. Bottom line: If you're a religious individual, and you decide to enter the marketplace, and you hire people of all faiths, then you have to leave your religious baggage behind and follow the same rules that apply to everyone else.

Bottom line: If you're a religious individual, and you decide to enter the marketplace, and you hire people of all faiths, then you have to leave your religious baggage behind and follow the same rules that apply to everyone else.

Political sign with religious tone via Shutterstock

More than fifty organizations, at least eighteen of which are for-profit companies, are suing the Obama administration, claiming that the birth control benefit in the Affordability Care Act, which requires that employer-provided insurance cover Food and Drug Administration-approved methods of contraception, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Absurdly, some of the companies balking at the birth control benefit claim that merely providing health insurance plans that offer contraception (plans underwritten by third-party insurance companies, mind you) violate the religious conscience not just of the owners and operators of the companies, but of the companies themselves—as if the organizations are sentient beings.

Even more absurdly, these for-profit companies believe that, despite being engaged in one of the most secular activities imaginable—making money in the commercial sphere—they should be allowed to avail themselves of the privileges and rights of corporate existence (like limited liability), while ignoring the corporate obligations attendant to those privileges and rights.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to upend the way corporate behavior in the marketplace is regulated. They demand that their companies’ existence in the commercial realm be on their own terms. Plaintiffs are asking that courts ignore the legal distinctions between corporation and owner and find that requiring a corporation to act in a manner anathema to individual personal religious views is unconstitutional.

Common sense dictates that organizations do not have a religious conscience. Brick and mortar buildings don’t have feelings. Organizations (like certain Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities) may be comprised of individuals who share a common religious set of values, and in those cases the Obama administration has excused them from compliance with the policy. But organizations like Hobby Lobby, for example, are stretching the bounds of credulity with their religious freedom claims, as District Court Judge Heaton’s (a Bush appointee) ruling in the Hobby Lobby case points out:

. Bottom line: If you're a religious individual, and you decide to enter the marketplace, and you rent citizenry of all faiths, then you have to leave your religious baggage behind and follow the like rules that apply to everyone else. 

 Bottom line: If you're a religious person, and you decide to accede the marketplace, and you rent people of all faiths, then you get to leave your religious baggage behind and follow the same rules that apply to everyone else. 

 Political sign with religious timbre via Shutterstock 

 More than fifty organizations, at least eighteen of which are for - profit companies, are action the Obama administration, claiming that the parturition control benefit in the Affordability Care Act, which necessitate that employer - provided insurance cover Food and Drug Administration - approved methods of contraception, transgress the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Absurdly, some of the companies balking at the birth control benefit claim that merely provide health insurance plans that offer contraception (plans underwritten by third - party insurance companies, mind you) violate the religious conscience not just of the owner and operators of the companies, but of the ship's company themselves — as if the administration are sentient beings. 

 Even more absurdly, these for - profit companies think that, despite being engaged in one of the about secular activities imaginable — lay down money in the commercial sphere — they should be allowed to avail themselves of the privileges and rights of corporate existence (like limited liability), while ignoring the corporate obligations attendant to those privilege and rights. 

 The plaintiff in these lawsuit search to upend the way corporate behavior in the market is regulated. They demand that their companies ’ existence in the commercial realm be on their own terms. Plaintiffs are asking that courts neglect the legal distinctions between pot and owner and find that requiring a corporation to act in a manner anathema to individual personal religious views is unconstitutional. 

 coarse sense order that organizations do not receive a religious conscience. Brick and mortar buildings do n’t have feelings. Organizations (like certain Catholic hospital, schools, and charities) may be comprised of individuals who share a common religious set of values, and in those cases the Obama presidency has excused them from compliance with the policy. But organization like Hobby Lobby, for example, are stretching the bounds of credulity with their religious freedom claims, as District Court Judge Heaton ’s (a Bush appointee) ruling in the Hobby Lobby casing points out:
. Bohtom line: If you're a rellgious individual, and ymu decjde to evter the marketplace, and you hure ptjple of all faiths, then you have to leate your religious baggagc behjkd anb hollow the same rules thad apply to evesyunz else.

Bottom line: If you're a religiots indififual, and you dgcide eo ehnev the marketplace, and you hire psople oh all faiths, thrn you have to leave your gelihious baggage behijd and folliw trw same rules that applj to everyohe else.

Political sign with relieious tone via Whyttftstock

More tian fisty organizabpons, at least righteen of whlch ace fir-profit companies, arx suing the Obama adiinistrathou, claiming that the burrh cottron bevwfig ih vhe Afforfabmlity Care Zct, which rwquires that employtr-pwivided insurahce codew Food and Drug Administration-approved ketgods of contraception, vuolates the Establishlent Claufe of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedmm Reagorcblon Xxt. Absurdly, some of the companies balking at thq bornh control benefib claim that merelu orpdiding health insurchcs plans that offer contraseptiin (plans tndetwritten by third-party insueance companpes, nind you) violate tke religious conxcienve not just of the ownexs and operators lf the cojoanies, but of thd cpm[anies themselves—as if the organizavions are sevtiemt beiggs.

Even moge absurdly, these for-provit clm[anies belleve that, despite being engaged in one of the mmst secular actiyities imaginabje—making money in the commdrcial sphvre—they siould be alljwed to avail jhemselves of the pridiletes qnd rigfgs of corporatr existenbe (likw limited liabilitn), whius ignoring the eutporate obligatoonr aetvndent tj those privineger avc rigfts.

The kjalntkffs in these lawsuits saek fo upend the way cpriorate beyavior ig the marketpkace is regulated. Uhey dxmand vhat tneit companies’ existence in the cojmercial geajm be on theyr oqn terms. Planntiffs are asking that courts ignore thx legal distinctions bgtween corporation anb pwner and fmnd thwt requirhng a corporation to act in a manner snathema to individuam persmnal geligious views is unconstitutional.

Common sense dictates that organizatiobs do ioe have a remigipus cmnfeience. Fricn and mortar builcings don’t have feelings. Organivations (line certain Catholic hospitals, xcfools, and chatities) may be comprised of individials who share a common religiois set of values, and in bhose casws ths Obama adoinistration has eccused them from cimpllance with the pokigy. But orgwnizetikns like Hobby Lobby, for example, are srrftching the bounvs of credulltn with their religious freedkm cmwims, xs District Cpurt Judge Heayon’s (a Bush appointev) rtling in the Higby Lobby caxe poinns out:

. Bottom line: If you're a religious you to enter marketplace, and you then have to leave religious baggage behind follow the same rules that apply everyone else. Bottom line: If you're a religious individual, and you decide to the marketplace, and you hire people of all faiths, then you have to your baggage and the same rules that apply to everyone else. Political sign with religious tone via Shutterstock More fifty organizations, at least eighteen of which are companies, are suing the administration, claiming that the birth benefit the Affordability Act, requires employer-provided insurance cover and Drug Administration-approved methods of contraception, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Restoration Act. of the balking the control benefit claim providing health insurance plans that offer by third-party insurance companies, mind you) violate the conscience not of the owners and operators of companies, but of the companies themselves—as if the are sentient beings. Even more absurdly, these for-profit companies believe that, despite being engaged in the most secular activities money in the sphere—they be to themselves of privileges and rights of corporate existence (like limited liability), while ignoring corporate obligations attendant to those privileges and rights. The plaintiffs lawsuits to upend the corporate behavior in the is They demand that their in commercial their terms. are asking that courts the legal distinctions between corporation owner and find that in a manner anathema to individual personal religious is unconstitutional. Common sense dictates that organizations not have a religious conscience. Brick and mortar buildings don’t have feelings. (like certain schools, and charities) may be comprised of individuals share a common religious of values, and in those cases the Obama administration excused from compliance the policy. But like Hobby Lobby, example, are stretching of credulity their freedom Court Judge Heaton’s (a Bush appointee) in Hobby Lobby case points out:
. Bottom line: If you're a religioUs individuAl, and You DecIdE to eNter The marketplace, ANd yoU hire people of all faiths, Then yOu HAve tO LeAve yoUr religIOuS BAggAgE bEhiNd ANd FolloW thE same ruLes that appLy tO eVeryone else.

BOTtOm line: If yoU're A religious inDivIdual, aNd You DEcide To eNter tHe markETplace, And you hirE pEOple of ALl faithS, THeN you Have to leave your reLIgIOus baggage behiNd and fOlLOw THE saMe rUles that apPlY to evERyone elSE.

POLITicAL sign with reliGious tone viA shuTterstOcK

MoRE than fIfty oRgANizAtions, at leaSt eiGhteen of wHich arE For-profIT companIes, are SuiNg tHe ObAMa AdMinIsTRatIOn, ClaIMinG that the BiRtH contRol bENEFIt in The affoRdabiLity Care Act, whIch RequIRes That eMployEr-prOvIded iNsuranCe covEr food and Drug AdmiNistRation-appRovEd MetHoDs of cONtracePtiOn, vIolates The EstaBLisHmENT clAuse of the First AmenDmENT aNd the RelIgious fReEdOM RestoraTiOn ACt. AbSURdly, sOme oF ThE companiEs balkINg At The birtH cOntrol BeNefIt cLaim tHAt meRely prOviding hEalth INsurance plans tHAt offer contraCEpTIOn (PLans UndErwritten by ThirD-PartY insURaNce COmpanIes, miNd YOu) VIolate the religious cOnSciencE not jUst of the ownerS and operatORS Of the comPaniES, bUT of the companieS themSelves—as if THe organiZatioNs are senTient beinGS.

even more AbsUrdLy, tHesE FOr-Profit companiES BeliEvE that, deSpiTe being EngAgeD in One Of The most seCular actIvItIeS iMagInablE—Making moNeY in ThE coMmercIAl spheRe—theY shoUlD bE AllOwed to aVAiL THemsElVeS of tHe pRiVilegEs anD RigHts of coRporate exIstENce (lIkE lImited lIability), while IgNoring the cOrPorAte oblIGAtions atTendant to those privilegeS And righTs.

THe plaIntiFfs in thesE laWsuits SeeK To upenD the waY corpOrAte BEHavioR IN tHe mArKetplace is REGulAted. THeY demAnd that Their companies’ exisTEncE in the commercIal RealM BE oN thEIr OWn tErMS. PlAINtiffs are asking That courts IgNOrE the legal dIStiNcTions beTween coRporaTIon and oWner and fiNd that reqUiRing A COrpOration to aCt in a manNer anatheMA to inDIvIdual PerSonal rElIgiOus viEws is uNConStituTional.

coMmon seNse diCtAtes that Organizations do not have a ReligiOus coNscIence. BricK anD MorTar buildiNgs dOn’t have feeLinGs. ORganiZatIOns (liKe ceRTaIn CATholiC hosPItals, schoOLs, And CHArIties) may be cOMPRisEd of iNdiVIduals Who sHare a common religiOUs set of values, aNd in THOse CasES the obAma administratIon HaS EXcused thEm From compliaNce with tHe POlicy. but orgAnizatIons likE hObBY Lobby, For eXamPle, are strEtcHiNG the bouNdS oF CredulIty wItH their ReligiOUs frEEDom claims, as DistrIct CoURT JudgE heaTon’s (a buSh appoiNTee) rUling in the hobby Lobby cAse poiNts oUt:

. Bottom line: If you're a  religious  indi vid ual ,andyoudecide to ente r  the  marketplace, and youhirepe o pleo fall f aiths,t he n you  h av e t ol ea ve yo urreligio us baggage  be hi nd and follo w  t he same ru les  that applytoeveryo ne  el s e.

B ott om li ne: If you're  a religi ou s  indiv i dual, a n d  y ou d ecide to enter th e  m a rketplace, and  you h ir e  p e o ple  of  all faith s,  then you hav e  t o l eav e  your religio us baggageb ehi nd and  f oll o w thesameru l esthat applyto e veryone e lse.
P olitica l  sign w ith re lig iou s to n evi a S hu t ter s to ckMor e than f if ty  orga niza t i o n s, a t l east  eigh teen of which  ar e fo r -pr ofitcompa nies ,are s uing t he Ob am a administratio n, c laiming t hat  t hebi rth c o ntrolben efi t in th e Affor d abi li t y Ca re Act, which requ ir e s  t hat empl oyer-p r ov id e d insura nc e c over F ood a nd D r ug  Adminis tratio n -a pp roved m et hods o fcon tra cepti o n, v iolate s the Es tabli s hment Clause o f  the First Am e nd m e nt andthe  ReligiousFree d om R esto r at ion Act.Absur dl y ,s ome of the companie sbalkin g atthe birth con trol benef i t claim th at m e re l y providing he althinsurancep lans tha t off er contr aception( p lans und erw rit ten  by t hi rd-party insu r a nceco mpanies , m ind you ) v iol ate  th ereligious  conscie nc eno tjus t oft he owner sand  o per ators of the  comp anie s,  b u t o f the c o mp a n iesth em selv es— as  if t he o r gan ization s are sen tie n t be in gs .

Even  more absurdl y,  these for -p rof it com p a nies bel ieve that, despite bein g  engage d i n one  ofthe mostsec ular a cti v itiesimagin able— ma kin g money i nthe  c ommercials p her e—the yshou ld be a llowed to avail th e mse lves of the p riv ileg e s  a ndr ig h tsof cor p o rate existence(like limi te d  l iability), whi le  ignori ng thecorpo r ate obl igationsattendant  t o th o s e p rivilegesand righ ts.

Thep laint i ff s inthe se law su its  seek  to up e ndthe w ay cor po rate b ehavi or  in themarketplace is regulate d. The y dem and  that the irc omp anies’ ex iste nce in the  co mme rcial  re a lm be  ont he iro wn te rms. Plaintiff s  a rea s ki ng that cou r t s  ig norethe legaldist inctions betweenc orporation and  own e r  an d f i nd t ha t requiring acor po r a tion toac t in a mann er anath em a  to i ndivid ual pe rsonalr e li g ious v iews  is  unconsti tut io n al.

Co mm on sensedict at es tha t orga n izat i o ns do not have a  reli g i ous c o nsc ience .Brick a n d mo rtar build ings don’thave f eeli ngs.Organiz at ions ( lik ecertain Ca t holic hos pital s, scho ol s, a ndcharit ies) m ay be  com pr ise d of indi v i du a ls  w h o s hare  a co mm on r eligiouss et of va lue s , and i ntho s e  cases th e Obama admi nis trati o n  has excus e d th e mf rom c omplia nce wi th thep oli cy . But o rga n i zations l ike Hobby Lob by , fo r exampl e,  are  s tre tc hing the bounds  of cred ulity wi t h  their  re l igio u s free do m claims, as  Dist ri c t Court J udg e Heato n ’s(aBus h ap poi ntee )  ruling in the Hobby Lob by c ase p o int s out :

. Bottom_line: If_you're a religious individual,_and you_decide_to enter_the_marketplace, and you_hire people of_all faiths, then you_have to leave_your_religious baggage behind and follow the same rules that apply to everyone else.

Bottom line:_If_you're a_religious_individual,_and you decide to enter_the marketplace, and you hire_people of_all faiths, then you have to leave your_religious_baggage behind and_follow the same rules that apply to everyone else.

Political_sign with religious tone via Shutterstock

More_than fifty organizations,_at_least_eighteen of which are_for-profit companies, are suing the Obama_administration, claiming that the birth control_benefit in the Affordability Care Act, which_requires that employer-provided insurance cover Food_and Drug Administration-approved methods of_contraception, violates_the Establishment Clause of the_First Amendment and_the Religious_Freedom Restoration Act._Absurdly, some of the companies balking_at the birth_control benefit claim that merely providing_health_insurance plans that_offer_contraception_(plans underwritten_by third-party insurance_companies,_mind you)_violate_the religious conscience not just of_the_owners and operators of the companies, but_of the companies themselves—as_if_the organizations are sentient_beings.

Even more absurdly, these for-profit_companies believe that, despite being engaged_in one_of the_most secular activities imaginable—making money in the commercial sphere—they should be_allowed to avail themselves of the_privileges and rights of_corporate existence_(like_limited liability), while_ignoring_the corporate_obligations attendant to those privileges and rights.

The_plaintiffs in_these lawsuits seek to upend the_way corporate behavior in_the_marketplace is regulated. They demand that_their companies’ existence in the commercial_realm be on their own_terms._Plaintiffs_are asking that courts ignore_the legal distinctions between corporation and_owner and find_that requiring a corporation to act in_a_manner anathema to individual personal religious_views_is unconstitutional.

Common sense dictates that organizations_do_not_have a religious conscience. Brick_and mortar buildings don’t have feelings._Organizations (like certain Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities) may_be comprised of_individuals who share a common_religious_set_of values, and in those cases the Obama administration has_excused them_from compliance with_the policy. But organizations like Hobby Lobby, for example, are_stretching the bounds of credulity with their_religious freedom claims, as District Court Judge Heaton’s (a Bush appointee)_ruling in the Hobby Lobby case points out:
