Tag Archives: religious

Here Are All the Athletes, Celebrities, and CEOs Joining the Indiana Backlash

by LandonNewby Posted on March 31, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Miley Cyrus, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and former NBA star Charles Barkley are just a few of the high-profile figures condemning a law signed by Indiana Gov. Mike Pence on Thursday, which critics say will give businesses the option to discriminate against LGBT customers on religious grounds. Here’s a roundup of notable people and groups that have joined the rising backlash, including athletes, celebrities, leaders of Fortune 500 companies, and even city and state governments:

Athletes: A few days before Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Jason Collins, the first openly gay active player in the NBA, tweeted his opposition, asking whether he would face discrimination when he visits Indiana for the NCAA’s Final Four. Barkley, who has urged the NCAA to pull the tournament out of the state, said in a statement, “Discrimination in any form is unacceptable to me.” The NCAA has indicated the games will go on as planned, but President Mark Emmert said the league was concerned about how the law might impact student-athletes, and that it would “closely examine” how the bill “might affect future events.” In a joint statement on Saturday, the NBA, WNBA, Indiana Pacers, and Indiana Fever said they would “ensure that all fans, players and employees feel welcome.”

Corporate leaders: Salesforce chief executive Marc Benioff tweeted on Thursday that the tech giant was canceling programs that would require customers or employees to travel to Indiana. The San Francisco-based company bought the Indianapolis-based ExactTarget for $2.5 billion last year. Angie’s List is putting a campus expansion project in Indianapolis on hold, while Yelp’s chief executive Jeremy Stoppelman said it would be “unconscionable” for the company to maintain or expand “a significant business presence in any state that encouraged discrimination.” Apple’s chief executive Tim Cook wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post opposing the legislation, saying that it “rationalizes injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold so dear.” The chief executives of Gap and Levi’s have also since spoken out against the law in a joint statement.

Celebrities: Ashton Kutcher, Star Trek actor George Takei, Larry King, and columnist Dan Savage have all criticized the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, while Miley Cyrus went as far as calling Pence an “asshole” on Instagram. The band Wilco announced that they were canceling their May 7 show in Indianapolis because of the law, which they described as “thinly disguised legal discrimination.” Parks and Recreation actor Nick Offerman said Tuesday that he was scrapping a scheduled stop in the city as part of his 2015 summer tour.

You’re an asshole @govpenceIN â&#156;&#140;ï¸&#143;-1 cc: the only place that has more idiots that Instagram is in politics @braisoncwukong thank you for standing up for what is right! We need more strong heterosexual men fighting for equality in both men and women! Why are the macho afraid to love muchoooo?!?

A photo posted by Miley Cyrus (@mileycyrus) on Mar 26, 2015 at 1:06pm PDT

State and city governments: On Monday, Connecticut became the first state to join the boycott, with Gov. Dan Malloy signing an executive order prohibiting the use of state funds for travel to Indiana. Washington state soon followed, with Gov. Jay Inslee banning administrative trips there. San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland have made similar pledges, while Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard has called on Indiana’s general assembly to repeal the law or add protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.

Conventions: Gen Con, a gaming convention that brings an estimated $50 million to Indianapolis annually, has threatened to pull out of the state. “Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state’s economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years,” chief executive Adrian Swartout wrote in a letter to Pence before the law was passed. On Monday, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees announced that it was pulling its women’s conference out of Indiana due to the “un-American law” that “sets Indiana and our nation back decades in the struggle for civil rights.” The Disciples of Christ, which has been based in Indianapolis for nearly 100 years, is also weighing the option of moving its biennial convention elsewhere.

Source article – 

Here Are All the Athletes, Celebrities, and CEOs Joining the Indiana Backlash

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Jason, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here Are All the Athletes, Celebrities, and CEOs Joining the Indiana Backlash

Why Are Oklahoma Lawmakers Trying So Hard to Discriminate Against LGBTs?

by MargariBlohm Posted on March 13, 2015

Mother Jones

Sharon Bishop-Baldwin, a plaintiff in the case that challenged and defeated Oklahoma’s same-sex marriage ban, married her wife in October of last year, just hours after the Supreme Court refused to hear the state’s appeal. “It is a great day to be gay in Oklahoma. It’s an even better day to be married,” she told the Dallas Morning News. One would think that the story would end there.

But soon afterwards, Bishop-Baldwin, an advisor at Oklahomans for Equality, encountered some potential setbacks: A slew of bills introduced since the beginning of 2015 aimed at making it easy for businesses to opt out of serving gay couples and more difficult for gay couples to get married. Other states, including Arkansas, Arizona, and Colorado, have introduced similar pieces of legislation—perhaps fueled by the Supreme Court’s announcement that it would decide the legality of gay marriage in all 50 states in April.

Oklahoma has been a hub for this push, with at least 12 anti-LGBT bills introduced since the beginning of the year. “We have all of them—our lawmakers didn’t miss any tricks,” says Bishop-Baldwin. “We are as upset by the animus behind the bills as we are by the content of them.”

Fortunately for Bishop-Baldwin and other gay advocates, the most controversial bills weren’t heard—meaning they were effectively killed—during the last day of the state’s legislative session yesterday. Some of the anti-LGBT bills, however, remain on the table.

Here’s a sample of the most contentious legislation:

Killed: House Bill 1599 would have prohibited public funding of any activity supporting same-sex marriage, likely leading to a confrontation between state and federal authorities.

Killed: House Bill 1598 would have protected a parent’s right to bring a child to “conversion therapy” that aims to eliminate same-sex attraction.

Killed: House Bill 1371 would have allowed small businesses, like florists, bakers, or photographers, to refuse to provide wedding services if the business owner disagrees with the wedding on religious grounds.

Approved: House Bill 1125 does away with marriage licenses altogether—for straight and gay couples—instead requiring marriage officiants to file “certificates of marriage” after the fact. Rep. Todd Russ, who introduced the bill, said its purpose is to “protect” county clerks from being forced to issue licenses to same-sex couples. The bill now goes to the senate.

Approved: Senate Bill 788 and House Bill 1007 allow clergy to refuse to solemnize a marriage that violates their religious belief. Critics point out that federal law already grants clergy this right. The bills now go to the house and senate, respectively.

With the death of the most extreme bills on Thursday, LGBT advocates have declared a modest victory. When I spoke with Bishop-Baldwin on the phone after the legislative session ended yesterday, she said, a little sardonically: “It is a great day in Oklahoma.” She paused and sighed, adding, “It’s a shame in Oklahoma that we have to fight this kind of crap.”

More here – 

Why Are Oklahoma Lawmakers Trying So Hard to Discriminate Against LGBTs?

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Are Oklahoma Lawmakers Trying So Hard to Discriminate Against LGBTs?

Free Speech Doesn’t Require You to Offend People Just to Prove You Can

by Randell46P Posted on January 8, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Andrew Sullivan points to the following postscript in a Washington Post story about the Charlie Hedbo killings:

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article included images offensive to various religious groups that did not meet the Post’s standards, and should not have been published. They have been removed.

Sullivan calls this a “capitulation,” and says, “If any reader knows exactly what images they removed, let us know and we’ll post them here.”

Hmmm. Something is off kilter here. I don’t normally publish things that are gratuitously offensive to Catholics or Muslims or other religious groups. That’s just me, of course, and obviously there’s a ton of judgment involved in how I personally choose to conduct myself as a public writer. But Sullivan goes further: He’s suggesting that even if I wouldn’t normally publish something because it’s offensive, I should actively do so now just to prove that I can. And so should the Post.

I don’t buy that. If there’s news value in reprinting some of the Charlie Hedbo cartoons so that their readers have some idea of what motivated the attacks, the Post should print them. But that’s all they should do. If they normally try to avoid gratuitous offense, there’s no reason to change that policy. That’s free speech.

UPDATE: I suppose this was inevitable, but my point is being widely misunderstood. Let me try again. Anyone who wishes to publish offensive cartoons should be free to do so. Likewise, anyone who wants to reprint the Charlie Hedbo cartoons as a demonstration of solidarity is free to do so. I hardly need to belabor the fact that there are excellent arguments in favor of doing this as a way of showing that we won’t allow terrorists to intimidate us.

But that works in the other direction too. If you normally wouldn’t publish cartoons like these because you consider them needlessly offensive, you shouldn’t be intimidated into doing so just because there’s been a terrorist attack. Maintaining your normal policies even in the face of a terrorist attack is not “capitulation.” It’s just the opposite.

Read original article: 

Free Speech Doesn’t Require You to Offend People Just to Prove You Can

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Free Speech Doesn’t Require You to Offend People Just to Prove You Can

5 Percent of Religious Americans Routinely Try to Fool God

by IleneHainqgu Posted on October 6, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Speaking of phone surveys, surely a survey conducted by LifeWay, a Christian retailer based in Nashville, TN, should be one that we can rely on. So what was LifeWay curious about? Prayer. In particular: how often you pray; what you pray for; and whether your prayers are answered. The chart on the right, perhaps one of my all time favorites, shows what people said they prayed for.

Some of these are unexceptionable. Praying for your enemies is supposedly a Christian sort of thing to do (assuming you’re praying for their redemption, of course). Praying to win the lottery is pretty standard stuff. And despite mountains of evidence that God doesn’t really care who wins the Super Bowl, there’s always been plenty of praying for that too.

But finding a good parking spot? Seriously? There’s also a fair amount of Old Testament vengeance on display here. But my favorite is the 5 percent of respondents who prayed for success in something they knew wouldn’t please God.

This is great. Apparently these folks are more willing to be honest with a telephone pollster than with God despite the fact that God already knows. If it displeases Him, then that’s that. You aren’t going to fool Him into making it happen anyway. I’m also intrigued by the 20 percent who prayed for success in something they “put almost no effort in.” That’s fabulous! Not that they did it, mind you. That’s just human nature. But that they were willing to fess up to this to a telephone pollster. Is there anything people aren’t willing to confide to telephone pollsters?

Anyway, another chart tells us that 25 percent of those who pray say their prayers are answered all the time. All the time! This is terrific, and I want to meet one of these people. God has not been noticeably receptive to me lately, and I could use some help from someone with a 100 percent batting average.

POSTSCRIPT: By the way, is it really possible that virtually none of these folks ever prayed for their health to improve? Or is that too risky to admit, since usually it’s fairly obvious when it doesn’t work?

Read article here: 

5 Percent of Religious Americans Routinely Try to Fool God

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Percent of Religious Americans Routinely Try to Fool God

Take Two: What’s Behind the Religious Conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq

by Ryan44Swxlkc Posted on August 13, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Earlier today I recommended a Fareed Zakaria video about the roots of the current civil wars in Syria and Iraq. Sam Barkin, a professor at UMass Boston, emails to say that Zakaria’s history is faulty:

While reading your post of about an hour ago on arming the Syrian rebels, I clicked on the embedded video of Fareed Zakaria’s five-minute historical primer. He makes what seems to be a compelling case about the historical complexities of Syria. There’s just one problem. His history is wrong. Really quite wrong, in a way that makes me worry about his analysis.

He claims that three contemporary countries in the Levant—Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon—were intentionally set up by the European colonial countries with minority-rule governments, explicitly for divide-and-rule purposes. In Iraq, it’s true, the monarchy was Sunni (it also wasn’t Iraqi, but that’s a different story). The British did deal with the local elites, as they tended to do in their protectorates, and the local elites were by and large Sunni, but that was a pre-existing condition.

However, in the two French-protectorate countries, Syria and Lebanon, the French at no point tried to empower minorities at the expense of ethnic/religious majorities. In Syria, which is roughly three-quarters Sunni, almost all of the heads of state and government until 1970 (it may in fact be all of them, I didn’t have the patience to check) were Sunni. The central role of the Shiite Alawites in the security service did not begin until after Assad senior consolidated power after the 1970 coup. And I can assure you that the French were not fans either of Assad or of the Ba’ath party more generally. Lebanon, meanwhile, was designed by the French specifically to be Christian majority (in fact, the French redrew the map of Lebanon in 1920 to ensure such a majority). The Christians probably remained a majority in Lebanon into the 1960s.

So telling the story of Syria (either current Syria or Greater Syria) as one of a history of sectarianism and minority rule is simply historically factually wrong. And it leaves me wondering if Zakaria really doesn’t know the history, or if he’s taking some serious historical liberties in order to make his point.

In a nutshell, Barkin is saying that only in Iraq can you argue that a minority-rule government was originally installed by a colonial power. In Lebanon it was a case of demographic changes turning a Christian majority into a minority, and in Syria the minority Alawites took power long after the French had withdrawn. Zakaria is right that in all three cases, conflict between religious minorities and majorities are still central to what’s going on today, but the historical backdrop is more complicated than he allows.

I thought this was worth passing along. Anyone else care to weigh in?

Link: 

Take Two: What’s Behind the Religious Conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Take Two: What’s Behind the Religious Conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq

This Is the Democratic Plan to Reverse the Hobby Lobby Decision

by MiloTQBHoozqo Posted on July 9, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised “to do something” about the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision. Now two members of his caucus say they are preparing a bill that would reverse some of the controversial aspects of last week’s decision.

Take it away, TPM:

The legislation will be sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO). According to a summary reviewed by TPM, it prohibits employers from refusing to provide health services, including contraception, to their employees if required by federal law. It clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court’s ruling against the mandate, and all other federal laws don’t permit businesses to opt out of the Obamacare requirement.
…

This bill will restore the original legal guarantee that women have access to contraceptive coverage through their employment-based insurance plans and will protect coverage of other health services from employer objections as well, according to the summary.

This is all well and good, but unfortunately this bill will never survive a cloture vote in the Senate; even if it did, it would be dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. The only way that Hobby Lobby stands even a chance of being overturned legislatively is if John Boehner is forced to hand over the Speaker’s gavel to a Democrat. That’s probably something someone at the DCCC should remind people of as we head into the midterms.

Link: 

This Is the Democratic Plan to Reverse the Hobby Lobby Decision

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Is the Democratic Plan to Reverse the Hobby Lobby Decision

Gitmo Detainees Cite Hobby Lobby in New Court Filing. Read It Here.

by SashaCfkiqxdl Posted on July 7, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In a new court filing, attorneys for two Guantanamo Bay detainees have invoked the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which allowed certain corporations to ignore the Obamacare contraception mandate if their owners object to it on religious grounds. The motions, filed with a Washington, DC, district court on behalf of Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan and Emad Hassan of Yemen, ask the court to bar military officials from preventing Gitmo inmates from participating in communal prayer during Ramadan.

“Hobby Lobby makes clear that all persons—human and corporate, citizen and foreigner, resident and alien—enjoy the special religious free exercise protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” the lawyers argue.

A spokesman for the Department of Defense told Al Jazeera America on Friday that the “Defense Department is aware of the filing,” and that the “government will respond through the legal system.”

Read the emergency motion for a temporary restraining order below:

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1212883-gitmo-hobby-lobby-filing.js”,
width: 630,
height: 820,
sidebar: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-1212883-gitmo-hobby-lobby-filing”
);

Gitmo Hobby Lobby Filing (PDF)

Gitmo Hobby Lobby Filing (Text)

Excerpt from – 

Gitmo Detainees Cite Hobby Lobby in New Court Filing. Read It Here.

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gitmo Detainees Cite Hobby Lobby in New Court Filing. Read It Here.

Take Two: Hobby Lobby Was About More Than Abortion After All

by KarinaGurley Posted on July 1, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In the Hobby Lobby case, the only contraceptives at issue were ones that the plaintiffs considered to be abortifacients. Thus my post yesterday that the case was really about abortion: “This is not a ruling that upholds religious liberty. It is a ruling that specifically enshrines opposition to abortion as the most important religious liberty in America.”

That was then, this is now:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling….Tuesday’s orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.

Until now, fans of the Hobby Lobby decision have made the point that abortion really is different from most other religious objections to specific aspects of health care. Christian Scientists might forego most medical treatments for themselves, for example, but they don’t consider it a sin to assist someone else who’s getting medical treatment. Thus they have no grounds to object to insurance that covers it. Conversely, members of some Christian denominations consider abortion to be murder, and obviously this means they have a strong objection to playing even a minor supporting role that helps anyone receive an abortion.

But what now? Is there a similar argument about contraception? Sure, Catholics might consider it sinful, but it’s not murder, and as far as I know the church wouldn’t consider your soul to be in danger if, say, you drove a Jewish friend to a pharmacy to pick up her birth control pills.1 Nonetheless, the court has now ruled that a religious objection to contraceptives is indeed at the same level as a religious objection to abortion. In other words, just about anything Catholics consider a sin for Catholics is justification for opting out of federal regulations. I wonder if the court plans to apply this to things that other religions consider sinful?

1I could be wrong about this, of course. But I’ll bet it’s a pretty damn minor sin.

See original: 

Take Two: Hobby Lobby Was About More Than Abortion After All

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Take Two: Hobby Lobby Was About More Than Abortion After All

How Obama Can Make Sure Hobby Lobby’s Female Employees Are Covered

by mirorita02 Posted on June 30, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Supreme Court on Monday blew a hole in an Obamacare provision that required employers to provide employees with contraceptive coverage. Specifically, companies whose owners have religious objections to covering contraception are now off the hook—regardless of whether their objections are based in reality.

More MoJo coverage of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.


Hobby Lobby’s Hypocrisy: The Company’s Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers


The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg’s Dissent


Why the Decision Is the New Bush v. Gore


How Obama Can Make Sure Hobby Lobby’s Female Employees Are Covered


The Supreme Court Chooses Religion Over Science


Hobby Lobby Wasn’t About Religious Freedom. It Was About Abortion.

So what does this mean for women who work for Hobby Lobby—or one of the 70 other companies that challenged Obamacare’s contraception mandate? The White House is considering whether President Obama can take unilateral action to ensure that they are covered. Health care experts say his administration can cover woman affected by today’s ruling similar to how it currently covers women working for nonprofit, religiously affiliated organizations.

Under the accommodation the federal government has worked out with religious nonprofits, the government waives fines for organizations that do not wish to cover contraception; the organization’s insurer or a third-party plan administrator provides the coverage instead. The cost is borne by the insurer, or in the latter case, the government.

“The obligation to provide contraception is technically on the insurers,” explains Timothy Jost, who runs Health Affairs Blog. “It’s just the government’s preference that the employers administer the coverage.”

Using the same workaround, the government can ensure that employees of companies such as Hobby Lobby still get the contraception coverage they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act, says Sara Rosenbaum, chair of the health policy school at George Washington University. “The only difference is that the employer is not exposed to the cost,” she says.

Jost notes: “I don’t see any reason why the Obama administration couldn’t do it this way. The Supreme Court more or less told them to do it, or strongly suggested they do it.”

Indeed, the five justices who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby made the accommodation a key piece of their decision. “HHS has…effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services,” the court noted in its opinion. The justices suggested extending that exemption, which “does not impinge on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs.”

Continue Reading »

Follow this link: 

How Obama Can Make Sure Hobby Lobby’s Female Employees Are Covered

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Obama Can Make Sure Hobby Lobby’s Female Employees Are Covered

Hobby Lobby Wasn’t About Religious Freedom. It Was About Abortion.

by Martha8879 Posted on June 30, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Elsewhere at Mother Jones, Dana Liebelson collects the either best lines from Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in the Hobby Lobby case. Here’s what I consider the most telling passage from Samuel Alito’s majority opinion:

Kinda reminds you of Bush v. Gore, doesn’t it? Alito takes pains to make it clear that his opinion shouldn’t be considered precedent for anything except the narrowly specific issue at hand: whether contraceptives that some people consider abortifacients can be excluded from health plans.

I think it’s important to recognize what Alito is saying here. Basically, he’s making the case that abortion is unique as a religious issue. If you object to anything else on a religious basis, you’re probably out of luck. But if you object to abortion on religious grounds, you will be given every possible consideration. Even if your objection is only related to abortion in the most tenuous imaginable way—as it is here, where IUDs are considered to be abortifacients for highly idiosyncratic doctrinal reasons—it will be treated with the utmost deference.

This is not a ruling that upholds religious liberty. It is a ruling that specifically enshrines opposition to abortion as the most important religious liberty in America.

View this article: 

Hobby Lobby Wasn’t About Religious Freedom. It Was About Abortion.

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hobby Lobby Wasn’t About Religious Freedom. It Was About Abortion.