What Hobby Lobby Decision Means For Religious Liberty, When In Conflict With the Gay Agenda

What Hobby Lobby decision means for the LGBT "community"

 By Jonathan Capehart June 30 at 2:07 PM

Meshuguna Protesting The Hobby Lobby Decision

 What Hobby Lobby Decision Means For Religious Liberty, When In Conflict With the GAY Agenda

Now that we know that some corporations are run by people whose sincerely held religious beliefs must be respected even in their role as the head of corporations, the next logical question is this: Is this good for religious people when dealing with the gays? The short answer is yes and no — for now.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores click to read the decision, the question before the court was whether corporations providing health coverage to their employees could get out of the Obamacare mandate that said policies offer post-contraceptive services the ones objected to were after fertilization because doing so would violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the company’s owners. By a decision of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court said yes.

The decision is limited in scope. The “corporations are run by people, my friend” ruling only applies “closely held corporations” Internal Revenue Service defines them as a company that “has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year.” Adding to the narrowness of the ruling was what Justice Samuel Alito said his decision wasn’t in response to the dissent.

The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example, on the basis of race notice Alito doesn't say sexual orientation, or same sex "wedding" might be cloaked implying there are certain discriminations that are clearly religious as religious practice to escape legal sanction….Our decision today provides no such shield. The government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.

That the majority opinion specifically warned that its opinion does not shield “employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice” is a great thing. And it should be a brake on unscrupulous employers looking to use it to justify their bigotry. But this is where the gays come in. Many folks always seem notice how the Washington Post doesn't seem to think that it's based on religion to invoke their religious beliefs when talking about and expressing their opposition to issues related to abortion or the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) "community". So, it wasn’t a far leap to fear that bosses would try to apply the same rationale to thinning their ranks of gay employees. After all, sexual orientation is not a protected class or characteristic like race is under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nor was it unwise to fear that employers would try to deny LGBT workers coverage for, say, HIV medication or hormone replacement therapy for transgender men and women notice that the washington post wants an employer to pay for this too. Alito was clear on that last point when he wrote that the majority opinion “is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate.” But that’s cold comfort bcause then the goverment can still violate the first amendment to persecute religious people for not helping a same sex "wedding.

One LGBT rights advocate and strategist I spoke with on background immediately after the ruling came down called it a “mixed bag.” While Alito makes it clear what corporations can’t do, there is recognition that that won’t stop companies from overstepping their legal bounds or affected employees from taking them to court. Another was advocate was slightly more optimistic. “The judges obviously were worried about the ‘slippery slope,’ so they drew a firm line between the contraception mandate and what they called ‘illegal discrimination,” said Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, director of social policy and politics at Third Way. “Because they specifically mentioned race but not sexual orientation, I’m sure some folks will still cite this decision in their arguments in favor of "discrimination" meaning the gays are afraid that this court decision can be used to protect religious people from being sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex "wedding" against the LGBT community, but it’ll be a hard legal row to hoe.”

But that’s a long-term worry for Capehart, who wrote this article compared to the millions I think he's slightly exaggerating the number of women who will lose or not get post-contraceptive care through their employer now that corporations are people.
(Washington Post) highlights are our additions

Will Hobby Lobby decision affect business owners who don't want to serve gay weddings in Oregon and Elsewhere?

Monday's Supreme Court decision on contraceptive coverage and religious beliefs could reverberate in the Oregon dispute over business owners who don't want to serve same-sex "weddings".

In its decision, the court ruled in favor of two family-owned businesses, Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby craft stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pa., that objected on religious grounds to the mandated coverage for contraception contained in the new federal health care law.

Christian conservatives who have been watching the case said the decision would help in their effort to battle state actions against businesses in Oregon click to read our previous coverage of a story like this in Oregon that don't want to serve gay "weddings".

However, a spokesman for Labor Commissioner and former state senator Brad Avakian who supported Oregon's non "discrimination" law as a senator. said the decision "did not appear" to affect state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  And Jeana Frazzini, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, also argued that it wouldn't affect "discrimination" cases involving same-sex "marriages".  In short since many liberals can interpret this decision as being in line with their twisted understanding of American Law, so will the liberal justices.

The issue of whether photographers and other wedding-related businesses can refuse to participate in same-sex "nuptials" took center stage in Oregon when state labor investigators charged early this year that Sweet Cakes Bakery in Gresham violated the state's non-discrimination law by refusing to make a cake for a lesbian couple's "wedding".

The bakery case also helped spur the Oregon Family Council to file an initiative that would have allowed individuals and businesses to opt out of serving gay weddings or commitment ceremonies if it violated their religious beliefs.  The group later dropped the initiative but says it is planning a lawsuit challenging the law.

Shawn Lindsay, a former Washington County legislator and council's legal counsel, called the decision "good news for religious freedom advocates" and said it would strengthen their case.

Meanwhile, Beaverton attorney Herb Grey, who represents the owners of Sweet Cakes, said he also planned to cite the Supreme Court decision in his defense of the couple.

Currently, the case is before an administrative law judge who will make a recommendation to Avakian. Grey said he has filed a motion asking that Avakian be disqualified from decided the case, saying he had made public statements suggesting the owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, had violated the law.

Charlie Burr, Avakian's spokesman, said in a statement that he wouldn't comment on a pending motion, but added:

"Commissioner Avakian takes his role as a quasi-judicial decision maker seriously. We "weigh" each case on its unique "merits". As you know, our agency has found no substantial evidence in the vast majority of Oregon "Equality" Act complaints filed with our agency."

Burr also said Monday's decision "does not appear to have any impact on our ability to protect people from "discrimination" on the job because of sexual "orientation" or gender "identity"."

Frazzini agreed, pointing to language in the decision saying that it does not "provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal racial discrimination as a religious practice."

Grey argued that the decision spoke directly to family-owned businesses involving owners who have sincere religious objections to taking part in a particular activity.
-- Jeff Mapes
(oregonlive) highlights our additions

• It's for that last reason that Mark Joseph Stern at Slate thinks the ruling was "surprisingly good for gays." Many had feared that a pro-Hobby Lobby ruling would allow corporations to, say, fire gay workers on religious grounds. But Justice Alito's majority opinion specifically said that the ruling could not be used to shield "discrimination in hiring notice they keep missing the based on race" as a "religious practice to escape legal sanction," and Anthony Kennedy the most powerful man in the country "clarified" in his separate opinion that this included anti-gay discrimination. this later part is why this will only be a slight stall in the Gayization of America

(newser) highlights our additions


In short I think this new decision will only be a slight stall to continuous process of destructing this once great republic