Image 01 Image 03

So if Hobby Lobby were unincorporated, Chuck Schumer would be okay with its contraceptive policy?

So if Hobby Lobby were unincorporated, Chuck Schumer would be okay with its contraceptive policy?

Democrats exalt form over substance in attacking religious liberties of owners of closely held corporations.

The Hobby Lobby decision really brought out the hyperbole of the Democratic Party.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York is no exception. Speaking at a press conference Thursday, he made some remarks about the decision. Eric Scheiner of CNS News reported:

At a press conference Thursday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said people with religious beliefs who disagree with the Obamacare contraception mandate should be given a choice between living by their faith or being allowed to form a corporation to do business.

“You’re born with a religion or you adopt a religion. You have to obey the precepts of that religion and the government gives you a wide penumbra – you don’t have to form a corporation,” Schumer said.

At one point, Schumer had the audacity to say:

We wouldn’t tell the owners of Hobby Lobby to convert to a different religion or disobey their religion.

Isn’t this just form over substance? If Hobby Lobby were unincorporated, for example a sole proprietorship or partnership, would Schumer be okay with Hobby Lobby’s contraceptive policies? Doubtful.

What the Supreme Court did was exalt substance over form, and focus on the rights of individuals owning closely held companies in which the owners are relatively few and involved in the business.

What Democrats who drafted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act want to do is exalt form over substance.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It’s not merely contraception. It’s the state-sponsored commission of abortion/murder by mechanical or chemical means. Drop the euphemisms, Schumer.

Schumer believes that human life begins with spontaneous conception. Democrats, on principle, have a selective respect for human life, beginning from some time around birth. Republicans, in principle, are better, but exhibit exceptional corruption.

This is not only about morality. It is also about human biology. When and by whose choice does a human life acquire value? The normalization of abortion/murder degrades human life to a commodity status.

Our secular society seems to have a difficult time reconciling the terms and circumstances of reality, morality (i.e. self-moderating, responsible behavior), and its lust for money, sex, convenience, and power.

As ignorant as Schumer’s comment is, it will be repeated over and over, just as “You didn’t build that” was. These people have no morals, no scruples, no ethical foundation. They will say and do anything to win. And the media will validate their ignorance by restating this obscene viewpoint to their low-info viewers using words of no more than two syllables in a 15 second sound bite.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to gasper. | July 14, 2014 at 11:03 am

    It should be noted, too, that The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was the basis for the SCOTUS ruling, was signed into law by William J. “Slick Willie” Clinton about 50-days into his first term. The bill had been passed by a unanimous House vote, which under Democratic control, and a near-unanimous vote of the Republican-controlled Senate. That means that Nancy Pelosi and her cadre of long-serving idiots all voted for it, as well as the Usual Suspects in the Senate, including Chuckie Sch00ma.

    Hoisted. Own. Petard.

… you don’t have to form a corporation,

So basically, you must choose.
Maintain your religious beliefs vs. do business.
What’s next?

…you don’t have to vote?
…you don’t have to run for office?
…you don’t need that job?
…you don’t need THAT house?
…you don’t have to eat meat every day?
…you don’t have to have a car?

Is that the way we’re going now?
Does faith make one a second class citizen now?

Where do they find these morons?

    Ragspierre in reply to Exiliado. | July 14, 2014 at 9:57 am

    Both the left and right coasts are cock-a-block with ’em.

    We even have a smattering here in Texas. See Davis, Wendy.

Coupla thangs…

1. there is no “Obamacare mandate”, and for the very good reason that the Deemocrats could not have passed ObamaDoggle if there WERE a “mandate”. The “mandate” is pure fabrication from the Regulatory State.

2. if Hobby Lobby were a NON-profit, HHS has a nice lil’ exception for its “mandate”. Which is ONE of the several reasons the court’s ruling in the case was simply rational. Which makes Ginsburg’s hissy-fit in dissent plainly IRRATIONAL.

Making a living cannot be prejudiced by one’s religious views…not by the government…except on very narrow grounds.

    Brilliant summary Rags, and yes I am a foreigner but I understand the arguments.

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | July 15, 2014 at 4:09 am

    Wrong. There certainly is a mandate. The law explicitly requires employer-provided insurance policies to cover all the treatments that the HHS shall determine are necessary. That requirement has not been challenged, let alone struck down, and is still the law.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2014 at 7:32 am

      Poor Milhouse. Now you’re going to have to read the whole stinking ObamaDoggle LAW to point to the place where THE MANDATE is expressly stated (it isn’t…like I said…and for the reason I stated).

      You could either be a better contrarian or give it up as too hard for you.

inspectorudy | July 14, 2014 at 10:18 am

The problem with this is that you are putting Schumer and logic in the same article. He is 100% politician and never uses logic or what’s good for the country in his endeavours. He is a slimy greedy self serving creep.

I’ve found a simple argument to point out the ridiculous of people who argue that this case and Citizens United got it wrong and that corporations shouldn’t have constitutional protections. I just ask them if they would have been ok with GW Bush commandeering local businesses to sequester military troops in during his presidency.


There is no such thing as being “born to a religion.” All children are born atheists and only pick up a religion by brainwashing.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Jimbino. | July 14, 2014 at 12:37 pm

    Everyone worships and lives by something – if only their own opinions and pleasures. It’s part of the human psycho-spiritual make up. The people who grow tired of their idols, who sense and seek God, find Him.

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to Jimbino. | July 14, 2014 at 12:37 pm

    Have you picked your classes for ninth grade yet?

    n.n in reply to Jimbino. | July 14, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    Religion and faith are separable. Religion is a philosophy of morality, where the philosopher may be mortal or divine (e.g. God). However, whether the philosopher is mortal or divine, it requires a measure of faith to comply with the principles. Human beings have an intrinsic (perhaps genetic) conception of morality, which may be further reinforced and structured with learning and experience.

    That said, atheism is an unnatural state. Human beings are born with a curiosity which exceeds their mortal perspective. While this perspective may be tempered by accrued arrogance, it is not within our ability to know what exists outside a limited frame of reference (i.e. science).

    In any case, everyone has a religion. Not everyone has a faith in God. The question of his existence may be settled after death, and according to our ancestors, will be settled after death. Time will tell. In the meantime, God’s order is compatible with the natural order, and his religion or moral philosophy improves the human condition and promotes fitness.

    Ragspierre in reply to Jimbino. | July 14, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    All children are born helpless, selfish idiots, and only learn from their parents (usually).

    All atheists only come to their conviction by accepting false premises.

    Which proves the limitations of logic.

    what total rubbish.

    Atheists have their idols too. They are false gods such as money, sports, the body and ego.

    Immolate in reply to Jimbino. | July 15, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    Jimbino, the bible says in 2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

    At the same time God, being eternal, knows what we will do, and for those who are stiff-necked and hard-hearted, He doesn’t waste much time. He’ll still use you, but to further His plan, not yours.

    Even the prideful can have their heart softened by personal tragedy of adverse circumstances. If you find yourself in that position some day, rethink your rebelliousness. You can walk away from God your entire life, and still be united with Him by a single step in His direction.

TrooperJohnSmith | July 14, 2014 at 10:57 am

Chuckie Sch00ma: Poster Boy for “Repeal the 17th Amendment”!

Give the Senate BACK to the States where the Founders put it! (Thanks for screwing up that too, Progressive idiots!)

Note: Chuckie has about 90-95 Co-Poster Boys and Girls in the United States Senate!

Looking for logic from Schumer is like looking for Schumer in a room without cameras.

OK Chuck. No problem. Now, in order to make this viable, we would need to flatten the tax code, no differing tax rates for S- Corps, Sole Proprietorships, and C-Corps. The, we would need to separate out for everyone, then we would also need MASSIVE Tort Reform.

Chuck might be ahead of his time

HistoricalForensics | July 14, 2014 at 12:26 pm

“…Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said people with religious beliefs who disagree with the Obamacare contraception mandate should be given a choice between living by their faith or being allowed to form a corporation to do business.”

Whoa! Wait a minute. “…GIVEN A CHOICE…being ALLOWED…? Just exactly WHO has the authority to demand a choice between faith and livelihood, then decide who is allowed to do business? Chuckie? The federal government? Does Chuckie need me to read the 1st Amendment to him…slowly…so he can comprehend it. “…prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Did the Framers use too many big words? Corporations are people too. Constitutional Law has recognized this way back into the early 1800’s. It’s not a novel idea that started recently with Citizens United. Get over it! It protects your rights too, Chuckie.

Throughout history, such thinking and over-the-top rhetoric, like Chuck’s, has always led to bad things happening to innocent people. What he is proposing is the height of dangerous discrimination, based, in this instance, on religion…again. His attitude is just plain scary. It has no place in this country or in a world where people ought to know better.

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not afraid of Chuckie or any of his intellectually-challenged, fellow travelers. They’re the minority, no matter what they want us to believe. They’ve simply managed to get themselves into positions with a platform. No, I’m afraid that when they don’t get their way, their willful ignorance and self-serving power lust will eventually bring lethal force against thinking free people. Not over contraception; it’s the extension of this warped ideology into all areas that will cause it. Let’s not go there.

A woman’s right to contraception does not exceed anyone else’s rights. Abortion is not contraception. Once fertilization occurs, no CONTRA-conception method will help. The woman is pregnant, whether she knows it yet or not. You can’t be a little bit pregnant. You are or you aren’t. There are only 3 ways for a pregnancy to terminate: birth, spontaneous abortion or induced abortion. That’s it. Stop with the misleading rhetoric. She can still choose, but neither Constitutionally nor morally does he have the authority to force one anyone to abandon their “…free exercise thereof…” through government force.

“…You have to obey the precepts of that religion and the government gives you a wide penumbra – you don’t have to form a corporation,” Schumer said.”

The federal government gives We, the People NOTHING. We give the federal government its authority. The People CREATED it to serve the People in only those limited areas where a central government would best serve.

Stop it, Chuck! Stop it now. You only think you live in a safe zone where you are immune to the consequences of your actions and that when bad things happen you aren’t responsible. You choose, Chuck. Choose to not go there. Whether it costs you your seat in Congress or results in something far worse down the road, yes siree, Mr. Chuckie, you will own it, along with all your fellow fools, including Republicans who choose to be a part of your band of thieves. Stop! If you can’t make your case without sounding and acting like a tyrant, then you have no case. Back up, Chuck.

Sorry for the rant. Chuckie’s done gone and hacked me off.

Uncle Samuel | July 14, 2014 at 12:32 pm

Trying to reconcile leftists with anything resembling logic, law, common sense, evidence and truth is a futile effort. Their brain neurons are not wired that way. They live in an alternate reality.

Being incorporated just means it is harder to sue the owners individually. It is a concept that has been around in Anglo jurisprudence for about 300 years or so. It is not some super special status that subjects the individual shareholders and officers to any whim of government.

    Chem_Geek in reply to EBL. | July 14, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    Well, that’s exactly it. One DOESN’T have to form a corporation in order to do business. (See someone whining above.)

    They (the Management) seems to want to have it both ways – sue the company & win, and it’s all “Oh, that’s not us, it’s the Company, you can’t seize our houses and cars and bank accounts.”, but when it comes to mandatory paying for abortifacents, it’s all “Oh, the Company is us, it’s against our faith to do that, you big meanie!”

      Ragspierre in reply to Chem_Geek. | July 14, 2014 at 8:43 pm

      Wholly CRAP…

      Do you NEVER tire of making yourself a public idiot…???

      “Oh, that’s not us, it’s the Company, you can’t seize our houses and cars and bank accounts.”

      Sure I can, if I prove “US” did stuff they should not have done. Managers of a close corporation can be personally liable.

      But if you are a sole proprietorship in Texas, I can’t get to your home, your car(s) or your bank accounts (unless…). Those are exempt from a judgment debtor.

      “…but when it comes to mandatory paying for abortifacents…”

      There is a little red light that ONCE flashed when you wrote something THAT stupid, but you put duct tape over it long years ago.

      If you want to use an abortifacient, you may. You don’t get to make me pay for it on the pretext that I employ you AND happen to work for a profit (as opposed to a fat salary as a “non-profit”). The idea makes reason…and the Supreme court majority…stare.

      Ya moron…

Just as the Supreme Court found a distinction between a publicly held corporation and a closely held corporation, I find a distinction between a woman’s right to contraception, and her alleged right to force somebody else to pay for an abortion.

You have a better chance of winning the lottery than you do getting logic and reason from Schumer.

A comment I read after the decision on another site:

It’s not that they lost birth control…it’s that their false god called “government” can’t force others to forfeit their beliefs on the altar of their false gods.

you do not have to be a lawyer or a citizen of the USA to know that little Chuckie (as in the doll Chuckie) does not understand the U.S. Constitution.

The leftists have it very wrong. The Establishment clause refers to the Freedom of Religion, not Freedom From Religion. It means that the STATE cannot establish one religion of the State… meaning that Shariah Law is out the window.

Leftists are ignorant of history and it is the historical perspective that is all important when it comes to understanding the impact of the Establishment clause.

The Establishment clause means that you cannot outlaw any sect such as the Morman Faith (Harry Reid is a Mormon) or Islam or even Judaism, let alone Catholic, Presbyterian or Scientology or Jehovah’s Witnesses or for that matter Hindu or Buddhism or any other of the thousands of religions and cults that exist. Importantly, it means that the State cannot abrogate the rights of individuals.

The Amish and some other sects refuse to vote or to enter the military because of conscientous pacific objections. The Establishment Clause protects their rights against being coerced into belonging to the military or being forced to vote in elections. Well the same goes for people who have a moral objection to being forced to pay for something that causes the death of a baby in the womb.

I am a woman. I gave birth to 3 sons. I know what it is like to be pregnant. That times was not easy. Sometimes women have difficulties because of diabetes or other issues. Rarely is it medically necessary to abort a pregnancy because of complications. One exception that I make is ectopic pregnancy because it is not viable in the first place and if it is not removed it causes a lot of damage to the fallopian tubes of the mother. You do not need an abortion if you have high blood pressure or you are pre-eclampsia… and if there is eclampsia the solution is to bring on the birth, not partial birth abortion.

The issue of contraception is one that is a personal choice. Catholics, for example are guided on that subject to treat contraceptives as the means by which they do not accept God’s Will in their lives in regard to the gift of children. I am not necessarily reflecting the whole of the Catholic teaching on the matter. The fact is, Catholics make their contraceptive choices based upon their needs, and they will do what they think is right even if it is not what the Church teaches. However, a person who is not Catholic but attends a Catholic institution does not have the right to demand that the Catholic institution pays for their contraceptives. My maxim here is simple : close your legs and stop sleeping around and then you will not need to purchase contraceptives…

I see the Hobby Lobby case in the same light as I would for Wheaton College and any Catholic institution such as the Little Sisters of the Poor. If employees want to be the equivalent of the town bike then they can pay for their own contraception.

However, that gets away from the guiding principle of the Establishment Clause which clearly means that the State is not free to impose its will on the people. In this case the mandate in question is the State imposing its will in a way that is not constitutional.

    Ragspierre in reply to Aussie. | July 15, 2014 at 6:15 am

    I have four grandkids that my daughter had to work very hard to bring into the world. She’s a hero in my book.

    HistoricalForensics in reply to Aussie. | July 15, 2014 at 10:17 am

    Chuckie doesn’t need to bother his pretty little head with such useless information as history (Constitutional or otherwise) except for being able to repeat a vague overview of the progressive revised version, which is subject to additional or contrary reinterpretations as needed. They call it social justice, when it’s really nothing more than ideological fiction, with a few relevant names and out-of-context facts sprinkled in. Progressive ideology promotes the belief that laws (and history) are malleable and should be reinterpreted with each generation (or as often as they deem advantageous) without the bother of properly changing the law (or relying on actual history) in order to progress into the brave new world they envision. They, of course, are the arbitrators of what those changes should be. The law is whatever they say it is. This is where we get this whole ‘living Constitution’ theory. This holds true until it doesn’t, like during the Bush years when they constantly bellowed about Bush violating the Constitution. Whether Bush did or did not is irrelevant to their argument. All that matters is that they get to determine what the law means. They see no hypocrisy or inconsistency in changing their interpretations on a dime. American progressivism, imported from nineteenth-century German historicism and philosopher H.G.F. Hagel, is nothing more than a longing for a return to feudalism that they call progress.

    Chuckie is ignorant of truth and of human nature, but he’s well versed in speaking progressive.

    Good comment, Aussie. Thanks.

So… if you like your religion, you can keep it, but you have no right to form a corporation, to pursue profit, or to pursue your own happiness in life, should you choose a religion which offends the moral sensibilities of our wise political leaders.

Do I have it about right?

some pne should also point out to Chuckie that corporations are not FEDERAL law. Corporations are under state business laws and vary slightly from state to state. He is an attorney and should be disbarred due to his lack of knowledge of the law. But then why should he know the law, he is not subject to it being the grand pooba that he is.