SUPPORT HOBBY LOBBY – FOR PROFIT DOES NOT MEAN THE COMPANY IS “NON-RELIGIOUS”

Here's the Government’s current argument in Hobby Lobby case: “There is no reason to think that Congress intended [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”)] to grant for-profit corporations rights that previously had been reserved to individuals and religious non-profit institutions. For-profit corporations ‘are different from religious non-profits in that they use labor to make a profit, rather than to perpetuate a religious values-based mission.’”

Ironically, one of the business involved here, Mardel, is a chain of Christian bookstores that hire at least some non-believers to arguably "perpetuate a religious-based mission." Where does that fall into the government's argument here?

So, when the IRS revokes a religious corporation’s tax exempt status for improper filings, or for some other “administrative” reason, thereby legally forcing them to become “for profit” corporations, do these inherently “religious” corporations then “SUDDENLY” become “secular” and lose their RFRA rights? (By “religious” I mean companies whose sole purpose for being is religious – i.e., religious schools, religious organizations, etc.)

This conclusion would be inevitable if we are to buy the government’s PRESENT argument in the Hobby Lobby case. Whether or not you pay taxes, as this very real example explicitly demonstrates, SHOULD NOT BE THE SOLE DISTINGUISHING CRITERIA for determining whether a corporation can be deemed to be a “religious corporation,” or whether a corporation should be denied the right to uphold a “religious” ideology as part of its business model. You can’t have it both ways. Thousands of religious organizations have either been denied tax-exempt status, or have had their present status revoked by the IRS in the last year alone for “administrative” reasons. So now what? Are they no longer “religious?” Says who? The IRS?

A “religious” business (in terms of their corporate mandates), for profit or not, should not be forced to engage in activity that is against its collective conscience, albeit indirectly, because the government orders it to do so. It’s time for the church and all people of faith to speak as one. Unless people of faith rise up, we’re headed for some real dangerous ground really fast. We cannot afford to sit these cases out.

F.Y.I.: Of twenty (20) methods of contraception approved by the FDA, Hobby Lobby and Mardel Christian bookstores were willing to provide sixteen (16), no questions asked –They agreed to pick up the tab in full in order to provide these contraceptives to all of their employees, as required by the ACA. This, however, was not enough. They had to pay for two types of IUDs, Plan “B” and Ellla, all of which could terminate human life, whether they liked it or not.

THIS CASE HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT “CONTRACEPTION.” This case HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT ABORTION, and the right of a corporation not to allow one penny of its hard earned money to go toward extinguishing human life.

From Me2u,
Pastor Mario

“BUT IF THOUGHT CORRUPTS LANGUAGE, LANGUAGE CAN ALSO CORRUPT THOUGHT.” George Orwell, 1984

Constitution for the United States of America

Bill of Rights - Article the third [Amendment I]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

If you thought the IRS scandal which almost exclusively targeted conservative organizations for special scrutiny, denying them tax-exempt 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) status, now followed up by a new IRS initiative, 26 CFR Part 1, REG-134417-13, whose apparent aim is to institutionalize discrimination against tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups by limiting the political activities in which these organizations can participate, like neutral “voter registration” and “get out the vote” drives, was the end of governmental intrusion into “First Amendment” space, think again.  The FCC has now been recruited to continue the “dirty work.”

In what has now become the typical “Orwellian” modus operandi of our government, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced that it will soon launch an initiative — the Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs (CIN) — “in order to assess whether GOVERNMENT ACTION is needed to ensure that the information needs of all Americans are being met, including women and minorities.” When the FCC’s OCBO announced the initiative, apparently on November 1, 2013, it selected Columbia, South Carolina [a generally conservative state] to field-test the Research Design for the CIN. OCBO expects to complete this next phase of its Critical Information Needs Research no later than July 2014 – much in advance of the mid-term elections. The FCC’s stated purpose of the CIN is to “collect information from television and radio broadcasters about ‘the process by which stories are selected’ and how often stations cover ‘critical information needs,’ as well as to assess ‘perceived station bias’ and ‘perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.’”

Quite frankly, if this is not a blatant First Amendment violation of freedom of the press, my law school education is worthless. It is my hope that stations approached, whether liberal or conservative, will simply refuse to cooperate with this impermissible and unconstitutional governmental intrusion. How a news organization chooses to cover a story is simply NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS - EVER. Freedom of the press is and should forever be an inviolable right of the American people. Maintaining freedom of the press, regardless of political ideology, is absolutely critical if we are to remain a free republic.

From Me2u ;-)

TALK IS CHEAP BUT OFTEN NECESSARY IN LIGHT OF THE ALTERNATIVE

Notwithstanding, action always speaks louder than words. John 13:35

In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310, the Court declared:
"In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy."

Vehemently disagreeing with someone does not indicate a lack of love. On the contrary, the people who love you the most will often be the only ones willing to take a contrary stand. Ask anyone with teenage children.

From me2u,
P. Mario