Hobby Lobby Leading the Religious Freedom Train

From the article "Making Religious Liberty More than a Hobby" by Kathryn Jean Lopez on National Review

The biggest judicial victory yet in the cases of religious objectors to Obamacare’s Department of Health and Human Services abortion-drug, contraception, sterilization mandate has come today in a ruling for Hobby Lobby, allowing the case to go on without the imminent threat of fines.

Although consistently pretending to have accommodated religious-organizations concerns, the White House has never voiced an interest in the religious-liberty rights of business owners; and this latest ruling, is a positive sign that there are jurists who can see through the secularist ideology to protect religious freedom.

Via the Becket Fund:

Today, the en banc 10th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a major victory to Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., by reversing and remanding the district court’s erroneous ruling. The circuit court returned the case to the district court with instruction to consider whether to grant Hobby Lobby a preliminary injunction.

“Today marks a milestone in Hobby Lobby’s fight for religious liberty,” said Kyle Duncan, General Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “This is a tremendous victory not only for the Green family and for their business, but also for many other religious business owners who should not have to forfeit their faith to make a living.”

The 10th Circuit sent the case back to the district court for swift resolution of the injunction proceeding. The court reasoned Hobby Lobby has, “established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm. But we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings on two of the remaining factors governing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction.”

This comes during the second Fortnight for Freedom, a two week period of prayer and education lead by Catholics, seeking to remind people of our civic responsibilities as stewards of civil liberties. As the Green family that runs Hobby Lobby has expressed, Christianity is a seven-day a week matter, it’s a call to an integrated life, not something that can be confined — and by the government — to inside houses of worship — or Sunday flows into Monday as New York’s Cardinal Dolan recently put it.

By fighting this battle in court, the Greens and all the other plaintiffs, are both being good stewards of all our religious liberties, but good witnesses of authenticity and integrity. (Something that came up in my latest syndicated column.)

Religious freedom is going to be challenged in the wake of yesterday’s Supreme Court rulings. It already has. Can a church entity – including a retreat house — refuse a same-sex wedding? Churches are already losing in court. Conscience needs some protection.

First we need to revisit what exactly that is. (Which is why Robby George’s book on the topic is so timely.)

Thanks to the Becket Fund for defending Hobby Lobby in a case where the U.S. Department of Justice has been making shocking claims, as I’ve discussed here with Becket’s Duncan. As Duncan explains:

Here’s what they are saying: once someone starts a “secular” business, he categorically loses any right to run that business in accordance with his conscience. The business owner simply leaves her First Amendment rights at home when she goes to work at the business she built. Kosher butchers around the country must be shocked to find that they now run “secular” businesses. On this view of the world, even a seller of Bibles is “secular.” Hobby Lobby’s affiliate, Mardel, sells Bibles and other Christian-themed material, but because it makes a profit the government has now declared it “secular.”

The administration’s position here — while astonishing — is actually consistent with its overall view of the place of religion in civil society. After all, this is the administration who argued in the Hosanna-Tabor case last year in the Supreme Court that the religion clauses of the First Amendment offered no special protection to a church’s right to choose its ministers — a position that the Court rejected 9-0. This is the administration which has taken to referring to “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion” — suggesting that religious freedom consists in being free to engage in private rituals and prayers, but not in carrying your religious convictions into public life. And this is the administration who crafted a “religious employer” exemption to the HHS mandate so narrow that a Catholic charity does not qualify for conscience protection if it serves non-Catholic poor people.

As you point out, the administration is trying to justify its rigid stance against religious business owners by saying otherwise they would become a “law unto themselves,” and be able to do all sorts of nasty things to their employees — like force them to attend Bible studies, or fire them if they denied the divinity of Christ. Nonsense. Hobby Lobby isn’t arguing for the right to impose the Greens’ religion on employees, nor for the right to fire employees of different religions. There’s already a federal law that protects employees from religious discrimination and that’s a very good thing. This case is about something entirely different: it’s about stopping the government from coercing religious business owners. The government wants to fine the Greens if they do not violate their own faith by handing out free abortion drugs, and now it’s saying they don’t even have the right to complain in court about it.

Thanks to the Green family for drawing a line in the sand. We have to draw lines in the sand. Or we’re going to be sliding down a “ski slope.”

When religious liberty was threatened, where were we? Increasingly we will be called to rise to the occasion.

Independance Day

237 years ago is the day we celebrate on the 4th of July where brave men with an idea, and idea worth risking their lives for, exposed themselves to great danger by announcing independance from England.  These founders of our Great Nation gave us our Constitution but they gave us guts and ideals as well. 

Then 150 years ago today, the battle of Gettysburg coduring our Civil War concluded. It rained hard this day, making movement a challenge as there were no paved roads then. CSA General Robert E. Lee experienced his first defeat and was retreating towards the Potomac River with ambulance wagons stretching for miles.

President Lincoln was very frustrated with Union General Meade for not pursuing Lee and finishing the war once and for all. But what was largely ignored by most was the stench of dead bodies....thousands of them, bloating in the summer heat....and the wild hogs eating on them.

It would take months to finally clear the bodies off of the battlefield and in November Lincoln would make his famous speech. I hope all Americans can appreciate the sacrifices made by the dead and living during that critically important battle in our history.... as it clearly shaped our history, but unfortunantly many people will remember neither the Signing of the Declaration of Independence nor the Battle of Gettysburg. 

Teach your family, instruct your neighbors.  We are better than what we accept now. Demand a sober, frugal representative government. 

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." ~ Plato

Colorado Sheriffs Launch Challenge to Magazine and Private Transfer Ban

Good for these Colorado Sheriffs not laying down and taking the Constitution bashing Colorado government's anti-gun laws without a fight. From the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).

While anti-gun legislation rarely comes as a surprise in the Northeast, anti-gun activists were especially proud to pass New York-style gun control in Colorado. What they may not have counted on was determined opposition in the courts—led by most of the state’s top elected law enforcement officials.

On May 17, 54 of 64 Colorado county sheriffs, joined by several other groups representing gun owners, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the enforcement of HB 1224, a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds, and HB 1229, which restricts the ways in which gun owners may lawfully transfer firearms. Signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) on March 20, the laws are set to take effect on July 1. NRA counsel is providing assistance to our fellow gun rights advocates and working on behalf of the rights of the disabled plaintiffs.

HB 1224 bans the sale and transfer after July 1 of magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition. Complicating matters is the problematic wording of the law, which can be interpreted to ensnare nearly all magazines—even those permanently attached to a firearm. The legislation prohibits any magazine that is “designed to be readily converted” to a capacity greater than 15.

The complaint points out that those familiar with magazine construction understand that most magazines on the market are made with removable floorplates, allowing for the owner to maintain or clean the magazine. However, this could also allow the attachment of aftermarket or homemade parts that might increase the capacity of a magazine to more than 15 rounds, potentially making the majority of magazines on the market illegal under Colorado law. (The complaint notes that Gov. Hickenlooper and the chief sponsor of the legislation support this interpretation.)

The complaint also takes issue with HB 1224’s requirement that all magazines with a capacity greater than 15 rounds be under the “continuous possession” of the person who possessed them before July 1. As the complaint points out, this “makes it impossible for firearms to be used or shared in ordinary and innocent ways, such as a gun owner loaning his or her firearm with the magazine to a spouse, family member, or friend; entrusting it to a gunsmith for repair; [or] a military reservist leaving firearms and their associated magazines with a spouse when he or she is called into service away from home.”

The complaint makes clear that HB 1224’s ban on magazines with a capacity greater than 15 rounds is a violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The complaint notes that the landmark Heller decision protects the ownership of firearms “in common use at the time.” Magazines capable of accepting more than 15 rounds, and magazines that are constructed with detachable floorplates, are unquestionably common today. As the complaint points out, “By outlawing the larger and smaller magazines which are necessary components of the large majority of handguns and of a very large number of rifles. HB 1224 is a gun ban even more sweeping than the handgun-only ban which was ruled unconstitutional in Heller.”

Also under attack is HB 1224’s provision banning magazines “designed to be readily convertible” to hold more than 15 rounds. This provision is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment, because individual plaintiffs “cannot possibly know the intent of the designers of all magazines for the firearms which Plaintiffs own,” and sheriffs “have no means to determine the intent of magazine designers” in order to enforce the law.

As in the New York suit, the Colorado plaintiffs include a pair of disabled citizens, whose disabilities force them to face the burdens of the magazine ban. Unable to manage a magazine change as quickly as an able-bodied person, these plaintiffs rely on larger-capacity magazines for their self-defense. The complaint argues that under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, states are prohibited from engaging in discrimination against the disabled. Thus, as the burdens of the new law fall inordinately on the disabled by limiting the meaningful exercise of their right to self-defense, HB 1224 should be struck down as a violation of federal law.

Meanwhile, HB 1229—the private sales ban—presents its own set of problems. The complaint points out that one category of gun laws the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed “presumptively constitutional” are laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms.” But HB 1229 bars non-commercial transfers such as loans for hunting or self-defense and requires that other temporary transfers last no longer than 72 hours. Making this restriction even more problematic, as the complaint notes, is that the wait time for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to conduct background checks for firearm transfers has stretched at some points to several days or even longer, leaving some residents with no opportunity to immediately acquire the means for self-defense.