Hobby Lobby Ally Invokes the ‘Chick-fil-A’ Defense

The 5-4 Supreme Court decision Monday was applauded by a wide swath of conservative politicians and groups.

National Journal
Matt Vasilogambros
See more stories about...
Matt Vasilogambros
June 30, 2014, 7:30 a.m.

As con­ser­vat­ives cel­eb­rated Hobby Lobby’s Su­preme Court vic­tory over Obama­care’s con­tra­cep­tion man­date, one group brought back a fa­mil­i­ar play­er in the battle over cor­por­a­tions’ re­li­gious ex­pres­sion: Chick-fil-A.

The Na­tion­al Cen­ter for Pub­lic Policy said in a state­ment the Court’s de­cision was “a vic­tory for free­dom,” and ref­er­enced the fast-food res­taur­ant to bol­ster its ar­gu­ment.

Chick-fil-A “for­goes sig­ni­fic­ant profit by clos­ing every Sunday for re­li­gious reas­ons, for ex­ample,” said Chair­man Amy Riden­our.  “If it were not pos­sible for a cor­por­a­tion to ex­er­cise re­li­gious be­liefs, Chik-Fil-A would be open on Sundays.”

Chick-fil-A’s prin­cip­al founder is a de­vout South­ern Baptist, and the res­taur­ant be­came the darling of the con­ser­vat­ive move­ment — and drew ire from the Left — after its CEO spoke out against leg­al­ized gay mar­riage.

The res­taur­ant ref­er­ence came among a chor­us of con­ser­vat­ive re­ac­tions to the 5-4 Su­preme Court rul­ing, which ex­empts cer­tain closely held com­pan­ies from the Af­ford­able Care Act’s con­tra­cep­tion man­date.

Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee Chair­man Re­ince Priebus:

This de­cision pro­tects the re­li­gious free­dom that is guar­an­teed to all Amer­ic­ans by the First Amend­ment, and we’re grate­ful the Court ruled on the side of liberty. The cent­ral is­sue of this case was wheth­er the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment can co­erce Amer­ic­ans to vi­ol­ate their deeply held re­li­gious be­liefs, and thank­fully the Court has up­held the prop­er lim­its on the gov­ern­ment’s power.

Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell, R-Ky.

Today’s Su­preme Court de­cision makes clear that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion can­not trample on the re­li­gious freedoms that Amer­ic­ans hold dear. Obama­care is the single worst piece of le­gis­la­tion to pass in the last 50 years, and I was glad to see the Su­preme Court agree that this par­tic­u­lar Obama­care man­date vi­ol­ates the Re­li­gious Free­dom Res­tor­a­tion Act (RFRA).

House Speak­er John Boehner

Today’s de­cision is a vic­tory for re­li­gious free­dom and an­oth­er de­feat for an ad­min­is­tra­tion that has re­peatedly crossed con­sti­tu­tion­al lines in pur­suit of its Big Gov­ern­ment ob­ject­ives.”¦ The pres­id­ent’s health care law re­mains an un­work­able mess and a drag on our eco­nomy.  We must re­peal it and en­act bet­ter solu­tions that start with lower­ing Amer­ic­ans’ health care costs.

Gov. Bobby Jin­dal, R-La.

The Court has made clear today that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s as­sault on re­li­gious free­dom in this case went too far — but this as­sault will not stop, in our courts, in our schools, and in the halls of power. It will take be­liev­ers who are will­ing to risk their for­tunes and pub­lic ri­dicule and the mod­ern slings and ar­rows to stand up for what’s right.

 Rep. Michele Bach­mann, R-Minn.

I am ex­tremely en­cour­aged by today’s Su­preme Court de­cision to up­hold the re­li­gious liberty rights of the Green fam­ily of Hobby Lobby. At its core, today’s de­cision was about the right of in­di­vidu­al and fam­ily busi­ness own­ers to be free from gov­ern­ment man­dates that force them to deny their sin­cerely-held re­li­gious be­liefs. Amer­ica was foun­ded on the prin­ciple of re­li­gious free­dom, and there is noth­ing more fun­da­ment­al than the First Amend­ment. This de­cision rep­res­ents a tre­mend­ous vic­tory for the ba­sic con­sti­tu­tion­al rights of every Amer­ic­an.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.

Today’s de­cision is a vic­tory for re­li­gious free­dom. Re­li­gious free­dom is one of our most ba­sic prin­ciples and the very first right men­tioned in the Bill of Rights. I am pleased that the Su­preme Court has re­jec­ted the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s at­tempt to lim­it this most fun­da­ment­al of Amer­ic­an liber­ties.

Fam­ily Re­search Coun­cil

The Su­preme Court has de­livered one of the most sig­ni­fic­ant vic­tor­ies for re­li­gious free­dom in our gen­er­a­tion. We are thank­ful the Su­preme Court agreed that the gov­ern­ment went too far by man­dat­ing that fam­ily busi­nesses own­ers must vi­ol­ate their con­sciences un­der threat of crip­pling fines.

In­de­pend­ent Law Cen­ter

This case isn’t simply about con­tra­cep­tion. In­stead, if gov­ern­ment could have forced Amer­ic­ans to vi­ol­ate their most deeply held con­vic­tions, no Amer­ic­an, whatever their con­vic­tions, would have been free.”

The In­de­pend­ent Wo­men’s For­um

The HHS man­date is bad policy. It comes with un­in­ten­ded con­sequences for wo­men and for pub­lic health. By re­mov­ing price com­pet­i­tion from birth con­trol mar­kets, the man­date would have driv­en up the cost of drugs for wo­men who re­main un­in­sured, and may have dis­cour­aged con­dom use among those who are in­sured. We are thank­ful that the Court ruled today that closely-held cor­por­a­tions will not be re­quired to fol­low this mis­guided policy. 

South­ern Evan­gel­ic­al Sem­in­ary

This is a land­mark case that will have his­tor­ic­al sig­ni­fic­ance for dec­ades to come, and Chris­ti­an busi­ness own­ers as well as oth­ers of all re­li­gious faith can feel se­cure that they can run their busi­nesses with their faith at the cen­ter of all de­cisions, rather than sep­ar­at­ing their faith from their busi­ness prac­tices and policies be­cause the gov­ern­ment tells them they must act counter to their core re­li­gious con­vic­tions.”

What We're Following See More »
11 HOUSE MEMBERS NOW BEHIND HIM
Two Committee Chairs Endorse Trump
12 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Two powerful House members—Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller (R-FL)—are throwing their support behind Donald Trump.

Source:
BUT WOULD HE THROW THE CHAIR?
Bobby Knight: Trump Would Drop the Bomb Just Like Truman
12 hours ago
THE LATEST
LAST PLACE
Trump Still Struggling for Endorsements
15 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
MORE INDEPENDENTS, FEWER SUPERDELEGATES
Sanders Could Force Changes to Nominating Process
18 hours ago
THE LATEST

There are not "ongoing, direct conversations between" the Bernie Sanders camp and the Hillary Clinton camp regarding "the platform or rules changes," but Sanders "is already making his opening arguments" about those issues on the stump. Sanders is putting "complaints about closed primaries" atop his stump speeches lately, and figures to start a "conversation about the role of superdelegates in the nominating process." He said, “Our goal, whether we win or we do not win, is to transform the Democratic Party."

Source:
‘LUCIFER IN THE FLESH’
Boehner Says He Wouldn’t Vote for Cruz
19 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Well, this is unsubtle. Former Speaker John Boehner called Ted Cruz "lucifer in the flesh," adding that he "never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life." Boehner has endorsed John Kasich, but he said he'd vote for Donald Trump over Cruz. He also praised Bernie Sanders, calling him the most honest politician in the race, and predicted that Joe Biden may yet have a role to play in the Democratic contest, especially if Hillary Clinton runs into legal trouble over her emails.

Source:
×