The Black Center-Right responds to Hobby Lobby Case

And so, Liberals learned last week the stunning truth that religious rights and conscience don't stop at the moment of incorporation. They genuinely thought the Government had a right to tell the faithful to assist in the killing of innocence. As usual, the black press, ever the cheerleader for the State, covered the ruling as if they were reading word for word, White House talking points. Given such bias, it's important to note that other black voices looked at the same case, yet come away with very different conclusions.

Let's take a look at some of them.

Anthony Rek, a black conservative writer, opined on the case in his latest, "The Talents of Christian Vocation": 

"Put simply, it is useless and unproductive to dismiss the faithful to an extraneous audience by progressively “mansplaining” their own beliefs to them. The real issue in this case is whether we, as a nation, will value and protect religious freedom, or not. Here we should note that, contrary to what some might like to pretend for partisan—or perhaps ingenuously obtuse—reasons, Antonin Scalia’s Employment Division v. Smithdecision profoundly limiting the prerogative of religious objection to generally applicable laws remains binding constitutional precedent. That precedent is not abrogated because the Court has now acknowledged the current government’s actions run afoul of a duly enacted law of Congress (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) long understood—and demonstrated, even under the Obama administration—to protect religious rights beyond the point of incorporation. For the proof, let us go to the ruling."

Read complete article here.

And this from Jennifer Oliver OConnell, writing for Communities Digital News:

"On the left side of things, Think Progress blog penned the headline: Hobby Lobby Wins Right To Refuse To Cover Birth Control. This completely deceptive headline is meant to stoke the “War on Women” narrative. Hobby Lobby was not fighting to disregard the entire contraceptive mandate—their insurance plans before Obamacare already covered over 30 different forms of contraception. What the Greens balked at were four different “treatments” commonly known as abortifacients (Plan “B” and the Morning-after pill). These pills are clearly meant to terminate an already conceived life, and the Greens felt supplying these four abortifacients would violate their evangelical Christian religious beliefs."

Read complete article here.

William N. Grigg, a self described "Christian Individualist" has a few choice words for Justice Ruth Bader:

"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg professes to be offended by the idea that a commercial enterprise can claim protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. She is just as adamant in her insistence that an equally abstract entity called the “government” has “interests” that justify imposing on the property rights of private business owners. “The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities,” Ginsburg complained in her dissent in the Court’s recent Hobby Lobby ruling. In defense of that proposition she cites John Marshall’s description of a corporation as “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.” In similar fashion, she quotes John Paul Stevens’ observation that corporations “have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” Ginsburg appears to be a chromosome-level statist, which is why she doesn’t understand that this descriptive language also applies to the fictive entity called “government.” It, too, is an invisible, impersonal abstraction existing only in the minds of those who believe in it. The “government” has no body, parts, or passions. It has no hands save those that are raised by believers in violence against the infidels, and (to paraphrase Nietzsche) no wealth save that which was stolen in its name."

Read complete article here.