unwanted contraception.

      Edited for clarity

      • Guest

        “So if there’re people who don’t have the money to pay for their own pills that’s just too bad?”

        Yes, it is too bad. There are millions of people who don’t have the money for things they want/need. But don’t expect other people to foot the bill.

        Hobby Lobby already provides protective measures such as condoms. You take the risk, you deal with the consequences on your own.

        • skayjo

          As Sukoshi, above, said: “Not to mention the fact that birth control pills are prescribed for other valid medical reasons besides preventing pregnancy.” If women need it, tough cookies, if men need it, “come on and get your script.” And, guest, if the consequences are extreme pain, tough. Suck it up.

        • Cthulhu21

          You make it sound like using a service to help pay for the things that can help people lead healthy, mangable lives is being irresponsible. If that’s not what you meant then what did you mean?

        • Cthulhu21

          Why do they give out condoms and not birth-control pills? Shouldn’t the same standards be placed on condoms in respect to your point about consequences and “footing the bill”?

          • Do your homework

            Uhm, they do provide birth control pills … do your homework next time. Scary that you’re commenting on things without having the facts first

          • Cthulhu21

            I think the fact that they’re free to deny people those pills makes that fact rather pointless if you consider it.

          • Do Your Homework

            Maybe you missed the half-dozen other times it’s been mentioned here, so I’ll say it again:

            Hobby Lobby provides 16 forms of artificial birth control, including the pill, to its employees.

            http://www.becketfund.org/hobbylobby/

          • Cthulhu21

            Ok, but what about the contraceptives they mention here:
            “… drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.”

    • toni

      you nailed it ! i work for hobby lobby and if you were to ask the employees of hobby lobby they are all saying what you just said !!!!

      • berrygirl

        Are you getting a raise or discount on your insurance to cover the benefits that you are losing?

    • berrygirl

      If its not a religious thing then please explain how it passed based on religious beliefs?

  • Stephen

    Well my religion finds all form of medicine immoral, so clearly I should be exempt from the law and not have to provide any medical insurance to any of my employees.

    • Guest

      What’s your religion, exactly?

      • Stephen

        Bullshitianity. I hold the beliefs of that religion as strongly as any Christian holds their beliefs. Since the government can’t read my mind, they can’t really know what’s a deeply held religious belief versus what’s something I’m just making up.

        • Guest

          So it’s an unofficial, unsanctioned, unrecognized “religion”. So fuck off 🙂

          • Stephen

            If you’d prefer, I could call myself a Christian Scientist. I guess that’s more recognized, though no less retarded.

    • bigbb68

      Nailed it Stephen….that’s exactly where this asinine law will lead…

  • Midwestatheist

    The Supreme Court basically told people that their individual rights to their own bodies are void if the person who provides them a paycheck has beliefs that differ.

    It’s not just about religion, it’s about the loss of individuals rights. It’s another tick mark for businesses, and grants them more rights (and via them, their incredibly wealthy owners) than the middle and lower classes of people who have to work for them. It creates a larger divide between classes of people, religions, women and men, and ethnic groups (nearly all of the upper 1% are white).

    We definitely aren’t all created equal. White men have more control over a black woman’s body than she does. It’s freaking ridiculous that this ruling would occur in 2014 in supposedly the “greatest and most free nation in the world”.

    The government is supposed to represent all of it’s constituents. And yet as an atheist, lower middle class, liberal I often wonder where is MY representation and my considerations?

    • Cassandrus

      “The Supreme Court basically told people that their individual rights to their own bodies are void if the person who provides them a paycheck has beliefs that differ.”

      Nonsense. If you don’t want to father or bear a child, then control your own body and avoid sexual intercourse.

      If you can’t control your sexual desires, then take responsibility for the possible consequences and don’t ask people to pay for abortificants.

      I support free, government-provided BIRTH CONTROL for ALL people. I don’t support requiring people to kill for medicine that presents a fertilized egg from developing — i.e. killing an unborn human. I presume most atheists oppose ending the life of an innocent human being, no matter how “inconvenient” that life may be …. correct?

    • The media is lying to you

      How about people contol their own bodies and avoid sexual intercourse if they don’t want to risk getting pregnant?

      As a practical matter, I’m fine with goverment-provided, free birth ontrol for all. Contrary to all the media misinformation, Hobby Lobby has provdided contraception for a long time. What they object to is having to pay for abortificants (morning after pills, etc.) that END pregnancies, not PREVENT them.

      Do your own research if you don’t believe me — you’re the victim of a huge misinformation campaign that makes it look like Hobby Lobby is opposed to birth control.

      • Cthulhu21

        That still leaves mourning-after pill and the week-after pill.

  • ChristianGuest

    AA’s staff are using this as an opportunity to cry for donations on social media. Pathetic.

    Christians, we’re beating em. Keep up the good fight.

    • Grazzly

      Can you smoke a cigarette and wear a blindfold at the same time? Good. Now just stand right there…

      • ChristianGuest

        I don’t smoke. It’s bad for your health 🙂

        • Grazzly

          You will when I’m done with you.

          • Guest

            Oh, how humanist of you. 😉

    • Cthulhu21

      Right, and why is it wrong to want donations?

  • http://www.nearnorthimg.com Roger

    I don’t care what religion or belief you are, imposing your belief/religion/doctrine on the general public is a crime in my mind.

    • ChristianGuest

      And so is forcing people to go against their own beliefs. You can’t have it both ways, hypocrite.

      Equality for all, isn’t that right?

      • skayjo

        Equality for all, but, of course, some are more equal than others. You get tremendous services paid for by non-christians, and take, and take, and take. Pay your own way and give up your tax exempt status for your churches and other properties!

        • Guest

          But we have tax exempt status because of that wonderful line called separation of church and state 🙂

          Again, atheists trying to have their cake and eat it too.

          • skayjo

            On the contrary, it is the Christian churches expecting tax exempt status to proselytize without paying for the roads, courts, fire departments and police which protect the churches private property.

          • Guest

            No laws being broken, sorry. And that stuff is already to be guaranteed 🙂 they don’t have to pay for those services

          • skayjo

            No, no laws are being broken because churches have the special dispensation to receive all those benefits without paying for them. I hope someday we become progressive enough to require payment. You know: Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars. Pick up your own tab instead of making other people pay so the churches can corrupt children and make exorbitant amounts of money off the regular citizens.

            As you say, they don’t have to pay, but they should have to pay. I would think you would feel guilty from stealing from the poor.

          • Guest

            When atheists can match the billions of dollars raised by churches all over the world to feed and clothe the poor, then you can talk about “stealing” from the poor.

            Maybe if AA stopped wasting money on lawsuits like the 9/11 cross and hobby lobby. All that money could have gone to starving children in Africa.

            Don’t worry. Christians will make up for it 🙂

          • Tommy Ferrugia

            That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. Atheism has absolutely nothing at all to do with churches having tax-exempt status. Your statement is completely nonsensical and wholly illogical

          • Cassandrus

            Then please define “atheism”. Is it simple lack of belief, or an active attempt to prevent other people from believing? Attempting to impose your atheist beliefs on others is just as bad as attempting to impose religious beliefs on others.

          • Ben Fraley

            To define atheism you must first look at its component parts. Theism is:

            “belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.”

            The prefix a- means not. Using general vocabulary skills, you add a no to the beginning of that definition. That’s easy enough, isn’t it?

          • Cassandrus

            Why do atheists feel compelled to make insulting / patronizing comments towards people they disagree with? I can assure you I have a far deeper knowledge of English morphology than you do, unless of course you’re done doctoral work in Linguistics and can read Latin and Greek. If you think I’m exaggerating my credentials, I would be EXTREMELY happy to demonstrate my expertise in those areas.

            If atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, why do atheists display such active hostility towards and take action against believers? “Contratheist” would be a far more accurate definition of the behavior that most co-called “atheists” exhibit.

          • Ben Fraley

            We don’t take offensive action against believers. We take defensive action against believers. We don’t feel that we should be forced to even listen to people praying to their gods or decrying that this country is rules by any god. We have a thing called separation of church and state, which allows us the freedom to not have religion in our courthouses, but the courthouse still requires people to swear on a bible in some places. It violates our freedom when you feel that you should be able to spout information about your “God” even after we ask that you stop. I deal with it all the time with people trying to preach to me. I know plenty about Christianity, as I grew up in the church and studied the bible in-depth every day. My homosexuality is not a choice, but my atheism definitely is.

      • Tommy Ferrugia

        What if an employer’s religion opposes use of antibiotics? Does that mean his or her employees do not get covered for them.

        An employer has no right to determine the religious conviction of his or her employees. The employer is free to refrain from using contraceptives but it’s none of his or her business whether the employees make the same choice

        • Cassandrus

          “The employer is free to refrain from using contraceptives but it’s none of his or her business whether the employees make the same choice”

          No one is preventing employees from believing what they want or using birth control. The issue is whether the government can force someone to pay for someone else’s abortificants.

          The issue here is not about condoms or the pill — the issue is whether employers have to pay for measures and medications that terminate a viable human life. The media has gone to great lengths to (dishonestly) cast this as a “birth control” debate — it is not. Hobby Lobby is not opposed to paying for means to PREVENT pregnancy. They are opposed to paying for means to TERMINATE pregnancies.

    • Cuts both ways

      Does that apply to gay marriage too?

    • Cassandrus

      Then imposing your secular beliefs is a crime as well. What makes your beliefs superior to my beliefs? If I oppose abortion on secular grounds (cheapens human life, promotes irresponsibility), is that okay?

      • Cthulhu21

        “Then imposing your secular beliefs is a crime as well.”

        No it isn’t, you can still practice your religion without imposing your views on others and they likewise can’t impose their views on you. When people say they don’t agree with your views that’s just criticism, not an attempt to impose their views. You don’t have to agree with them but if you say that they’re wrong then you’re in the wrong and deserve criticism.

      • smh

        Nobody is forcing YOU personally to get an abortion. Turn your other fucking cheek somewhere else like in the direction of your own fucking business.

  • Jack Longstreet

    You would think that to get any kind of ruling in the Supreme Court, you would need insurmountable evidence for your argument. Ironic how this ruling is in favor of religion, which has absolutely NO evidence to back up ANY of it’s claims or arguments.

    • Cassandrus

      And what is your support of abortion based on? It makes no evolutionary or scientific sense to kill viable unborn humans.

  • Guest

    Atheists, liberals and gay activists keep whining about not wanting conservatives to meddle with what they do in the bedroom, or to “keep out of their uterus”. Fair enough. Just stop asking us to foot the bill with our taxes if you don’t want us in either of those places.

    • Grazzly

      Stop asking me to foot the tax bill for your wars and tax cuts to millionaires. You scum cratered the economy and now you’ve got the nerve to run your mouths.

      • Guest

        You pay those taxes because you live in the fucking country, moron. Don’t like it? Get out.

    • smh

      Right after ACA gets rid of coverage requirements for some male only medical treatment like prostate cancer, erectile dysfunction and viagra. Also, no abortifacient drug coverage for anyone including the cancer drug methotrexate and and the ulcer drug mifepristone.

  • CPT BRUMBL3Z

    Hobby Lobby’s lawyers called this a First Amendment victory. It is anything but.

    The Constitution is, at its core, written to protect an individual’s rights and freedoms and to ensure equal protection under the law. It is written on purpose to protect the rights of the minority from the majority, the individual from the group, and those without power (read also, authority) from those with. From this foundation, we already see the law favors the employees, as their individual right to their own religious beliefs and to the control of their own health and bodies is theirs and theirs alone, not their employer’s who are only representatives of the company.

    As representatives only, this is the heart of the next point in that a company is a non-living entity and not a person. It may consist of individuals, but it is not an individual itself. It does not hold the same rights because it logically and realistically can’t. Individual religious freedom cannot be used as a defense by an employer because the employer is a ~representative~ of the company, NOT the company itself. This means it is the company that is bearing the burden of health care services, NOT the employer. Again, another check for the employee.

    Not only that, but we ARE discussing a company. A business. By definition, by law, and by choice they are a For Profit entity. They service the general public and hire from the general public. Regardless of what religious interest the owners or employers of the company may hold and may even incorporate into the purpose and mission statement of their company, as a For Profit Entity its core purpose and basic function is earning money through the sale of goods and/or services. As such, exemptions that exist and reasonably so for non-profit entities whose purpose and mission statement may very well be explicitly religious (eg, Churches) cannot and, to ensure accordance to the Constitution, MUST not also extend to an entity whose existence is at its base intended for financial profit above all else. They are now subject to all generally applicable law to ensure equal treatment and protections under said law. Therefor, in matters of religious liberty, the individual employee holds all rights. They are hired explicitly, in exchange for monetary reimbursement, to perform duties and tasks that ensure and enhance profitability of product and service as provided by the company, NOT religious prosletyzation or interests.

    Finally, there is room to argue that this creates precedent towards endorsement of religion as it is religious conviction and belief that the employers have argued is the greatest reason for their protest. Being a for profit company, Hobby Lobby has effectively been given Federal government approval of the company’s owners’ religious interests and has deemed those interests as “more equal” than those of the employees under Hobby Lobby. That is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

    This ruling is dangerous and frightening on two fronts: One, it treats companies (or, as they termed, “Closely Held” companies) as people instead of companies, making them “more equal” than the individual the Constitution explicitly demands protection of. This is a huge example of what Citizens United has done to take away Constitutionally demanded rights of individual persons. Two, it is saying that the group, NOT the individual, holds religious rights and freedoms. The employer is now the one who gets to decide what religious convictions and beliefs must be adhered to for all of their employees, NOT the individual employee for his or herself.

    This is a gross failure of our Supreme Court. Our Constitution has been willfully disregarded.

  • Pingback: The Problem with slavery in the Bible | forgottenportals()

  • Middrn80

    Just a thought…. SO as an Atheist I should be able to “opt out” of the 80 billion a year church subsidies that come out of our taxes. Since it goes against everything I stand for.

  • Middrn80

    Stop the special treatment and just lay out reasonable law EVERYONE can follow.

  • Cassandrus

    I’m completely fine with requiring health insurance to include all form of artificial birth control at no cost. In fact, I think the government should provide them at no cost to all citizens. I would gladly pay more taxes if it went to preventing unwanted pregnancies.
    However, when the government requires people to pay for medicine that kills an unborn child (so-called “morning after pills”), then I find that morally repugnant and unacceptable, even from a purely secular point of view.

    • Cthulhu21

      You can’t really call an egg a child if it hadn’t had time to develop. Eggs are expelled every month ( Ben had already talked to you about that in the thread).

  • Cassandrus

    Hobby Lobby provides 16 different kinds of contraception to their employees — they only object to so-called “birth control” that actually ends an existing pregnancy.

    http://www.becketfund.org/hobbylobby/

    Sad to see so many “rational” atheists believing widespread media misrepresentations / lies about the basic facts of this issue.

    • Cthulhu21

      Yeah, but you can’t really call ejecting an egg ‘ending an existing pregnancy’. It wouldn’t have had time to develop by the time you take them.

  • Pingback: The Problem with slavery in the Bible | Christians Anonymous()

  • pbr90

    Supremes are perfect example of meaningful only as a body, since singly, the opinion of one justice means little or nothing. Only by voting together have they any effect in their rulings, so corporate form recognition comes easily to them, and they idolize the collective power over individual power; this is the first way the Constitution has been coopted to serve the needs of companies, not individuals. But it hasn’t always been that way. Before the industrial age, companies were created to serve individuals…..not individuals made to serve corporations.

  • Craig Baumgart

    While I assume most of the members of AA won’t side with me on this issue, I will put forth my point of view with respect. As an atheist, I believe the separation of church and state is just as important to both sides, both theists and atheists. The SCOTUS ruling was a correct ruling, but for the wrong reasons. The decision has nothing to do with religion. The way I see it, the corporation is not an individual, nor endowed with individual rights. However, the owner’s of the corporations are endowed with individual rights, namely, the right to run a business as they see fit. On the “opposing side”, I see the argument that businesses are then free to exploit their workers. As a believer in civil liberties and freedom of choice, I find this an appalling exaggeration. Granting businesses the freedom to operate without government coercion does not equate to indentured servitude. We as workers still have the right to accept or decline jobs, we still have the freedom to refuse to support a business we disagree with, we still have the right to start our own businesses and operate them in a way that we deem right and just. For those of us who disagree with Hobby Lobby, the decision is simple: Don’t work for Hobby Lobby and don’t patronize Hobby Lobby. Many bring up the complaint that since the US has a majority of Christians, stonewalling won’t work. So be it. Just because you believe something doesn’t mean you can force that belief on the rest of society. —–> But Craig, isn’t that what Hobby Lobby is doing? Not at all. They are not violating anyone’s right to practice what they believe. They are simply running their corporation in a way they see fit. Some corporations provide 3 weeks of vacation, some provide 1 week. I don’t think I (as a person who believes we should take 3 weeks of vacation every year) have the right to tell that corporation they need to provide 3 weeks of vacation. I can choose to work elsewhere and shop elsewhere in protest. The violation is government overreach. I hope that some AA can see my point of view and respect our difference of opinion. As a staunch atheist I see the political fight through a simple lens. Our most important liberty as Atheists is our individual liberty. Our ability to believe, practice, think, and live as we see fit. Any encroachment on that is wrong…..but that goes for both sides. Individual choice above common good. Keep fighting the good fight, AA!

    -Respectfully,
    Craig Baumgart

  • smh

    Corporations don’t simply “have the right to run a business as they see fit”. If they did, children would be slaving away in unsafe factories with no minimum wage. Employees have rights, too. Clearly, working people need to be protected from these insatiable monsters.

Copyright 2013 American Atheists