On Bart Barber’s “A Postlude to Hobby Lobby” (at Canon and Culture)

by Dave Miller on July 1, 2014 · 81 comments

The ERLC’s blog “Canon and Culture” carried an article today by Bart Barber, whose articles appear here (when Dr. Moore doesn’t steal his affections and efforts!). I hope my angst doesn’t come across as bitterness or anything.

Seriously, Bart wrote an excellent article, entitled “A Postlude to Hobby Lobby” which you are strongly encouraged to read. If the SBC had a Supreme Court, Bart would likely be a candidate for the next opening!  He seems to have a grasp on religious liberty issues that rivals his theological grasp displayed here. He gives both an academic analysis of the case and a pastoral response. Again, it is well worth your time to read the entire article, if you have not to this point.

In this article, I am only going to highlight a few major points that Bart made as discussion starters for our little blogging community. Please note that the highlighted points will be as close as I can get to Bart’s statements. The rest will be commentary by me on the topic. I’ve also included several quotes from the Canon and Culture article. I just want to make sure Bart is not blamed for my ideas and interpretations!

I have been disappointed but not surprised by the efforts of some “post-evangelicals” (who tend to see everything conservative Christians do as bad) to skewer Hobby Lobby as a company and to present the restriction of the Green family to practice their faith according to their conscience as a good thing. Some have argued that Hobby Lobby’s victory is actually a threat to religious liberty. Bart wrote a post called “On Christian Businesses: A Friendly Rebuttal to Jonathan Merritt” after Merritt launched an attack on the conservative infatuation with Hobby Lobby. His article was called, “Stop Calling Hobby Lobby a Christian Business,” and his main point (other than his disdain for conservative Christianity throughout the article) is the fact that the store sells products made in China. This nullifies their right to call the business Christian in his view. In the aftermath of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision I’ve seen articles and posts by several left-leaning Christians who are arguing that Hobby Lobby’s victory is actually a defeat for religious liberty in America.

Bart’s arguments in this articles are much stronger and more coherent than those anti-Hobby Lobby posts. Again, the reader is encouraged to read Bart’s article before reading my observations.

I’ve been arguing for the last couple of years that our primary engagement in the public square ought to be to seek to establish, protect and promote religious liberty. There was a time when we styled ourselves the “Moral Majority” and used our majority to seek to instill biblical values on America. I’m not saying that was wrong, though I do think that sometimes we made tactical errors and blunders in execution.

Now, our culture has rejected our convictions and the national media, academia and many politicians view us as dangerous extremists. Our fight now is to be allowed to continue to practice our convictions without sanctions. Conservative Christians should have always been advocates of religious freedom, but now it needs to be a driving passion of our public engagement. As a “prophetic minority” we need to be focused not so much on outlawing that which we see as sin but on preserving our right to speak and live our convictions not only at church but also in the public square.

Now, back to Bart’s ideas!

On the Academic Side

Bart makes four points on the academic side of the discussion.

1) He notes that this decision gives a rebuke to the Obama administration which is the most hostile to religious liberty in America’s history.

The president did an amazing thing last week; he united the left and the right on a couple of unanimous decisions which said that he had overstepped his authority as president. Frustrated with a House that does not agree with his views, he has resorted to recess appointments and presidential decrees. The court has begun to reign in his unprecedented imperialism. While this decision was anything but unanimous (a typical 5-4 decision) it was another rebuke to President Obama’s policies.

Bart said:

The decorum appropriate to the highest level of our federal judiciary precludes name-calling, but the Court’s judgment of the administration was pretty transparent when it said, “HHS’s view that RFRA can never require the Government to spend even a small amount [to pursue its interests in ways less restrictive upon religious free exercise] reflects a [low] judgment about the importance of religious liberty that was not shared by the Congress that enacted that law.” It is encouraging to see the Supreme Court’s willingness to castigate the cavalier manner in which this administration has handled questions of religious liberty.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court still, at this point, has a higher view of the importance of religious liberty than the administration does.

2) He applauds this decision’s “full throated support of religious liberty.” 

This is the heart and soul of religious liberty issues in America right now. We still have freedom of worship and no one has started trying to monitor our sermons (unless Marty Duren has information I don’t have) and impose sanctions for preaching against sin. The issue is not what we do in church on Sunday but on the right of Americans, primarily (in this culture) conservative Christians, to live out their faith in the public square. Can Hobby Lobby live out its owners convictions in its insurance practices? Can the City of New York tell churches they are non grata in schools? Can schools restrict the rights of student groups to assemble and live out their Christian faith when that violates the tolerance/inclusion principles the university trumpets?

The battlefield is not inside the church – not now at least. It is in schools and businesses and other public square places. Are those who do not give assent to the prevailing mindset going to be ostracized or given their freedom?

The Court has rightly observed that “HHS would effectively exclude [devoutly pro-life] people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation” and has acknowledged that even in its economic form, religious persecution is still wrong. Religious liberty must protect a person’s right to be a Christian (or whatever else) not only on Sunday in the pew but on Monday in the office as well.

3) He reminds us that religious liberty is still fragile in America.

Bart laments that the ruling was based primarily on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, not on the First Amendment itself. That means that this decision we all applaud is rooted in congressional action rather in the constitution itself. The Congress could change its mind in the future and religious liberty would be affected. It would have been much better had the decision been rooted in the constitution.

Since this ruling and every other Supreme Court ruling based upon the RFRA exist only upon the sometimes-capricious whim of our elected legislators, in its next term, Congress could vote to overturn RFRA and Christians would be back on the same hook. Thankfully, we have reason to believe that today’s Congress would not do so, but religious liberty will not be secure in this nation until the Supreme Court’s decision in Oregon v Smith is set aside.

4) He notes that liberal groups seem less willing to unite for religious freedom issues.

It is my observation that left-leaning and secular groups have very little tolerance for free speech that disagrees with their views. The Phil Robertson saga, Mozilla’s firing of a Christian CEO (for giving $1000 toward a cause that WON in CA), the firing of the Benham brothers by HGTV – the list could go on and on – all demonstrate that when the left has little love for religious liberty or free speech that supports traditional or Christian positions.

Bart observes that conservative groups are more likely to join a consensus on religious liberty issues than are liberal groups. Groups that normally support religious liberty refused to help a conservative group.

When the shoe is on the other foot—when liberal political objectives like acceptance of same-sex marriage and universal access to free abortion come into conflict with the tenets of religious liberty—liberal groups tend not to cross the aisle in our direction. The Baptist Joint Committee declined to say anything about the Hobby Lobby case, and Americans United has predictably rubber-stamped the Obama administration’s objectives, with Barry Lynn personally articulating a new mission statement advocating Separation of Church and Life. The greater sincere commitment to religious liberty is demonstrated when one is willing to part company with one’s usual cohort to take an unpopular stand.

As we advocate for religious liberty in America, we must be willing to seek that liberty for Muslims, Mormons or any other group, but we cannot expect that leftist groups like the BJC or AU will join with us to protect liberty if the issue at stake does not advance their liberal causes.

On the Pastoral Side

Bart rejoices that, though the Obama administration seems unsupportive to Christians living out their faith in the public square, this decision makes that easier. Christians have some measure of freedom to carry their beliefs and convictions into the world with them, because of this decision. He exhorts us to make use of this privilege.

What would happen if we pastors used this decision not only as an opportunity to talk about religious liberty but as a way to kindle in our congregations a vision for the workplace as a venue in which to live out one’s faith?

The United States Supreme Court understood its role: “Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written.” As believers living and working in this society, our responsibility goes far beyond theirs. Let’s not drop the subject with a favorable judicial ruling; let’s show the world what wonderful things can happen when Christian individuals, proprietorships, partnerships, and yes, even corporations, dare to conduct their business dealings to the glory and delight of their Lord.

I am grateful that the Court ruled as it did, but the issue of religious liberty is far from over. We Christians would be wise to continue to make this issue a priority.

{ 81 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Dave Miller July 1, 2014 at 6:33 pm

Perhaps, when everyone pulls away from their TVs (deeply disappointed it now seems) we will have some discussion!


2 Volfan007 July 1, 2014 at 7:34 pm

What was on TV?


3 Adam Blosser July 1, 2014 at 7:53 pm

No reason to be disappointed. The Orioles just hit a home run to take the lead back.


4 Bart Barber July 1, 2014 at 8:13 pm

No discussion of baseball will be permitted until Wacha comes off the DL.


5 Tim G July 1, 2014 at 6:41 pm

As I ponder both yours and Barts articles I keep thinking of the thousands who do not realize just how close we are in America to losing our freedom of religion. As Pastors faced with mountains of issues within ministry, allowing the time required to motivate from an educated position (vs. spin) may be difficult for some to even think about. Yet I find that burning within me is a new set of priorities that forces me to take the time to become more than familiar with the issues, and then construct a position that can be grasped by the laity once articulated. It is the motivator aspect that is most difficult and one that we need assistance with from many Pastors in developing.

If we Pastors do not take on the need to share the hour that we live in, our people will never grasp the vision that clearly one family nailed. And man am I thankful for that one family!


6 Tim G July 1, 2014 at 6:44 pm

And one more thing if I may – you are spot on with the following paragraph:

“As we advocate for religious liberty in America, we must be willing to seek that liberty for Muslims, Mormons or any other group, but we cannot expect that leftist groups like the BJC or AU will join with us to protect liberty if the issue at stake does not advance their liberal causes.”

We must defend religious liberty for all! Amen and Amen!


7 dr. james willingham July 1, 2014 at 8:35 pm

Re: Religious liberty for the Muslims. I, too, believe in religious liberty for all, but one has to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Consider this with reference to Islam, namely, their aim to get Sharia Law adopted in this nation. Take a look at England where Sharia Law is already in effect for those areas where the Moslems control the local area. The Courts have ruled that they can have Sharia Law and that Christians cannot evangelize in such areas. This also means that the problems of Muslim women is not addressed. By that their second class status in Islamic law. Consider how the woman is held responsible for rape i.e., she encouraged by being alone, by a seductive glance, by seductive clothes, etc. There is also the problem of honor killings where a member of a Moslem family, generally, the father or sons and brothers, who will kill a female who marries outside the faith. In America the supreme law of the land is supposed to be the Constitution. Sharia law would effectively nullify that. Also 42 Democrats according to our state paper have introduced a bill to repeal the First Amendment. How does that sound to you folks? And the ACLU, regardless of its help to some religious cases, was started by a Communist and is run by radicals with an agenda that includes getting the ministers out of giving devotions at the opening assemblies of city councils, legislatures, congress, etc. What is forgotten is that the Baptists, for example, as well as the other denominations earned the right to participate by supporting and taking part in the Patriots Cause, that is, the American Revolution.

We did stop the Mormons from introducing polygamy as a acceptable form of marriage, but grant full religious liberty to Muslims and that will be accepted along with the attendant evils of violations of Divine Law. The Bible is much more important to this nation than most folks imagine. You have symbolic references to the 10 commandments on the doors to the Supreme Court and on the wall behind the judges. There is more, but I think this is enough to give pause to the gung ho attitude, especially, when, if one of your loved ones, marries a Muslim, they are obligated to convert and if they should return to the Christian Faith they are subject to the law of death. And if any one knows of exceptions to these rules, so do I.


8 Nate July 2, 2014 at 1:15 pm

Dr. Willingham,

Thank you for realizing that Islam, in its ultimate essence and purpose, cannot coincide with the U.S. Constitution. While we, as Christians, would that all become so, we do not call for a Theocracy. Islam’s purpose is to bring all into the submission of Allah, including governments.


9 Robert Vaughn July 1, 2014 at 7:26 pm

“Bart’s arguments in his articles are much stronger and more coherent than those anti-Hobby Lobby posts.” I agree. From what I’ve seen online, many of the articles are incoherent rants, often prophesying the end of religious liberty and individual freedoms (not sure why making someone else pay for your contraception is either religious liberty or individual freedom!?). Someone named Ryan Grim at Huffington Post wrote that “The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Christian business owners are special.” I’m not sure how many folks are not paying attention and actually believe such propaganda.

Re the 1st point that this decision gives a rebuke to the Obama administration, I was encouraged by an article I read this morning. Often we’re hearing court rulings that leave us very wondering where we’re headed. In “Obama Destroyed At The Supreme Court,” Brett LoGiurato wrote, “Since January 2012, the Obama administration has suffered at least 13 unanimous defeats in cases it argued (not counting cases in which it filed an amicus brief), according to the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.” Perhaps we can take that as a good sign.


10 BDW July 1, 2014 at 7:30 pm

While I did enjoy reading my longtime blogger friend’s column, I do want to quibble with a couple of his comments:

I do take issue with lumping the BJC alongside Americans United in this instance.

Unlike AU, BJC has not advocated for marriage equality as a religious freedom issue and has long rejected a religious right to abortion.

It is true that they did not file a brief for or against Hobby Lobby (Americans United came out forcefully against Hobby Lobby). However, the BJC was not silent as Bart’s commentary implied – and did speak out forcefully in support of maintaining a strong RFRA. Their role was not to take sides in what became a culture war case, but to insist that the landmark legislation that they have been credited with helping to pass survives (there were notable scholars who filed briefs arguing that RFRA is unconstitutional).

Perhaps the ACLU and Americans United would have been a better comparison.

We should, too, remember our history here. The BJC led the coalition that made possible the passage of RFRA (and was selected to do so because of the BJC’s “centrist” reputation in D.C.). Scalia’s atrocious Smith decision came down in 1990. It took 3 years to pass RFRA and the CLC was initially a reluctant supporter (and Dr. Moore’s predecessor in his final years was an inconsistent supporter of the law). The irony here is that Catholic Bishops held up the passage of RFRA for 3 years.

It’s worth noting that Alito spoke positively of the government’s current secondary accommodation of religious nonprofits with regard to the contraception mandate. He explicitly suggested that this secondary accommodation as applied to for-profit employers would be “least restrictive” solution.

What are the implications of that analysis for the pending religious nonprofits that challenge the secondary accommodation as being a violation of their freedom? It would be odd to see him in this case affirm it for for-profits and turn around and say it’s not “least restrictive” for non-profits.

And, in fact, Hobby Lobby’s lawyers argued before the High Court that the secondary accommodation afforded to nonprofits would work for Hobby Lobby. And that argument has prevailed.

So, if the Little Sisters, et. al lose, the Southern Baptist Green family (or at least their lawyers) prolly deserve some blame! I kid mostly.

Thanks for letting me stop by, Dave. It’s been a while – blog about Brewton-Parker sometime and I’ll return :-)


11 Bart Barber July 1, 2014 at 8:11 pm

I did differentiate between BJC and AU, but I can’t help but wonder why you need a religious liberty committee if it is going to sit out major religious liberty cases on the sidelines. I admit that it is speculation, but I can’t help but speculate that the political alignments here were crucial factors in benching the BJC.


12 BDW July 1, 2014 at 8:43 pm

I’m curious as to what the political alignments were then? Why would the “leftist” BJC sit out this one?

The BJC made its support for RFRA known in a few ways – notably spearheading the 20th anniversary celebration back in November and through columns, etc. Church-state professionals and jurists take notice of their perspective – even when not formally lobbying the High Court via a brief.

I’m not sure what brief they would have joined had they sided one way or the other. The coalition that backed RFRA in 1993 has crumbled – yet the BJC still supports RFRA while many civil liberties groups do not. Those groups lament that RFRA has been used to poke holes in civil rights protections and others like Marci Hamilton emphasize how the Catholic Church has relied on RFRA to shield itself in sex abuse lawsuits (which, while I support RFRA, I’m continuously troubled by this aspect).

Siding with out-and-out accommodationist groups is problematic because many of those groups aim for extremely broad-based exemptions that just aren’t reasonable and, inevitably, there is an attempt to insert language that would shield faith-based recipients of federal monies from discriminating with those dollars (no government funding of religion being a bedrock belief of the BJC for 75+ years).

Another difference might be the fact that folks like Dr. Moore were pressing on CNN (see his appearance w/ Merritt) that this case should or ought to come down to the RFRA prong of compelling interest.

Moore didn’t think the government had a compelling interest here. But, according to Alito, he was wrong. The interest was compelling; just not “least restrictive” way of achieving it. The BJC has sided w/ Alito on that point.

Perhaps the BJC found the “Third Way” on this culture war case :-)

Devil in details; it always take lots of time to see how these things play out.


13 Bart Barber July 1, 2014 at 9:47 pm

I don’t think you read the opinion correctly regarding “compelling interest” Alito did not write that Moore was wrong. Rather, he wrote:

We find it unnecessary to adjudicate this issue. We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA, and we will proceed to consider the final prong of the RFRA test, i.e., whether HHS has shown that the contraceptive mandate is ‘the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling govern- mental interest.’” – page 40 of the decision, emphasis mine.

Court assumptions are different from court rulings. This key paragraph from the opinion of the court spells out that difference. The court ruled that the “least restrictive” prong of the test was dispositive of the case even if it assumed arguendo that the “compelling interest” test had been passed. It therefore did not bother to adjudicate that question.


14 BDW July 2, 2014 at 3:45 pm

Ginsburg said they assumed it “grudgingly” but notes that Kennedy recognizes “without reservation” in his concurring opinion that the state has a compelling interest.

The state’s interest and sincerity of claimant’s beliefs are often assumed not adjudicated in RFRA cases.

15 Bart Barber July 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm

I don’t mind your saying that Ginsburg or Kennedy say that Moore is wrong. :-)

16 Bart Barber July 1, 2014 at 8:21 pm

Also, I plan to take up the implications for the nonprofits case in a separate post. I already promised Dave. :-)


17 Dave Miller July 1, 2014 at 9:22 pm

Always good to have you show up, BDW.

Take a good deep breath and hold it until I blog on that particular topic you mentioned.


18 David Rogers July 1, 2014 at 7:48 pm

Though I checked in on the comments on Bart’s post about Merritt’s post to say why I don’t think it is ultimately helpful to call any for-profit business a “Christian business,” and though on a number of issues I don’t fall in line in support of the agenda of the Religious Right, I certainly consider the recent SC ruling on Hobby Lobby to be a victory for religious liberty and overall a good thing. Though I have not had time yet to sort through all the different responses to the ruling on my RSS feed, I too was a bit perplexed at various headlines I have seen indicating several “Christian” groups who purport to defend religious liberty are calling this a setback rather than a victory for religious liberty.

While I strongly believe religious liberty for one group (e.g.fellow evangelicals) implies and demands equal freedoms for those of other groups, it appears to me that some of these groups are not really working to defend religious liberty, but only to further a liberal, anti-religious agenda. It is indeed baffling.


19 William Thornton July 1, 2014 at 8:23 pm

I appreciate the thoughtful article. Seems to me that there are reason that we have neglected religious liberty: (1) We’ve been busy fighting (and losing) culture wars, and (2) We’ve been sold the concept of religious liberty with Christians more liberated and free than others, and (3) we are in love with civil religion (I point the reader to many examples of such this past Sunday where Jesus was told to stay outside of the “worship” service this week while we focus on Uncle Sam and the Goddess of Liberty. Would any church actually cover up the cross in their sanctuary with an American flag? You bet.

The former ERLC head appeared to me to morph into a talk show host to the neglect of weightier matters for which we Southern Baptists devote over three million hard earned Cooperative Program dollars. If there is a revival of preaching and teaching on religious liberty do we face in our congregations considerable opposition from those raised on a steady diet of historical propaganda leading to the astonishment that the constitution doesn’t enshrine religious priviilege for Christians while other religions may go to the back of the bus, if not under it.

Perhaps Moore can do better. I hope so.


20 David Rogers July 1, 2014 at 8:50 pm


Good points.


21 William Thornton July 2, 2014 at 5:59 am

Bit of a syntactical mess above.

What I meant to say is that many in our congregations have been sold on the idea that our Founders intended Christians are to have religious liberty but not all others. As a example of that thinking I offer an ex-SBC pastor, congressional candidate in my own district who is quoted as saying that, “Most people think Islam is a religion, it’s not. It’s a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. But it’s much larger. It’s a geo-political system that has governmental, financial, military, legal and religious components. And it’s a totalitarian system that encompasses every aspect of life and it should not be protected (under U.S. law),”

Bart references “full throated” support for religious liberty and being willing to support the same for Muslims. Many SBCers manifestly are less than full throated and unwilling to do so, preferring a posture that maintains a system of preferences for Christians.


22 Rick Patrick July 2, 2014 at 7:24 am

I certainly rejoice in the decision, but lament these two realities: (1) that there even needs to be a discussion over whether religious liberty extends to a person’s life and career outside of “Church on Sunday” since this should already be clearly understood and accepted, and (2) that the so-called “full throated” support for religious liberty was merely endorsed by the SCOTUS by an anemic 5-4 margin.

Dancing in the streets? We came ONE measly vote away from losing our religious freedom to practice our faith in the workplace. The Supreme Court ALMOST forced Christians, under penalty of law, to pay for abortions. For now, I am relieved, certainly, but not ecstatic.


23 Chris Roberts July 2, 2014 at 8:26 am

“We came ONE measly vote away from losing our religious freedom to practice our faith in the workplace.”

A bit overstated, don’t you think? Had the vote gone the other way, it would have had no effect on what the majority of Christians do in the workplace. It still has no effect on what the majority of Christians do in the workplace.

I’m inclined to think the SC ruling was good; I’m not particularly comfortable with legislation requiring people to run their business in a way contrary to their conscience regarding less than essential matters, but it was a narrow ruling that touched on a very narrow aspect of business life which had no effect on the practices of employees in the workplace.

“The Supreme Court ALMOST forced Christians, under penalty of law, to pay for abortions.”

Again, that’s quite an overstatement of what was actually being required.


24 Chris Johnson July 2, 2014 at 9:08 am

“I’m inclined to think the SC ruling was good; I’m not particularly comfortable with legislation requiring people to run their business in a way contrary to their conscience regarding less than essential matters, but it was a narrow ruling that touched on a very narrow aspect of business life which had no effect on the practices of employees in the workplace. – See more at: http://sbcvoices.com/on-bart-barbers-a-postlude-to-hobby-lobby-at-canon-and-culture/#comment-247402

Chris, I have a tendency to agree with you on this point, except that the methodology for intentional freedom grabs from this administration is loud and clear, as usual. Which is,…put in 70 percent of what you know most citizens will not complain about loudly, and then add in the 30 percent that challenges existing Law. The current President has been overwhelming successful with this strategy… to the detriment of freedoms for you and me in the long run. He does take his philosophical explorations seriously, so we as citizens should be vigilant to protect our freedoms at the margins very carefully.



25 Chris Roberts July 2, 2014 at 9:43 am

What freedoms has he taken from you thus far? Details, please.


26 Chris Johnson July 2, 2014 at 9:58 am

One freedom that he has impacted just recently was my ability (freedom) to pay less for healthcare. His mandated increase of cost in association with the Insurance industry, which lobbied his office at historical highs in 2008-2009, was successful in causing me to pay 5-7% more for less value and mediocre coverage. For me, that came out to be a loss of approximately $8,000 annually, and with less coverage. That, my friend, is an extreme loss of freedom in one stroke of the pen. My “pursuit of Happiness” was regressed greatly with that signature; along with the rest of the country, ….even those that did not have healthcare insurance previously; they got soaked as well.


27 Chris Roberts July 2, 2014 at 10:13 am


That’s not a legitimate loss of freedom. Industry regulation is nothing new. Whatever pro’s and con’s there may be of Obamacare, it involved additional regulations to an already regulated industry. If your freedoms were restricted, they had already been restricted.

But if you had a point, this marks just one instance. What else? You seemed to indicate that taking away freedom is something Obama does routinely.

28 Doug Hibbard July 2, 2014 at 7:34 am

I think the next governmental move will be wrestling with executive action that is much harder to pin down. While it may not hit Hobby Lobby specifically, consider the Administration’s actions to require all federal contractors to pay the higher minimum wage that Congress won’t pass. Figure a new regulation is headed out requiring all federal contractors to comply with HHS’s list of contraceptives and abortions in their health care. I would suggest we’ll also see some major corporations wanting to score points with certain action groups do the same thing–I know we did that at UPS from time to time. There were companies that we refused to do business with because they backed the “other” side of a political issue that corporate was concerned with.

I also recall a local situation at the height of the Chick-fil-A mess where a federal employee was reprimanded for personally purchasing CFA food for a group of fellow employees. Seems it was deemed offensive that he provided, at his own cost, a product from a company that wasn’t politically correct. So expect to see that as well: no Hobby Lobby products allowed in federally funded workspaces.

In all, it’s a win that holds up until SCOTUS swings by one vote, or the liberal-backed movement to amend the Constitution to say that only individual people are to be afforded the rights of Constitution passes–that’s been kicking about since the Citizens United decision. The idea being that “corporations aren’t people” and so have no rights for speech, religion, etc…which denies the view the Court has taken on all of these, that corporations are made up of people, and people do not lose their rights just by grouping together.

And from an American Freedom point of view, that’s a big deal–because if you shift all rights to “individuals only” than suddenly your church cannot freely do, only you can. The threats are real. Let us fight them, but fight in such a way that we are still spreading the Gospel in the fight and will still be able to spread the Gospel whether we win or lose–


29 Chris Johnson July 2, 2014 at 8:02 am

The decision was a good one for private business owners. The current President’s distaste for private freedoms is becoming louder in these final years of his presidency. It is a good thing that the Supreme Court agreed with the owners of Hobby Lobby, in that the President broke the Law and Trust where his policy was squarely aimed against the private citizens that do business in the United States of America.

More citizens should do the same.



30 David R. Brumbelow July 2, 2014 at 9:53 am

This 5-4 Supreme Court decision should remind us that our presidential vote does make a difference.
It certainly makes a difference in Supreme Court nominations.

It also makes a difference in our votes for Senator, because those Senators approve the Supreme Court nominations.

Take your voting very seriously.
David R. Brumbelow


31 Jess July 2, 2014 at 5:03 pm

David R. Brumrelow,

I simply cannot see how our presidential vote makes much of a difference. Since it has little to do with the Supreme Court’s decisions.


32 David R. Brumbelow July 2, 2014 at 7:13 pm

You might want to check how our current president’s Supreme Court nominations voted on Hobby Lobby. Isn’t it interesting they voted the same way?

Over time the Supreme Court is profoundly affected by who we elect as president and who we elect as senators.
David R. Brumbelow


33 Jess July 2, 2014 at 9:18 pm

David R Brumbelow,

I agree that over time things can change, notice I didn’t say they will change. This country couldn’t stand under a one party system. It takes two or more parties to keep the others in check.

Loving to keep up with politics the way I do, I think the Supreme court decision has opened the way for another Democrat president. This is only my opinion, not what I necessarily want.


34 Dean Stewart July 2, 2014 at 10:33 am

Some have questioned why some left leaning Christian groups have come out against the Hobby Lobby case? It is easy to see Hobby Lobby challenged only 4 forms of “contraceptive” and did not challenge 16 forms. Why indeed is the Christian left and secular left so angry over this decision? After all, it does not threaten abortion rights in any way. IMO, they see it as a slippery slope where their crown jewel, homosexual rights, could be threatened. The question now has to be answered, “Does a closely held company governed by Christian beliefs have to provide benefits for the homosexual partner of an employee?” Again, IMO, this is the reason why J. Merritt and others are upset. I find it hard to believe they really care about employee practices in China. I suspect a careful search of his private property would reveal much made in China.

Thanks Dave, Bart and others for trying to prepare us for the war on religious freedom that inevitably will be fought in America. From my perspective, the church does not seem prepared for this battle.


35 Tim B July 2, 2014 at 11:11 am

There is no reason whatsoever for the political left or the Christian left to be so upset about this ruling other than that they want to force complicity to a specific agenda. It is interesting to see how easily liberalism slips into totalitarianism. Historically totalitarians have sought to break the will of the religious dissenters by forcing complicity to secular values against conscience. We see this throughout the Old Testament when conqueror desecrates an altar or a temple. We see it most clearly in the case of Daniel and the lion’s den or the fiery furnace. It is seen in the efforts of the Greek rulers who Hellenized the Jews by force. The aim of the political left is not dissimilar. They have no problem violating the consciences of conscientious believers by forcing material participation in abortion and the gay “marriage.” Their ultimate goal no doubt is to desecrate the altars in our churches by forcing the sanctioning and hosting of the ultimate sacrament of secularism which is “gay” marriage.”


36 Chris Roberts July 2, 2014 at 11:23 am

Speaking of the Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 20:16:

“However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.”

Then there’s most of European history up until the 1700′s or so.

Those who lives in glass houses should not throw stones.


37 Tim B July 2, 2014 at 11:33 am

Should a moral society force people of faith to act contrary to their conscience or not, Chris? Do you agree that a free society ought make every effort to accommodate religious conscience. Do you agree that a deliberate movement to unnecessarily violate religious conscience is a movement toward totalitarianism. I do.


38 Chris Roberts July 2, 2014 at 11:39 am

There is no deliberate movement to unnecessarily violate religious conscience. There are people who believe access to birth control is a basic and essential part of health care plans and should be provided regardless of the views of the employer. I disagree with that position, but the position does not boil down to an underlying desire to specifically and intentionally violate religious conscience.

The persecution complex is nefarious and highly deceptive.


39 Tim B July 2, 2014 at 11:48 am

Keep your head in the sand if you like. There is a very real effort to force conformity to a social leftist agenda in this nation by force of law. The personal dislike, disdain and bigotry doesn’t alarm you?

40 Chris Roberts July 2, 2014 at 11:51 am


Do you, as a Christian, have a desire and agenda to transform culture and see it abide by Christian principles? Do you support laws that uphold said principles, perhaps not enforcing Christian worship but nonetheless enforcing explicitly Christian morality (ie, stricter laws regarding divorce, homosexuality, gay marriage, alcohol use, etc)?

41 Tim B July 2, 2014 at 12:17 pm

It is one thing for society to debate prohibitions regarding what is immoral but it is a whole different thing for government to mandate participation in an action which violates one’s conscience. Are there any examples in American history where people of faith were actually forced to act in violation of their religious conscience? Why would the left be so upset that the court would rule in such a way as to relieve the burden on the Green’s consciences while rejoicing when the courts force bakers and photographers to participate in that which is objectionable to the dictates of their faith? The whole effort feels like a very real persecution to those who face such disdain.

42 Chris Roberts July 2, 2014 at 12:37 pm


Prohibitions immoral in a conservative Christian context are not immoral to all people. Passing laws that prevent people from acting according to conscience is no different than passing laws which force people to act against conscience. If tomorrow we had a law which forbade Christian marriage, you would claim persecution just as much as if we had a law which forced Christians to marry non-Christians.

In that context, examples are not hard to find. The history of how the US dealt with native Americans and their religion up until the 70′s and 90′s and polygamy laws aimed squarely at Mormons come to mind immediately.

Going back to forcing people to do things against conscience, consider all the furor Christians have raised against atheists who don’t want their children to be forced to say “one nation under God”. They clearly do not believe in God, yet in some schools are forced to verbally affirm not just his existence, but his divine presence over this nation. I haven’t heard too many Christians express sympathy for the atheist who is forced to voice things directly contrary to his views. And while prayer was removed from schools, many Christians want it put back, regardless of the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the students.

As insinuated above, Christians have a clear – and boastfully stated – agenda of transforming this nation. Christians are proud of this agenda and consider it a divine imperative. Win the nation for Christ. Establish Christian leaders and Christian laws and turn this nation around to follow God lest he bring judgment upon us. That mindset is shared by many, many, many people in this nation, though fortunately the numbers are not so great as they once were, and the numbers are falling.

What freaks out many Christians is the realization that they might not succeed in forcing their agenda on the nation. It also freaks out Christians that they might not be the only ones with ideas of what is best for this nation, and theirs is the side that seems to be losing the ideological engagement.

43 Chris Roberts July 2, 2014 at 12:37 pm


Prohibitions immoral in a conservative Christian context are not immoral to all people. Passing laws that prevent people from acting according to conscience is no different than passing laws which force people to act against conscience. If tomorrow we had a law which forbade Christian marriage, you would claim persecution just as much as if we had a law which forced Christians to marry non-Christians.

In that context, examples are not hard to find. The history of how the US dealt with native Americans and their religion up until the 70′s and 90′s and polygamy laws aimed squarely at Mormons come to mind immediately.

Going back to forcing people to do things against conscience, consider all the furor Christians have raised against atheists who don’t want their children to be forced to say “one nation under God”. They clearly do not believe in God, yet in some schools are forced to verbally affirm not just his existence, but his divine presence over this nation. I haven’t heard too many Christians express sympathy for the atheist who is forced to voice things directly contrary to his views. And while prayer was removed from schools, many Christians want it put back, regardless of the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the students.

As insinuated above, Christians have a clear – and boastfully stated – agenda of transforming this nation. Christians are proud of this agenda and consider it a divine imperative. Win the nation for Christ. Establish Christian leaders and Christian laws and turn this nation around to follow God lest he bring judgment upon us. That mindset is shared by many, many, many people in this nation, though fortunately the numbers are not so great as they once were, and the numbers are falling.

What freaks out many Christians is the realization that they might not succeed in forcing their agenda on the nation. It also freaks out Christians that they might not be the only ones with ideas of what is best for this nation, and theirs is the side that seems to be losing the ideological engagement.

44 Chris Roberts July 2, 2014 at 12:38 pm

Sorry for the double post, the browser decided to freak out.

45 Tarheel July 2, 2014 at 1:59 pm

Here is some distinction that I think is important to this discussion.



46 Tim B July 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm

I believe most people would agree that there is a difference between laws that prohibit activity and those that mandate activity. The more laws move toward mandating activity the more controlling they are. The prohibition against polygamy does not compel someone to do something against their conscience. No one is forced to recite a pledge of allegiance and particularly not under force of law. You cannot find examples of people of faith being forced by penalty of law to do something against conscience because there are none until the Obama administration there are none. That is why this case went to the supreme court. Thankfully the supreme court struck down the Obama administration’s efforts. Sadly, it appears that they will not likely side with the consciences of folks who will not support pagan same sex weddings with their artistic services.


47 Chris Johnson July 2, 2014 at 11:14 am


Maybe $8000 is nothing to you, but to me it is important, since the government has caused an unprecedented method of taxation on me to lessen my competitive ability to purchase a product. Whether you understand the Marxist underpinnings of that or not is not really an issue, ….the problem is that it did occur and will hurt both you and me in the long run with greater inefficiency and cost of service. Our current president is simply ignorant relative to economic policy (the methods he follows have failed throughout history…he is rehashing an old method).

A couple of other business examples:

1. Both Bush and Obama created a problem for creditors relative to the Chrysler bailout, where the government overstepped the legal “absolute authority” of the creditor to move dollars into the junior creditors such as Unions, et.al. This subverts a well-maintained bankruptcy law and causes both you and me to think twice about our crediting of major business endeavors. This blatant attack on business hurts your and my ability to engage in solid business practices without the fear of government intervention.
2. In April of this year, President Obama released a draft executive order (still pending) that would require businesses with federal contracts to disclose independent expenditures on federal elections (political speech independent of candidates and parties). I’ll let you figure out the intent on that one.

As for Hobby Lobby….I would encourage more of these intelligent business owners to stand up against the bullying and challenges to the law of this current administration.


48 Chris Johnson July 2, 2014 at 12:07 pm


Just to recap these “non-legitimate” losses of freedom.

1. The government causes me to spend more on something I don’t want – $8000
2. The government causes private business to lose as creditors / GM – $40B and growing.
3. The government is intent to control speech and eventually contracts on private business – $Billions, yet to be determined.
4. The government is intent to control private business decisions – “Hobby Lobby” and others creating a potential hardship in fines of close to – $1.3M

This government intends to restrict freedom in many ways,…the monetary fashion is just obvious and revealing to Americans that live and work inside the economy.



49 Chris Johnson July 2, 2014 at 1:10 pm


I am sure Tim can address your claims just fine, but sometimes I just wonder how you can write the things you write.

You seem pretend or make assertions that we live in a Nation that is typically amoral, and set up a “straw man” to make your points.

The framers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution for the United States created the basis for law based upon a moral stance, not a stance of amorality. So yes, the framers agreed that God has created a reason for law to be based in morality, and that a Nation separated from another Nation must understand that to be amoral is to have no basis for law, or a significant different concept of freedom. The framers were in agreement on the importance of theism, against that of atheism, with respect to the law. Americans should hold to that endowment theory of legal grant by God the creator.

Any American should recognize the important of a theistic foundation for law, since pure religion allows for free speech and many other freedoms so elegantly outlined in the founding documents; whether in the form of a prayer or in the form of a petition against such.

On the contrary, people like Marx were for amoral doctrines,…. and many in America would like to replace the foundation articulated in the founding documents with another concept of law based upon the priori of amorality. If they are successful anytime soon, now just beyond 200 years of freedom, ….man will be forced to chase freedom once again.



50 Chris Roberts July 2, 2014 at 1:45 pm

We run into a problem with a theistic foundation when we realize we’re wrong about the existence of any deity. In the end, the reality we’re faced with is a nation of laws built on a foundation created by men claiming divine authority. One way or another, we’re dealing with human-created morality.


51 Chris Johnson July 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm

You may have come to that realization so far in your life. But, as the Apostle Paul has taught and I am sure you are aware,…that all of us are without excuse. It is intelligently obvious that a creator is the beginner of all things. Some of the “things” just don’t like it very much.

You have simply restricted your morality to a humanity alone. That puts you at a very distinct disadvantage in this current system, and further down the road as well.

On a very practical note, the system that you seem to ascribe to will cost you more and become more and more inefficient. Hobby Lobby understood the reality of such and were courageous enough to spend money to protect the freedom of which you have little awareness.



52 David R. Brumbelow July 2, 2014 at 7:09 pm

You comment (now #49), is exactly right.
Chris thinks he was wrong about everything up until the last few months, but now he is convinced (once again) he’s right.
David R. Brumbelow


53 Dave Miller July 2, 2014 at 2:13 pm

Chris, you were absolutely convinced that you were right about everything when you were a hardcore Calvinist. Now, everything has changed except the fact that you are still absolutely convinced that you are right about everything.

Do you see how some of us who heard your absolute self-assurance as a Calvinist have trouble processing your equally absolute self-assurance about your new views?

You may have lost your faith in God, but you have not lost that strong faith in Chris Roberts, have you?


54 Chris Roberts July 2, 2014 at 2:23 pm

Are you not absolutely sure of your beliefs? What would their value be otherwise? I’m demonstrably willing to change my mind if I believe I’ve come across a better argument or better evidence, but until that argument comes along, my position is what it is.


55 Chris Roberts July 2, 2014 at 2:25 pm

As for my previous theological beliefs, I continue to think that a Reformed take of the Bible is the only way to reconcile the disparate pieces. It’s easier for me to see why theological conflicts exist and are so intractable, but if one wants to try to reconcile the incompatible pieces, it will require something like Calvinism. But better still to see the Bible for what it is and invest time in more worthy things.

56 Dave Miller July 2, 2014 at 2:38 pm

I am convinced that God exists and that Bible is his self-revelation. Some things concerning that I believe by faith and not by sight. You always trusted more in your own rationality than I thought was healthy, even when you styled yourself a Christian.

Christianity is not irrational, but it is grounded in God’s self-revelation and the Spirit’s inner work – much of which you rejected or discounted.

1 Corinthians 1 and 2 are formative for my faith, which is in God, not in my understanding of God. I am convinced of my views, but try to maintain that humility that realizes there are other views and some even have some merit.

By rejecting the faith you have subjected yourself to the enemy’s lies and spiritual delusions. You know the Bible well enough to know that this is what it says.

You may think we are deluded by our faith. We believe that your rejection of God has blinded your mind to the truth, which you are suppressing in unrighteousness.

That makes us sad, but it is a biblical reality.

57 Tarheel July 2, 2014 at 2:32 pm

I am not defending Chris Roberts here…but only stating that confidence in one’s opinions and yes, dogmatic argumentation is in great abundance around this site….it might be a little harsh to purport that one individual is more so than others.

I would contend that any competition as to whom is the most sure of and willing to defend their convinced position(s) will pretty much end up in a multi way tie around these parts… ;-)


58 Chris Johnson July 2, 2014 at 2:41 pm


You appear to be at odds with the founders of this country (you don’t agree with their basis for law), as well as being add odds with those known as Christian, as well as being at odds with the Word of God, Jesus. Definitely a rebel :)

Practically though, while you live in the US,…you seem to not care too much that the government be held accountable for extreme effects on the Law that takes money out of your pocket.



59 Jess July 2, 2014 at 2:04 pm

I would like to start here by saying I am not a Conservative, I am not a Liberal, I am not a Moderate, but I do lay claim to being a Centrist. I see the Supreme Court decision as not a win for Christian Liberty although it may be looked upon as such. The Supreme Court has been ruling in favor of Corporations for many years now, and I was expecting Hobby Lobby to win their case. This expectation came only by rulings from the past, as Corporations nearly always win their cases.

Before I continue, I would like to point out that the ruling had nothing to do with the sixteen other contraceptive drugs, but the two that would induce an abortion. As a Christian I applaud this decision, although I think it had nothing to do with the Supreme Court being against abortion.

There is a lot of Obama bashing going on and I have to say I don’t agree with everything the Democrat party stands for. I also have to say in order to blame a President of the United States for something, he would have to go against the laws of the land. The President has to represent all the people of this country, sinner and saint alike. So, I think we must separate Politics from Christianity, and keep them separate. I do not believe the Government has a right to tell me how to worship.

With all this being said, let’s go back to 1973 when Roe vs Wade came before the Supreme court which was made up of six Republican appointed Justices and three Democrat appointed Justices, The decision was seven to two in favor of abortion. Richard Nixon was the President at this time, and I might add a Republican. I’ve said this once and I will say it again with a twist. Bart Barber, did you thank your Republican friends for abortion being the law.

I do think all of the recent headlines and media talk along with the House not performing their duties has paved the way for Hillary Clinton to be the next president. I said here on voices that Obama would win the race against Romney, and I think if things continue to go the way they are now with the war against women, Hillary will have a landslide victory.

Corporations nearly always win, and Labor Unions are taking a bad hit.
The President is obeying the laws of the land, and all we do is complain instead of winning souls to Christ. I believe in separation of Church and State, and always will.

I heard on the news that Hobby Lobby’s insurance pays for drugs for erectile dysfunction. I make no claim to be a mental heavyweight, but can’t one possibly lead to the other. (Sex and Abortion). Just saying!


60 Dave Miller July 2, 2014 at 2:09 pm

Jess, what would Obama have to do to lose your support?

He has been the most passionately, aggressively pro-abortion president in US History.

He has been the most passionate, aggressive support of the normalization of homosexuality that has ever occupied the oval office.

He has been unwilling to support religious freedom in significant ways.

I’ve never understood your passion for Obama in the light of your other stated beliefs. I guess I’m just doomed not to understand.

But what would have to happen for you to NOT support the president anymore?


61 D. L. Payton July 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm

His support for Israel is in question.


62 D. L. Payton July 3, 2014 at 6:01 pm

His early on “apology tour” was ill conceived and disrespectful.


63 Jess July 2, 2014 at 2:47 pm


Obama would lose my support if he tried to tell me how to worship and what God to worship.

As much as I dislike it, he is supporting just what the Republicans allowed in 1973, Roe vs Wade which became the law of the land.

I’m against homosexuality, but I cannot force others to believe and do as I do. That can’t even be done in the safety of the Church. People have to want to live right that only Grace through the blood of Christ can bring.

I think Obama does support religious freedom, by separation of Church and State.

I do not have a passion for Obama. I just think he is trying to represent all people of these United States. Which is what the President suppose to do. It’s our job to try to get as many people saved as we possibly can.

For your final point, if the President said there was no God or tried to force me to worship in a particular way, or tried to close down the Churches, he would lose my support. I’m suppose to pray for (not against) those who have the rule over me.


64 Dave Miller July 2, 2014 at 2:51 pm

His passion to promote abortion is not an issue, then?


65 Jess July 2, 2014 at 4:49 pm


Obama is the President, not the Supreme Court, he is only abiding by the laws that Republicans and Democrats are equally at fault for. Brother, you know that as well as I do. We just have to do the best we can based on the current situation, and win souls.


66 Dave Miller July 2, 2014 at 4:54 pm

No, it makes a difference when a president passionately and enthusiastically supports and promotes abortion. It makes a difference.


67 Jess July 2, 2014 at 5:12 pm


The president passionately supports other issues also, he is only abiding by the laws of the land.

68 Jess July 3, 2014 at 10:08 pm


I would like to say one more thing, and then I’m off to Northern Ky. for the weekend. It doesn’t seem to make a difference who the Supreme Court Justices are or who appointed them. They vote as they see fit. Look at the last four decades or so, when prayer was taken out of school, and when Bible reading was taken out of school. There were in 1962-63 six Democrat appointed justices and three Republican appointed Justices. The Republicans voted two to one along with the six Democrat appointed justices to do away with prayer and Bible reading in schools. It should make a difference who the Justices are but history says it doesn’t.

69 Tim B July 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm

Actually, he isn’t abiding by the law. Several times the court has ruled that he has overstepped his bounds. He has instructed the justice department not to enforce certain laws. He chose not to defend the defense of Marriage act which is a law passed by congress. So, no, he is not abiding by the law and as citizens we have a right and a duty to object.


70 Jess July 3, 2014 at 5:31 pm


The court ruled after the fact, that is why it had to go before the Supreme Court.

71 Tarheel July 2, 2014 at 2:53 pm


You said “I think Obama does support religious freedom, by separation of Church and State.”

Would you please explain what you mean by this? What is your interpretation of the idea of separation of church and state?


72 Jess July 2, 2014 at 4:42 pm


Sir, I had you a good answer plus a lot more, but the power flickered and I lost it all. So you have to hunt it up yourself. I’m not writing it again.


73 Jess July 3, 2014 at 5:38 pm


Reat the First Amendment to the constitution.


74 Tarheel July 3, 2014 at 6:11 pm

First amendment of the United States Constitution clearly says that the government shall not infringe upon the church. Jefferson made the meaning clear in a letter to the Danbury baptist Assoc. In which he promised that the govt. would not infringe upon free expression of religion.

This is why I am at a loss as to why you would say that Obama is not consistently infringed upon the religious liberty unconstitutionally by mandating people forgo religious conviction or risk prison, fines, or both under his strategies for obamacare implementation.


75 Jess July 3, 2014 at 7:32 pm


My friend, you are so misinformed. This day in time it doesn’t matter what the constitution says, or what Jefferson said, it doesn’t matter what the Lord says, it’s what thus says the Supreme Court and their view of the constitution.

We as Christians have to work around all these laws that bind us. We have to get the people in this nation saved, only then changes will come. We cannot bash the president for representing Saint and sinner alike, Gay or strait, white or black, Latino or Indian, Republican and Democrat, rich or poor, abortionists or pro life. What if this government represented only one group of people? Would there not be a civil war? Would there not be hate crimes? Would there not be murder in the streets? The answer is yes there would be, on a scale we have never seen before.

Until all Christians understands how the government works, and get busy winning souls there will never be any changes. We Baptists bash other denominations just to pass the time, isn’t it strange no one is saved but us.

We have had and still have other denominations on voices. Some of you have told them they are lost, when they maybe closer to God than we have ever thought about being. I think we need to take care of business and win souls. Allow other denominations to take care of business also. God has to be number one in our life.


76 D. L. Payton July 4, 2014 at 12:12 am

I continue to be amazed at how broad your brush paints. I am a Baptist and I do not bash other denominations for any reason. It does matter what the Lord says. We must win souls, you are correct. That is our job. But we will not win enough to change the moral direction of this country, we are told in the last days things will get worse not better. We win souls not to change the nation but to be obedient and glorify our Lord. Yes I can speak against those who advocate same sex marriage etc even if it is the President or the supreme court.

77 Tarheel July 4, 2014 at 12:31 am

Yes, DL … You are correct.

78 Tarheel July 3, 2014 at 10:46 pm

Thankfully, right now we still have 4 and sometimes 5 justices who care what the original intent of the framers of our constitution and rule according to it.


79 Jess July 4, 2014 at 7:26 am


As much as I would like to think what you said is true, the fact is the Supreme Court nearly always rule in favor of corporations.

80 Tarheel July 4, 2014 at 7:50 am

If true, why is that a bad thing?

Are corporations not made up of people? Do people give up thier constitutional rights if they engage in business?

If your answer to that last question is “yes” ….then you must realize that would mean that our faith, speech, expression, association, etc can’t publicly manifested but must stay never enter the marketplace .

How are constitutional rights worth anything at all if they can’t be excercized in public? If we can’t live them out in the businesses we may own?

81 Peaches July 2, 2014 at 7:33 pm

What sends the Liberals into orbit about this decision is the notion that any religious liberty can stand in the way of any action desired by the state. Hobby lobby wanted the freedom to not pay for four drugs that would be used to kill the unborn children of it’s employees. That small sliver of freedom has been deemed wildly dangerous a threat to the republic by the left in America. There is no domain of our lives over which the left would not extend the power of the state. That is the source of the vitrol on this issue.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: