Hobby Lobby and what really occured.

My views on t he Hobby Lobby decision-
Interestingly, I have about 25 emails asking the same question…
Although access to healthcare and birth control is something we can all agree on, there is another major issue at hand here. That is the fine line of a “place of religion” a business for profit and an owner or shareholder’s personal viewpoint of their personal faith.
 
IF Hobby Lobby were NOT incorporated and a place of religion, I’d say the Supreme Court was right. However, protection in the form of a corporation removes certain protections of the law. That being said, no one has spoken of what Hobby Lobby placed within their ‘corporation documents’ (which may include religious provisions that cannot be touched by any law) and I believe that is why the Supreme Court made the ruling they did. I can’t see this happening with JC Penny, Sears or even Wallyworld so I will go with the potential fact that Hobby Lobby had a lawful and legally binding clause in their corporate documents.
 
Let’s also look at the fact that birth control is still offered by this company, just not the more harsher pills such as the morning after pill (which I agree [personal opinion] with in rape cases, but not as a method of birth control because of the severe damage it does to a woman’s reproductive and endocrine system).
 
The health and safety of your daughter and all daughters and women in general is more important than my own health. That’s just the way I feel about life.
 
Supreme Court and their views on forcing a company relying on religious views to block ‘certain’ pregnancy ending chemicals (abortifacients) if that’s the proper term for all of the birth control methods… I could be wrong because I do not have a full list, nor do I have the medical knowledge to ascertain whether these are required for the health of a woman.
 
Being an Independent (not ruled by a political party) and a Constitutionalist (leading only by the limits of the Arizona and US Constitutions, I must go to the first ten words of the First Amendment: 
 
“Congress [lawmakers] shall make no laws respecting a place of religion…”
 
Lawmakers can make no law whatsoever –pro or con– against an organization of religion. Although Hobby Lobby fails –on it’s face– to pass the test as a religious organization, that “test” would also be a “law against an organization of religion” because “shall make no laws respecting” is very clear. This leaves the organization of religion open to all forms of interpretation as our founding fathers intended.
 
What is in the corporation’s founding documents? Evidently something that protects them using the First AMendment.
 
Is Hobby Lobby a place of religion? Evidently the scope is quite broad and they must have fallen under such a qualification. I must side with the Constitution even if does not always go hand in hand with Supreme Court rulings or vice versa.
 
*On this same token, and to a huge degree of what same sex consenting couples are missing is that a church can be formed to marry same sex couple and the state must recognize the marriage.
 
Before free speech was even added to our Bill of rights we have had rules protecting complete freedom of religion whereby lawmakers can not be involved in any way,
“Congress [lawmakers] shall make no laws respecting a place of religion…”
 
Not being a doctor outside of bandaging scraped knees and elbows of my sons, I can only hope that no woman will be affected in an adverse manner by this court ruling. Personally, I love babies and hate the idea that any group would use women’s health, safety and freedoms as a bargaining chip with the life and death of her unborn child as if it is some sort of game.
 
JL Mealer
Arizona Governor 2014
http://jlmealer.com
 
JL Mealer
Mealer Companies LLC
http://mealercompanies.com
America’s Next Major Automaker
Nearly 100%  Self-Regenerative-Fueled
High Capacity Electricity Producing Device MFG

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you’re not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this communication and destroy all copies.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s