Addicting Info – So Much For Hobby Lobby: Wal-Mart Wins Right To Suppress Christian Shareholders (VIDEO)

Back in 2012, the Wal-Mart corporation made CNN’s list of the top 9 “religious companies” in America. According to Lake Lambert III, who wrote the book on the subject of religious corporations, called “Spirituality Inc.,” the Walton family claims that “Christian servant leadership models” were used to build the company from the ground up.

According to the right wing Bible, a corporation’s one and only responsibility is to its shareholders. But what happens when Christian shareholders sue the supposedly “religious corporation” of Wal-Mart, in hopes of swaying the corporation away from decisions which they believe “offend family and community values”?
Wal-Mart fights them all to federal court, and wins.

In February of 2013, a group of 30 law professors joined Trinity church in a suit against the company. The church wanted shareholders to have the right to vote on whether the company should sell products that “might endanger public safety, hurt Wal-Mart’s reputation, or offend “family and community values” which they believe are “integral to Wal-Mart’s brand”.


Wal-Mart responded by claiming that shareholders have no right to participate in such decisions.

[,,,]

The court’s decision in this case contradicts the Hobby Lobby decision on every level. A corporation, in and of itself, cannot have a ‘sincerely held religious belief’ about anything. A corporation is nothing but a piece of paper. The ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ of a corporation are defined by the human beings that own it, in other words, a majority of the shareholders.

According to the Trinity v Wal-Mart decision, however, the religious beliefs of shareholders are of no consequence.

In light of Hobby Lobby, this ruling makes no sense. If shareholders, the actual owners of corporations, don’t have the right to define the religious beliefs of a corporation, who does?

Addicting Info – So Much For Hobby Lobby: Wal-Mart Wins Right To Suppress Christian Shareholders (VIDEO)

Hobby Lobby Part II Is Barreling Towards The Supreme Court | ThinkProgress

In other ACA news, we have the fall-out of Wheaton College v. Burwell, or a perfect example of moving the goal-posts:

Nevertheless, some employers, including the employers who sought out Wednesday’s order from Alito, remain opposed even to this accommodation. Because sending the letter will set in motion a chain of events that may lead to someone using contraception, conservative “religious liberty” groups have taken the position that sending the letter would make employers “complicit” in the act of providing birth control.

Thus far, the lower courts have not been particularly sympathetic to this argument. As the Third Circuit wrote in the decision temporarily stayed by Alito, “[f]ederal law, not the religious organization’s signing and mailing the form, requires health-care insurers, along with third-party administrators of self-insured plans, to cover contraceptive services.” Thus, the plaintiffs’ “real objection” isn’t to sending a form or letter to the federal government; it is to “what happens after the form is provided—that is, to the actions of the insurance issuers and the third-party administrators, required by law, once the [plaintiffs] give notice of their objection.” Federal law does not grant these plaintiffs “a religious veto against plan providers’ compliance with those regulations, nor the right to enlist the government to effectuate such a religious veto against legally required conduct of third parties.”

Nevertheless, Alito’s order is a warning that this issue will not remain in the lower courts forever. Indeed, the Third Circuit case provides the Supreme Court with a vehicle that it could use as soon as next fall to consider whether the send-the-letter or the fill-out-the-form options will survive contact with the justices, or whether federal law does, indeed, give religious employers “the right to enlist the government to effectuate . . . a religious veto against legally required conduct of third parties.”

Hobby Lobby Part II Is Barreling Towards The Supreme Court | ThinkProgress

Americans United Fights In Federal Court For Student And Staff Access To Contraceptives At Notre Dame | Americans United

“The court asked some tough questions and is clearly giving this a very in-depth look,” said Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, who argued the case. “We hope they agree with our position that the federal government had very compelling reasons to ensure women’s access to contraceptive benefits, and that it has sought to provide that access while showing great sensitivity to religious objections and concerns.”

The dispute in University of Notre Dame v. Burwell centers on a regulation issued under the Affordable Care Act permitting religious nonprofits to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage to employees and students by notifying either their insurance company or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of their religious objection. If a non-profit opts out, federal law requires that their insurance company then separately make contraceptive coverage available to affected employees and students at no cost to, and without further involvement by, the non-profit.

The 7th Circuit Court ruled 2-1 in February 2014 that the regulation does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But Americans United, which intervened in the case on behalf of three Notre Dame students, was back before the appeals court today because the Supreme Court in March ordered the lower court to review its decision in light of Hobby Lobby.

Americans United has argued that no federal appeals court has accepted Notre Dame’s argument – either before or since the Hobby Lobby decision. The students just want to ensure that they have access to contraceptives, which they cannot afford to purchase on their own.

Americans United Fights In Federal Court For Student And Staff Access To Contraceptives At Notre Dame | Americans United

Anti-Choicers in Colorado Push to Protect the Not-Yet-Conceived | Political Research Associates

Fucking Hobby Lobby ruling is rearing its ugly head once again!!

Last November, Colorado voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have defined personhood as inclusive of fetuses. This victory for reproductive rights, however, was won amid a slew of attacks on Coloradans’ reproductive freedom. Now, many of Colorado’s Republican lawmakers, armed with shoddy science, are pushing an agenda that prioritizes not only the not-yet-born, but the not-yet-conceived.

These lawmakers are working to ensure the demise of the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, a program focused on reducing rates of unintended pregnancy, particularly among teens and younger adults. The program makes long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), such as intrauterine devices (IUDs), available at low or no cost to Colorado residents otherwise unable to afford such methods. IUDs and implants are highly effective, and because they last several years, they can be more practical for people unable to easily access a clinic to obtain short-term contraceptives such as birth control pills. However, the upfront cost of an IUD—ranging from $500 to well over $1000—is often prohibitive, and many on the Right want to keep it that way.

With help from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which furnished the state with a grant to the tune of approximately $25 million, Colorado has been able to defray the costs of more than 30,000 LARCs for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured people who can become pregnant. But the pilot period funded by the grant is coming to a close, and the grant is not being renewed, leaving the program’s fate uncertain. State Representative K.C. Becker (D-Boulder) has introduced a bill that would provide $5 million in state funding for the program, but the legislation—which enjoys Republican co-sponsorship—faces strong opposition from certain Republican lawmakers. Senator Kevin Lundberg (R-Berthoud), for instance, erroneously claims that IUDs are abortifacients, which, under current state laws, would make them ineligible for state funding except in cases involving life endangerment, rape, or incest.

Lundberg and his allies are propelled by post-Hobby Lobby v. Burwell momentum. In January, Hobby Lobby served as precedent for a federal judge to approve requests from three Colorado companies wanting to circumvent the Affordable Care Act by offering employee health plans without coverage for sterilization or contraceptives. They also have substantial backing from right-wing organizations, including Focus on the Family (headquartered in Colorado Springs), Colorado Right to Life, and Personhood USA.

Anti-Choicers in Colorado Push to Protect the Not-Yet-Conceived | Political Research Associates

Okla. school district rejects Hobby Lobby bible class - Freedom From Religion Foundation

My initial post concerning this debacle is http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-good-book-taught-badly-okla-school.html here,,,

Mustang Public Schools is canceling plans to conduct a bible course developed by Hobby Lobby President Steve Green, a zealous evangelical Christian advocate.

The district's announcement came in response to a follow-up open records request to the Oklahoma school district from FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel, in conjunction with Americans United Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Lipper, ACLU of Oklahoma Legal Director Brady Henderson and Daniel Mach of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
,,,
"In summary, the topic of a Bible course in the Mustang School District is no longer a discussion item nor is there a plan to provide such a course in the foreseeable future," wrote Superintendent Sean McDaniel in his emailed response.

FFRF led the charge against the proposed class in April when the Mustang school board voted to approve Green's curriculum. FFRF pointed out numerous flaws with the course, entitled "The Book, the Bible's History, Narrative and Impact of the World's Best-selling Book." The course in the Mustang school district was to be the first in what Green intended to be implemented in school districts around the country. Americans United and ACLU later also wrote letters, and teamed up with FFRF for the most recent open records request.

McDaniel said two "non-negotiables" the school had requested from Hobby Lobby were not met, namely that the district be permitted to review the final curriculum before introducing it, and that Hobby Lobby commit to providing legal coverage to the district.

FFRF's concern from the beginning was that Green and his staff were using the Mustang School District for their own ends, persuading it to adopt an unconstitutional curriculum for which the Mustang taxpayers, not Green, would ultimately pay the court costs for the inevitable court battle.

Okla. school district rejects Hobby Lobby bible class - Freedom From Religion Foundation

‘Sovereign citizen’ claims deeply held Christian belief that tax laws don’t apply to him

Attorneys for an Oregon “sovereign citizen” couple hope to convince jurors their clients acted in “good faith” when they stopped paying taxes 20 years ago.

Ronald and Dorothea Joling owe $1.1 million in back taxes and associated interest in penalties after they stopped paying federal taxes in 1994, reported The Register-Guard.

Attorney Mark Weintraub argued that Ronald Joling has a deeply held belief that he is not required to pay federal taxes, which he claims was influenced by his conservative Christian views and teachings he’s picked up from the sovereign citizen movement.

Weintraub admitted to jurors that he finds those beliefs “totally wrong and unreasonable,” but he asked the jury to acquit him on tax evasion charges if they believe the 71-year-old did not willingly break the law.

The defense attorney said Joling’s “very conservative Christian” beliefs influenced his views on government and taxes, the newspaper reported.

Joling, an ordained minister and pastor of the Hope Covenant Reformed Church in Coquille, later concluded the constitutional amendment establishing federal income taxes was invalid.

That’s a common teaching among the anti-government sovereign citizens movement, and Weintraub said his client was advised by other adherents to declare himself and his wife were no longer U.S. citizens to avoid taxes and other legal requirements.

“They were wrong,” Weintraub said. “But they didn’t just make this up on their own.”

‘Sovereign citizen’ claims deeply held Christian belief that tax laws don’t apply to him

Administration offers new tweak to birth control rule - The Washington Post

So just how asinine are the objections to the ACA becoming,,,

First we had Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius who claimed that being required to fill out a short form violates their religious liberty. The court ruled, "[t]o meet the condition for injunction pending appeal, applicants need not use the form prescribed by the Government and need not send copies to third-party administrators."

Next was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling which not only dismantled United States v. Lee (1982) - an employer cannot impose their religious beliefs on their employees - but added confusion by stating,

In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage,,, Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government's aims,,,

In short, fill out a form, you know the one they told the Little Sister they didn't have to use. Yea, OK, that will work,,,for 5 days.

The kicker in all this, Wheaton College v. Burwell where the Court once again reversed course and granted a temporary exemption from the requirement that they fill out the form. [As an aside: Wheaton basically argued, as did the Little Sisters, that filling out the form itself is a violation of their religious liberty. But as some have pointed out Wheaton objects to the "work-around" itself as their health plan would still be required to provide contraceptive coverage and it doesn't want that to happen even though it doesn't have to pay for it.]

That brings us to where we stand today,,,

The new federal guidelines address a set of ongoing legal challenges to the contraceptive requirement raised by dozens of religious nonprofit groups, such as hospitals and charities, that could again put the contraception mandate before the Supreme Court. The religious nonprofits are challenging the administration's already existing opt-out, in which the groups can ask a third party to provide the contraception coverage to their employees. However, the nonprofits say that filling out the form notifying the third party violates their religious beliefs.

The nonprofits can now directly inform the Department of Health and Human Services of their religious objections. HHS and the Labor Department will then coordinate contraception coverage with insurers and third party administrators. The nonprofits still have the option to notify a third party directly.

Which boils down to this, Hobby Lobby is appeased as is Wheaton College.  BUT,,,

Several of the country’s biggest faith groups on Friday said the revised rule was still problematic because it didn’t fully exempt organizations – for-profit or non-profit – with religious objections.

"Here we go again,” said Russell Moore, president of the policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest U.S. Protestant denomination. “What we see here is another revised attempt to settle issues of religious conscience with accounting maneuvers. This new policy doesn't get at the primary problem.”-

Now the religionist want to move the goalpost yet again by claiming that they cannot take ANY action that will set in motion a chain of events that leads to someone receiving contraception, as doing so would make them complicit in the act of providing birth control.

Sorry to say but this debacle is no longer about the ACA or the birth control mandate. It goes much deeper and many fail to see where this is leading:

If you can be exempt from an insurance law that is supposed to bring medical care to everyone, why not just ask to be exempt (as some of these groups have) from pay equity statutes, from civil rights laws (effecting lesbian and gay Americans)? There is no stopping this once you go down this slope of exemptions based on religious claims for FOR PROFIT COMPANIES.

Administration offers new tweak to birth control rule - The Washington Post

Religious liberty belongs to everyone, not just the religious right | TheHill

These attacks on religious liberty involve conservative academics, pundits, politicians, and a variety of Religious Right organizations. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has provided legal counsel for the Hobby Lobby case, and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly Alliance Defense Fund) is one of the architects of the bills in Arizona, Mississippi, and other states. ADF attempts to soft-peddle their radical redefinition of religious freedom as a defense of the conservative religious beliefs of business owners, who are legally barred from discriminating against LGBTQ or other customers to whom they might object—or what ADF calls “coercing [them] to violate their sincerely held beliefs.” The Religious Right’s campaign to redefine religious liberty was conceived and designed as a back door to limit the reach of marriage equality, employment non-discrimination laws, and Roe v. Wade. However, their Orwellian inversion of the meaning of constitutionally protected religious freedom more broadly threatens the rights of individuals and communities. Once codified, exemptions to laws can beget more exemptions.

If corporations enjoy exemptions from federal laws in the name of religious freedom, the rest of us may be compelled to cede our personal liberty to the views and whims of our employers—forcing us to choose between our livelihoods and our consciences.

[,,,]
The Becket Fund, ADF, and many other leaders of the religious right portray themselves as avatars of religious liberty and faithful adherents to the original intentions of the Framers. But despite their rhetoric, the battle for the meaning of religious liberty is not between Christianity and secularism but between pluralism and authoritarianism. However strong their convictions may be, the Religious Right leaders’ campaign is less about religious liberty than winning the government-backed right to impose their religious beliefs on others. The Framers called that tyranny.

Religious liberty belongs to everyone, not just the religious right | TheHill

UPDATE::Hobby Lobby's Green family postpones launch of public school Bible curriculum | Religion News Service

I first posted about the Green's desire to implement a four year public school Bible curriculum back in late April. Both the FFRF and the TFNEF (Texas Freedom Network Education Fund) have panned said curriculum.

Both FFRF and TFNEF comment that FFRF noted that the course material shows a clear Christian bias, treat the bible as historically accurate and true in all respects and make theological claims. Chancey noting that there is a clear sectarian view favored by fundamentalist Protestants.

So it comes as no surprise that Green et al "announced it was postponing the August introduction of the curriculum adopted by the Mustang, Okla., school district."

“We have operated on an aggressive timeline to deliver the curriculum for the upcoming school year,” wrote Jerry Pattengale, editor for the projected four-year high school syllabus, in a prepared statement. But “unforeseen delays” necessitated postponing the debut until January.

Pattengale, who has previously said he hoped to see the full curriculum introduced in thousands of schools by 2016, wrote: “We will continue to work with Mustang and other school districts that have shown interest” in the program.

Hobby Lobby's Green family postpones launch of public school Bible curriculum | Religion News Service

See also: 

The (First) 7 Problems with the Hobby Lobby Bible Curriculum

Christian Baker Ordered to Bake Cakes for Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ Files Appeal | Christian News Network

Remember this post where Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera were gloating about what Hobby Lobby was really about? Well it appears that Jack Phillips or should I say Alliance Defending Freedom is ready to argue that state laws do not apply to Christians when Christians disagree with said state law, "[i]n May, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld Spencer’s ruling, stating that Phillips violated the state’s civil rights law."

It is just this issue that Barry Lynne of Americans United for Separation of Church and State was concerned about in regards to the Hobby Lobby case. Lynn stated that the primary concern is contraceptive coverage under the ACA; but the agenda of the Religious Right is the right to opt out of ANY federal or state law(s) they do not like because of actual or alleged violation of THEIR religious principles.

As with Elane Photography (also represented by ADF), Phillips is going to argue that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's ruling violates his First Amendment rights by compelling him to engage in "speech" he doesn't believe in. This is the tactic ADF hopes to use, a "conservative social agenda in terms of protecting religious freedom instead of enforcing “family values — a subtle but profound shift in the culture war that deliberately moves the religious right from offense to defense for the first time in decades."

With that said, all the legal mumbo jumbo aside, Phillips and the ADF are still blatantly asking to be allowed to break a law because they are special. They are asking for a special privilege because they are religionists. Even if one where to take religion out of it, they are still wanting to break the law.

"The anti-gay, anti-freedom to marry crowd, having largely lost the argument on gay people and on marriage, are resorting to a distraction argument that is aimed at tearing a hole in the longstanding protections we have in this country against public accommodation discrimination,” said Evan Wolfson, head of the pro-LGBT rights group Freedom to Marry. “Their quarrel is not really just with marriage, it’s with the whole idea of non-discrimination law that we’ve fought hard for over decades through many difficult chapters of American history.”

Entering the commercial marketplace means having to abide by its rules against discrimination. In other words, you can not offer a "limited menu" based on your preference(s). If you open a business, ALL services must be available to ALL consumers. It falls under the general purview of the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Adam Serwer, in his piece cited above, sums up quite well the precedent opened by the Hobby Lobby case and the agenda behind it, "Cases like these aren’t just about legal precedents, they’re about shaping how society decides which freedom it wants to protect with the force of the law—the right not to be discriminated against, or the right of individual entities to decide whom they want to serve and how."

Christian Baker Ordered to Bake Cakes for Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ Files Appeal | Christian News Network

For those of you who say apathetically that both parties are the same, I beg to differ

"When one provokes in a child a fear of the dark, one awakens in him a feeling of atavistic dread. Thus this child will be ruled all his life by this dread, whereas another child, who has been intelligently brought up, will be free of it."

Adolf Hitler,  "Table Talk" discussions on the night of July 11-12, 1941, p. 12

__

I've been thinking about what I wrote above concerning the SCOTUS decision - regarding Hobby Lobby - being a Reich wet dream and the possibility that their grand scheme may backfire.  I really didn't pull those ideas out of my ass, others have been pondering this thought as well.  Just maybe not in the same colorful language.

When one looks at the decision rendered by SCOTUS it has to be through the lens of the Reich's overall agenda -  starting with a "reformed" interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause or an outright repeal of the First Amendment,  continuing with the abolition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ending with the implementation of dominionist ideology in order to govern by theocratic control.  With the ruling in Hobby Lobby, the Reich will "now" be able to exempt themselves from any laws that they don’t like; that they find “religiously objectionable.” 

Now here's where it gets a bit tricky.  I have more or less insinuated on various occasions that nothing done within the ranks of the Reich are individually motivated. Green's personally held religious convictions no matter how "sincere" they may be, have an agenda attached.  That agenda, "Hobby Lobby-related entities are some of the biggest sources of funding to the National Christian Charitable Foundation." 

According to Eli Clifton, the National Christian Charitable Foundation then funds "a range of causes including climate science denial, charter schools, free market and pro-life advocacy."  One of their biggest grant recipients,  Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the bulwarks behind Arizona's failed SB 1062 legislation. And their mission, "'[making] certain that governmental laws cannot force people to violate their faith unless it has a compelling governmental interest–a balancing of interests that has been in federal law since 1993.'”

So what does this have to do with Hobby Lobby and the Reich's agenda.  First Steve Green has a personal agenda.  One I have highlighted before.

That’s our goal, so that we can reintroduce this book to this nation. This nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught,,, Someday, I would argue, it should be mandated.  (Starting about the 4:28 mark)

Book? Mandate?  WTF you talking 'bout?

For those unaware, one of the goals of Mr. Steve "Hobby Lobby" Green,  is to have a 4 year Bible curriculum, that they (the Green Scholars Initiative) write, be mandated in all public schools.  Currently, the Mustang School Board (OK) approved Green's curriculum although it is still in draft.

I won't harp too much on the obvious (besides the legalities) but is this the "re-education" that Richard Mourdock, Tony Perkins, Austin Miles  and Rick Santorum are talking about?  In my mind, this curriculum is the gateway to theocratic rule with "its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest.

As Leah Burton explains, "This notion of having to 'reclaim' something that they truly believe they lost is pervasive. In order to understand that they must convince you that we always were a Christian Nation and now it must be reclaimed by them in order to save our country from moral decline."

And what better way to indoctrinate the notion of Christian Nation ideology, "Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world."  Sound familiar?  It should, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Steve Green said that, "We're working on 4 year public school bible curriculum.  The first year will be a summary of all three of those section. It's history, it's impact and it's story.  Then the next 3 years is going in depth in each of those -- a year for the history, a year for the impact and a year for the story -- in some order,,,."

“We're working on 4 year public school bible curriculum.  The first year will be a summary of all three of those section. It's history, it's impact and it's story.  Then the next 3 years is going in depth in each of those - a year for the history, a year for the impact and a year for the story - in some order,,, The nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught,,, If we don’t know it, our future is going to be very scary,,, we really want to get,,, be into the,,, high school level because we want to reach as many as possible.  Someday, I would argue, it should be mandated.  Here's a book that's impacted our world, unlike any other, and you're not gonna teach it? There's,,, something wrong with that."

We all are well aware that there is a slippery-slope in regards to the decision in favor of Hobby Lobby's demands.  Many writers are taking the high road of optimism.  I on the other hand, I see things getting more tumultuous  before they get better.  And this is where the Reich's agenda comes into play (keeping in mind Green's Bible curriculum takes care of the implementation of the dominionist/theocratic ideology) . From Clifton's article cited above,

'Individuals and entities with religious objections to certain laws that protect others are seeking to use their religion to trump others,' Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told Salon.
,,,
Center for Arizona Policy president Cathi Herrod heralded the Hobby Lobby lawsuit as a rare example of a 'business willing to step out in faith and literally risk it all to hold fast to their faith,,,'

Clifton then goes on to discuss how Green/Hobby Lobby is the poster child of the Reich by outlining some recent cases.  Cases that where funded by or through the National Christian Charitable Foundation:  McCullen v. Coakley, Elane Photography v. Willock, and the various "religious liberty" bills similar to SB 1062 that appeared in 13 other states.

Think of that as our starting point, testing the water of the SCOTUS if you will.

Remember what I said about the First Amendment?  Here is what the Hobby Lobby ruling has done by placing too much emphasis on the phrase "closely held."

The corporate plaintiffs' argument that they enjoy free exercise rights under the First Amendment and RFRA is in conflict with the text, history, and purpose of the First Amendment's free exercise guarantee. Amicus submits this brief to demonstrate that throughout our nation's history, corporations have been treated differently than individuals when it comes to fundamental, personal rights of conscience and human dignity. The First Amendment's free exercise guarantee has always been viewed as a purely personal liberty, guaranteeing the right of individuals to worship and exercise religion consistent with the dictates of their conscience. It has never been considered a right possessed by secular, for-profit corporations. Indeed, in the more than 200 years since the First Amendment's ratification, this Court has never held that secular, for-profit corporations may assert rights under the Free Exercise Clause. 
,,,
The Hobby Lobby case, of course, deals in part with the question whether the federal [Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)] was or is intended to benefit the owners of large, for-profit, nonreligious corporations. Hobby Lobby's interpretation that it does would open the floodgates to exempt every business owner in the United States from the anti-discrimination laws, because there is no real middle ground. The forces behind Hobby Lobby have tried to argue that the Court should hold for Hobby Lobby because it is "closely held," but that would not limit the holding to a few instances, because over 90% of corporations are "closely held." If the Court sides with Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, it will open the Pandora's box of corporate law.

As for civil right, please consider this in regards to the LGBTI community:

The Associated Press reported this weekend that social conservatives believe they have an opening to bring the state's religious freedom bill back in 2015. The legislation failed this spring; it passed the House, but stalled in the Senate after significant backlash from business groups. It would have prevented businesses from being sued if they refused to serve LGBT people for religious reasons.

"We are not going to let it die. We are very committed," Rev. Terry Fox, a leading Southern Baptist minister, told the AP. "The Body of Christ is a powerful movement when it comes together."

Gay rights advocates and social conservatives alike had watched the Hobby Lobby case to see how it might influence their cause. The Court's decision was decidedly narrow in its language, and some legal experts pointed TPM to Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion in the case as evidence that he would not support discrimination against LGBT people on religious freedom grounds.

But others warned on the day of the ruling that conservatives would likely take Hobby Lobby's win as their chance to resuscitate religious freedom legislation.

"The opinion really doesn't really resolve the question of whether for-profit businesses can seek religious exemptions from anti-discrimination law," Douglas NeJaime, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine, told TPM. "If I'm one of those groups, I'm going to pursue this."

Or this in regards to women:

At a time when women make up more than half of the workforce, the ruling also further denies women equal rights in the workplace. “By setting women’s reproductive health care apart from all other forms of health care the Roberts’ Court has legally enshrined a new kind of gender-based inequality where only women are specifically subject to interference from their employer when it comes to personal medical choices,” continued Cotler. “We hope that the President will explore ways to ensure that women who will otherwise be denied reproductive health care by their employers are not left without coverage.” 

And what about an individual employee's religious beliefs:

The First Amendment's establishment clause prevents the government from requiring people to bear the burden of religions to which they do not belong and whose teachings they do not practice. To be sure, the U.S. government should accommodate religious beliefs and practices but only when doing so does not impose significant burdens on others. We accommodate, for example, those who object for religious reasons to sending their children to public school; no one is hurt if these families opt for a private school or home-schooling.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court consistently has condemned government accommodations that shift the cost of practicing a religion from those who believe it to others who don't. For example, the court struck down a state law that gave employees an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath because of the burden it imposed on others. If most employees were Christian and took Sunday off, the statute would have forced the remaining, non-Christian employees to work every Sunday. This, the court said, violated the establishment clause: "The First Amendment ... gives no one the right to insist that in pursuit of their own interests, others must conform their conduct to his own religious necessities."

If the court grants these businesses the religious exemption they seek, it essentially would be directing the women who work for these businesses to bear the cost of the owners' anti-contraception religion.

And for shits-and-giggles, consider this bizarre case that is pending in regards to individual employee's religious beliefs:

To explain, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby did more than simply allow religious business owners to ignore a federal rule requiring them to include contraception coverage in their employees’ health plans. It tore down decades of law protecting workers from bosses who, in the words of one Supreme Court decision, would “impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.” Prior to Hobby Lobby, that same Court decision held that “[w]hen followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” Today, that is no longer the case.
,,,
Should Eden Foods prevail, however, it could shatter what may be the most fundamental assumption of any law protecting the free exercise of religion — religious exercise laws protect religious exercise, they don’t protect the right of an anti-government CEO to make a federal case out of every single thing the government does that he disagrees with.

Don't be lulled into believing that this "concern" for your religious liberty is mere coincidence.  This is a well thought out and implemented plan beginning with the take-over of the GOP in the 1990s by the Religious Right:

The formula they've concocted has been called the "15 per cent solution" by the Christian Coalition. Even in a well attended presidential election, only 15 per cent of eligible voters determine the outcome,,, "We don't have to worry about convincing a majority of Americans to agree with us," Guy Rodgers, the Christian Coalition's national field director declared at the 1991 Road to Victory conference. Most of them are staying home and watching Falcon Crest."

,,, "What the Christian right spends a lot of time doing," says Marc Wolin, a moderate Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress from San Francisco last year, "is going after obscure party posts. They try to control the party apparatus in each county. We have a lot to fear from these people. They want to set up a theocracy in America."

"They have acquired a very detailed and accurate understanding of how political parties are organized," says Craig Berkman, former chairman of the Republican Party in Oregon:

Parties are very susceptible to being taken over by ideologues because lower party offices have no appeal to the vast majority of our citizenry. Many precincts are represented by no one. If you decide all of a sudden because it's your Christian duty to become a precinct representative, you only need a few votes to get elected. Increasingly, they have the key say so on who will be a delegate at the national convention, and who will write the party platform and nominate the presidential candidate,,,

And if that candidate wins, guess what?  We have a SCOTUS filled with the likes of Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts.

Not a single justice appointed by either President Bill Clinton or President Barack Obama sided with Hobby Lobby. It was indeed only the justices appointed by socially conservative presidents who voted to keep women trapped in a bygone era. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, because both sides of the aisle have been saying for the last few election cycles how important it is with our aging Supremes to have someone in the position to nominate justices of an ideological bent they agree with, and the proof of that concept is in Citizens United, McCutcheon v. FEC, and now the Hobby Lobby case. These narrow decisions will have a lasting impact on American society, and they are decisions made by men who have not been in power for decades in some cases, a half decade in one case.

So for those of you who say apathetically that both parties are the same, I beg to differ.  For those that say your vote doesn't count, yes it does; even if it is not for your ideal candidate.

Local clergy hand out condoms at Aurora Hobby Lobby store - DailyHerald.com

Winters said his purpose was threefold.

He said he hoped people who happened upon the demonstration would walk away with an understanding that Christians have a wide variety of opinions regarding birth control.

In addition, he hoped it would get people to question whether the court ruling was fair to the religious freedom of Hobby Lobby employees who have beliefs differing from their employer.

"You can make the religious freedom argument, you can make the argument about contraception, but ultimately, for me, this is about power," he said.

Questioning the use of power, he said, was the third reason he organized the protest.

"Jesus had a lot of issue with powerful people using power over the powerless," he said.

The issue of power was also the primary reason Rev. Emmy Lou Belcher, a recently retired minister of the DuPage Unitarian Universalist Church in Naperville, agreed to attend the demonstration.

"We are all in this together and the point is to work things out together (in a way) that allows people a way to exercise their own beliefs," she said. "The health care law is meant to cover a diverse society ... so people aren't excluded. What this has done is exclude."

Local clergy hand out condoms at Aurora Hobby Lobby store - DailyHerald.com

Bend the Arc: SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Decision Chips Away at Women’s Rights, Undermines Religious Liberty | Bend the Arc

A very interesting point to consider,,,

“This decision plays into the false and insidious narrative that religious liberty is a battle between religious people and the so-called godless,” said Stosh Cotler, CEO of Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice. “The Jewish community—and the other faith groups who signed onto the amicus brief—are evidence that that narrative is in fact false. What the Roberts court has left us with is a system in which a corporation can claim a religious belief that has power and rights beyond an individual’s. It’s a dangerous precedent, especially for America’s religious minorities and people of no religious tradition.”

The brief cited America’s religious diversity as one of many reasons that private for-profit employers should not have the right to impose their religious convictions on their staff. Less than half (48%) of Americans identify as Protestant, and less than a quarter (22%) identify as Catholic; six percent identify as Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, or another faith, and nearly one in five (19.6%) do not affiliate with any religion. Workplaces are particularly diverse places, with approximately half of American workers having contact with people from different beliefs and identities at the workplace.

At a time when women make up more than half of the workforce, the ruling also further denies women equal rights in the workplace. “By setting women’s reproductive health care apart from all other forms of health care the Roberts’ Court has legally enshrined a new kind of gender-based inequality where only women are specifically subject to interference from their employer when it comes to personal medical choices,” continued Cotler. “We hope that the President will explore ways to ensure that women who will otherwise be denied reproductive health care by their employers are not left without coverage.”


Bend the Arc: SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Decision Chips Away at Women’s Rights, Undermines Religious Liberty | Bend the Arc

Anti-Gay Activists Hopeful Hobby Lobby Will Lead To License To Discriminate | Right Wing Watch

And it starts.

As I suspected when this case first hit, the real motivation comes forth. Nothing the Reich does is "individually" motivated (this is not about the Green's personally held religious convictions) and as I have posted before, it centers around a point made by Michael Meyerson in writing about Newland v. Sebilius.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that religious organizations have the power to decide for themselves, free from governmental interference, matters of internal discipline and governance. Thus, the courts are barred from stepping in to settle a dispute over which of two religious factions is the rightful owner of particular church property. Judges may not question a church's interpretation of its own internal documents.

If such rights were extended to for-profit corporations, much of modern corporate law would have to be discarded. By describing their internal structure as one of a religious hierarchy, those running a corporation could engage in all manner of manipulation free from the fear of governmental oversight or judicial review. Many private employees would be vulnerable, for the first time since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to discriminatory treatment due to the religious preferences of their employers.

The special protection that is given to religious organizations so that they are free to perform their religious functions cannot logically or properly be ripped from its rightful context and applied to secular, for-profit corporations.

In other words, the Reich will "now" be able to exempt themselves from any laws that they don’t like; that they find “religiously’ objectionable.” In Peter LaBarbera's own words, "LGBT Left has been winning in the courts, but now we have hope that SCOTUS will honor small biz conscience exemptions on homosexuality."

Regretfully I do not share in the optimism of Dylan Scott over at TPM:

While the company Hobby Lobby triumphed at the U.S. Supreme Court in challenging Obamacare's contraceptive mandate on Monday, the Court does not seem to have flung opened the floodgates for anti-LGBT discrimination as some had feared it might. 
,,,
Based on initial readings of the Hobby Lobby decision, LGBT advocates seemed to have dodged a bullet. The Court's ruling, written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, is explicitly narrow in effect. But some advocates worry that those pushing anti-LGBT bills will see an opening to introduce new bills and file new lawsuits to legitimize discrimination. Whether they'd win, though, is much less clear.
,,,
"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs," Alito asserted. "Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice." 

Anti-Gay Activists Hopeful Hobby Lobby Will Lead To License To Discriminate | Right Wing Watch

REPOST::Stop calling Hobby Lobby a Christian business - The Week

Finally someone gets it and isn't afraid to say it,,,

"We're Christians," Hobby Lobby's president Steve Green proclaims, "and we run our business on Christian principles."

That is music to the ears of many conservative Christians, who rallied around Hobby Lobby when the retail chain argued at the Supreme Court that ObamaCare's contraception mandate unlawfully burdened their religious beliefs. But a closer look at Hobby Lobby's actual business practices reveals this claim to be as hollow as a flute. Turn over just about any trinket in a Hobby Lobby store and you'll find a gold oval stamped with "Made in China," a country that is one of the worst offenders of human dignity, unborn infant life, and economic justice anywhere in the world.

As such, those shiny stickers littering every Hobby Lobby from sea to shining sea are more than a statement about a product's geographical origin; they are also a stinging indictment against the way the retailer has sought to label itself.

[,,,]
Now, of course, a huge number of American companies outsource labor to China, and thus help prop up this shameful status quo. But very few of these American companies simultaneously trumpet themselves as "Christian businesses," arguing in court that providing employees with health insurance covering contraceptives violates their religious beliefs. How can this ObamaCare mandate be so foul to Hobby Lobby executives, while they say very little about Chinese policies forcing women to have abortions against their wills? Is abortion wrong only when the terminated life is American?

The most glaring inconsistency between Hobby Lobby's ethical proclamations and its business decisions concerns the matter of religious liberty. The craft store chain is hailed by conservatives as standing up to Uncle Sam and fighting for religious freedom. Yet Hobby Lobby imports billions of dollars worth of bric-a-brac from a nation that denies 1.35 billion citizens freedom of worship.

If Hobby Lobby was concerned with religious freedoms — not just those of conservative American Christians — it would quit doing business in China.

Stop calling Hobby Lobby a Christian business - The Week

TFNEF Report: Bible Curriculum Backed by Hobby Lobby President Would Lead to Preaching, Not Teaching, in Public Schools | TFN Insider

Hobby Lobby’s president Steve Green has sponsored the development of a new Bible curriculum, The Book: The Bible’s History, Narrative and Impact, that he reportedly hopes thousands of public schools will adopt. The curriculum will be published by Museum of the Bible, a nonprofit organization created by Green to guide the development of a museum that will house his extensive personal collection of Bible-related manuscripts and artifacts. In mid-April the school board of Mustang, located six miles from Hobby Lobby’s Oklahoma City corporate headquarters, announced that it would teach a pilot version of the course beginning in the fall of 2014.

Today, a new TFN Education Fund report authored by Mark Chancey, a professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University, finds that the curriculum’s combination of a religious purpose, pervading sectarian bias and frequent factual errors demonstrates that this curriculum has a long way to go before being appropriate for a public school classroom.

[,,,]
Chancey’s review reveals that the new curriculum suggests the Bible is literally and historically accurate, promotes faith claims as fact, and advances a sectarian view of the Bible generally favored by fundamentalist Protestants but not people from other faith traditions. All of those issues raise serious constitutional concerns about the curriculum’s use in public schools, he writes.

Moreover, factual errors and idiosyncrasies in the curriculum betray a seriously flawed knowledge of the subject that fails to align with established, mainstream scholarship on the Bible. For example, the curriculum treats Adam and Eve as actual historical figures, suggests that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity provides evidence for the Creation told in Genesis, and bizarrely compares the Book of Exodus to the infamously racist, KKK-glorifying film The Birth of a Nation.

[,,,]
TFN Education Fund President Kathy Miller said Chancey’s review reveals that this new curriculum suffers from many of the same flaws seen in other public school Bible courses he has reviewed for her organization.

“Well intentioned or not, the writers of this curriculum seem to be confused about the job of public schools,” Miller said. “Families and faith leaders rightly have the responsibility of passing on faith beliefs to children. Public schools shouldn’t be put in the position of promoting anyone’s religious beliefs over those of everybody else.”

TFNEF Report: Bible Curriculum Backed by Hobby Lobby President Would Lead to Preaching, Not Teaching, in Public Schools | TFN Insider

FFRF blasts Hobby Lobby bible curriculum - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Will be watching to see what action(s) the FFRF may or may not take in regards to the Mustang Public Schools accepting this dribble,,,

National state-church watchdog FFRF has been eyeing the bible course since November, when Hobby Lobby’s billionaire owner Steve Green personally pitched it to the school board. On April 23, FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel had a chance to look over the proposed textbook.

“I am amazed that any school district would think this is appropriate for public schools,” said Seidel, adding that his amazement isn’t accompanied by surprise. “This just confirms the suspicions we had about the class last year. Clearly, Hobby Lobby and the Greens are trying to convert children to their particular brand of Christianity. There is nothing scholarly, fair or balanced about the curriculum.”

In its April 24 letter to the school district, FFRF noted that the “the draft materials MPS intends to use unequivocally fail to meet the legal standards required by our Constitution. The materials show a clear Christian bias, treat the bible as historically accurate and true in all respects and make theological claims.”


FFRF blasts Hobby Lobby bible curriculum - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Glenn Beck has been busy

Glenn Beck Says David Barton's 'Founder's Bible' Is 'The Only Answer' To Saving America | Right Wing Watch

Last week, Glenn Beck had David Barton on his television program where he heaped praise upon Barton's last book, "The Founder's Bible." Now Beck has begun personally promoting Barton's book during advertising breaks on his show, as he did last night when he beseeched his audience to buy the book because is represents "the only answer" to our problems.

"This is, honest to God, we are out of all other options," Beck said, holding up Barton's book. "This is the only answer and he have to know it inside and out ... We have to start reading this with our kids that the table at dinner every night."

"I can't urge you enough to get involved and get this," he concluded before, later, interviewing Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center, who declared that America is God's "chosen nation" because the Holy Spirit inspired the Founding Fathers to create this country and our Constitution.

Glenn Beck Wants The Bible Taught In Public Schools Because It Has Been 'The Only Textbook We Needed'

Glenn Beck has been on a kick recently hailing the Bible as the solution to every single one of our nation's problems, so it comes as no surprise to see him now throwing his support behind an effort led by Hobby Lobby president Steve Green to get the Bible taught in public schools all over the nation.  (Go here to read more on that.)

Hailing the Green family as "true Americans" during his morning meeting, Beck turned directly to the camera and urged viewers to shop at Hobby Lobby in order to support them because "these people are the best."

On last night's television program, Beck then interviewed Jerry Pattengale, who is overseeing the development of this Bible curriculum program, declaring that trying to build a Western democracy without studying the Bible is like trying to become a chef without ever reading a cookbook.

Beck Goes Full Barton, Claims One-Third Of The Constitution And Declaration Came Straight From Deuteronomy

On today's radio broadcast, Glenn Beck went full David Barton, claiming that one-third of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence came straight out of the Bible; more specifically, right out of the Book of Deuteronomy.
Continuing his argument from last night that the Bible is the "cookbook" of America's system of government, Beck echoed David Barton's claim that the Founding Fathers were so well-versed in the Bible that they quoted it continually in their correspondence.
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/beck-goes-full-barton-claims-one-third-constitution-and-declaration-came-straight-deuteronom#sthash.lqWpfs8F.dpuf

On today's radio broadcast, Glenn Beck went full David Barton, claiming that one-third of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence came straight out of the Bible; more specifically, right out of the Book of Deuteronomy.

Continuing his argument from last night that the Bible is the "cookbook" of America's system of government, Beck echoed David Barton's claim that the Founding Fathers were so well-versed in the Bible that they quoted it continually in their correspondence.

As RRW points out Chris Rodda has thoroughly debunked this bullshit:  "This installment of my series debunking the American history lies told on Glenn Beck is about a study published in 1984 in The American Political Science Review, and how that study is misrepresented to make it appear that our founding documents were based on the Bible, especially the Book of Deuteronomy."

The Good Book Taught Badly?: Okla. School District Approves Hobby Lobby Owner’s Bible Course | Americans United

That’s our goal, so that we can reintroduce this book to this nation. This nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught, ~ Steve Green
--
An Oklahoma school district has approved the use of a Bible curriculum designed by Steve Green, the controversial owner of Hobby Lobby. The Mustang public schools will begin offering the curriculum next academic year.

As reported by Religion News Service, Green’s curriculum is designed to correspond with his planned Museum of the Bible, which is currently under construction in Washington, D.C. Jerry Pattengale, who heads the Green Scholars Initiative and is overseeing the curriculum’s development, said the ultimate goal is put the curriculum in “thousands” of schools.

Little is known publicly about the details of the curriculum. However, in a 2013 speech he delivered to the National Bible Association, Green explained that it’s divided into three sections: the history of the Bible, the story of the Bible, and the impact of the Bible.

Classes about the Bible don’t necessarily violate the separation of church and state. It all depends on what is taught and how it’s taught. Green’s speech indicates that he may have ulterior motives.

It appears that Green doesn’t intend to simply teach students history.

“The history is to show the reliability of this book,” he told his audience, and added, “When you present the evidence, the evidence is overwhelming.”

The Good Book Taught Badly?: Okla. School District Approves Hobby Lobby Owner’s Bible Course | Americans United

See also: 

Curricular Controversy: Hobby Lobby President Proposes Bible Elective in Okla. Public School

,,,but Green also has strong ties to Bill Gothard, the leader of an extremist Christian fundamentalist sect roiling with allegations of child abuse.

Gothard’s religious empire includes a homeschool curriculum popular with fundamentalist families, and a nationwide network of training centers and youth programs that exclusively rely on Gothard’s teachings.

[,,,]
In 2002, Green, acting through his family trust, purchased and then leased a vacant college campus to Gothard’s ministry. A year later, Green, this time acting through Hobby Lobby itself, purchased a shuttered hospital in Little Rock, Ark., and donated it to Gothard for the purposes of building a local training center.

These weren’t mere business transactions, either. The website of one of Gothard’s many ministries features video of Steve Green describing Hobby Lobby’s “desire to share Christ and Disciple others.” And in a review of Gothard’s book, The Amazing Way, David Green, father of Steve Green and founder of Hobby Lobby, wrote that, “Through the example and teachings of Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Life Principles, we have benefited both as a family and in our business. It is as we take those lessons from God s Word that Bill clearly articulates that we live the full life that God intends.”

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 16)

Q:: How optimistic are you that the Administration will prevail in the Hobby Lobby case?

I'm guardedly optimistic about it. I say that because, there is a point where if you allow (because of this federal statute) every company to be exempt from anything they don't like, all of the sudden it sounds like you created this gigantic loophole in this law; and, perhaps every other law. Where people just do whatever they want, follow whatever laws they want. That's not called governance anymore, that's called anarchy. And I don't think members of the SCOTUS in general are willing to go that far.

I don't know how you'd draw the line, as we discussed earlier, if it's ok for a Catholic or Mennonite employer to do this. Why not a Scientologist? Why not a Jehovah's Witness? Why not a Christian Scientist person who doesn't want to cover any kind of medical,,, This is just no place to draw the line once you go off this cliff of saying companies have a conscience and companies can do anything they want in regards to the laws they don't happen to like.

So it's a dangerous road, I think there are probably people even in the middle (Justice Stephen G. Breyer & Justice Anthony M. Kennedy) who are not going to want to go down a road that seems to have no end but a drop-off a cliff.