The fall out of the dictatorial edit by HHS has resulted in law suits by religious organizations that are destined to climb up the judiciary ladder .

Now the same can be said about small businesses who's owner's morals are being violated by this attack on their 1st amendment rights .
http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/NEWLAND%20V%20SEBELIUS-COMPLAINT.pdf

The Newlands are a Catholic family that owns an HVAC business that employs 265 people . Under Obamacare , businesses that have more than 50 employees must provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty. To satisfy the mandate under the Sebellius edict ,the insurance must include "free" sterilization,contraception,an abortifacient benefits.
They are devout Catholics who are morally opposed to sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion .

While most of the free exercise debate has focused on religious institutions ;what hasn't been addressed in the discussion is how this dictate also violates the rights of small business owners. The Newlands run a self-insurance plan, providing their employees with generous coverage that is consistent with their beliefs .

The complaint states that faith "does not allow them to violate Catholic religious and moral teachings in their decisions operating Hercules Industries,”... “They believe that according to the Catholic faith their operation of Hercules must be guided by ethical social principles and Catholic religious and moral teachings, that the adherence of their business practice according to such Catholic ethics and religious and moral teachings is a genuine calling from God, that their Catholic faith prohibits them to sever their religious beliefs from their daily business practice, and that their Catholic faith requires them to integrate the gifts of the spiritual life, the virtues, morals, and ethical social principles of Catholic teaching into their life and work."“The Catholic Church teaches that abortifacient drugs, contraception and sterilization are intrinsic evils,” says the complaint. “As a matter of religious faith the Newlands believe that those Catholic teachings are among the religious ethical teachings they must follow throughout their lives including in their business practice.”

The Justice Dept's response is that if they don't like the rules ,give up your business. They argue that “a secular employer does not engage in any ‘exercise of religion.’”

The Newland's complaint states “The government argues that the Newlands forfeited their right to religious liberty as soon as they endeavored to earn their living by running a corporation,” “Nothing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions, or federal law requires—or even suggests—that families forfeit their religious liberty protection when they try to earn a living, such as by operating a corporate business,” This is the equivant of arguing that once a news organization is incorporated ,they give up their1st Amendment right to freedom of press.

They have no options . Under Obamacare if they stop providing insurance through their company ,they still are forced to pay a fine ,and they would be forced to purchase insurance for themselves that offers the provisions they object to. Under any circumstances ,under the Sebillius dictate ,they are forced to violate their relious moral code ;and give up their free exercise rights..

The fall out of the dictatorial edit by HHS has resulted in law suits by religious organizations that are destined to climb up the judiciary ladder .

Now the same can be said about small businesses who's owner's morals are being violated by this attack on their 1st amendment rights .
http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/NEWLAND%20V%20SEBELIUS-COMPLAINT.pdf

The Newlands are a Catholic family that owns an HVAC business that employs 265 people . Under Obamacare , businesses that have more than 50 employees must provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty. To satisfy the mandate under the Sebellius edict ,the insurance must include "free" sterilization,contraception,an abortifacient benefits.
They are devout Catholics who are morally opposed to sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion .

While most of the free exercise debate has focused on religious institutions ;what hasn't been addressed in the discussion is how this dictate also violates the rights of small business owners. The Newlands run a self-insurance plan, providing their employees with generous coverage that is consistent with their beliefs .

The complaint states that faith "does not allow them to violate Catholic religious and moral teachings in their decisions operating Hercules Industries,” .... “They believe that according to the Catholic faith their operation of Hercules must be guided by ethical social principles and Catholic religious and moral teachings, that the adherence of their business practice according to such Catholic ethics and religious and moral teachings is a genuine calling from God, that their Catholic faith prohibits them to sever their religious beliefs from their daily business practice, and that their Catholic faith requires them to integrate the gifts of the spiritual life, the virtues, morals, and ethical social principles of Catholic teaching into their life and work."“The Catholic Church teaches that abortifacient drugs, contraception and sterilization are intrinsic evils,” says the complaint. “As a matter of religious faith the Newlands believe that those Catholic teachings are among the religious ethical teachings they must follow throughout their lives including in their business practice.”

The Justice Dept's response is that if they don't like the rules ,give up your business. They argue that “a secular employer does not engage in any ‘exercise of religion.’”

The Newland's complaint states “The government argues that the Newlands forfeited their right to religious liberty as soon as they endeavored to earn their living by running a corporation,” “Nothing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions, or federal law requires—or even suggests—that families forfeit their religious liberty protection when they try to earn a living, such as by operating a corporate business,” This is the equivant of arguing that once a news organization is incorporated ,they give up their1st Amendment right to freedom of press.

They have no options . Under Obamacare if they stop providing insurance through their company ,they still are forced to pay a fine ,and they would be forced to purchase insurance for themselves that offers the provisions they object to. Under any circumstances ,under the Sebillius dictate ,they are forced to violate their relious moral code ;and give up their free exercise rights..


Interesting reading Tom, but in the end it is all academic. None of us will have a say in this outcome or any future outcomes. It is all the lap of the Supreme Court.

None of us will have a say in this outcome or any future outcomes. It is all the lap of the Supreme Court. unless the law is repealed in the next session of Congress ,and the repeal signed by President Romney... or a President Romney could reverse the dictate by the HHS commissioner . That would be the more probable outcome of a Romney victory.(hopefully)

Tom seems to me a higher law is in operation and sadly people refuse to heed it. Render unto Cesaer, this has been forgotten. If the law of the land requires you to do something then you have a choice, you can do what the law requires, or you can do what your conscience requires and accept the penalty of the law. The Law is not a law specifically made to establish a religion or to prevent free practice of a religion and therefore we will see this debate go around and around in circles as it has already. The Law has not been found to be unconstitutional, that is, it does not violate the amendment.

That the law permits a benefit to be paid for such odious practices as abortion and steralisation is an anathema to people of faith but it is not the unforgivable sin

I disargree that it isn't a free exercise issue because the law compels them to violate their religious conscious.

The Justice Dept's response is that if they don't like the rules ,give up your business.

Nice. So now small business owners aren't allowed to have values. Who gives a hoot that first amendment rights are again being violated, that 265 people will lose their job or that this family could lose their business? Oh wait, they didn't build it anyway so what right do they have to the fruits of their labors?

So now small business owners aren't allowed to have values.Of course they can, they may not be the exact values you want them to have but they can have values.

They merely break the company up into 5 new companies, each covering perhaps a with separate duties. If they keep them completely separate, they may then not have to offer them any coverage at all. This is being done more and more I know of two local companies doing that as we speak. Different corporations, one can even pay rent for usage of building or office space, keep book keeping separte, a little more work, but they can get around the new laws.

This will work with those smaller companies.
One heating and air company where I am friends, is dividing up residential and commercial. Then residential is being divided into sections of the city each section a new company.
Each company will buy their supplies from a central warehouse ( guess what a separte company) that will also lease them their trucks and tools.

Fr Chuck... indeed ! For the same reason companies hire armies of lawyers and regulatory experts for compliance ;and armies of CPA and tax experts... It all comes down to the same thing ;the heavy jackboot of government on business activity in the country .

Of course they can, they may not be the exact values you want them to have but they can have values.

Do you ever have anything relevant to say?

Do you ever have anything relevant to say?
Why do you attack people for believing different things that you believe? Is this what you are taught?

Are you also allergic to reality?

Are you also allergic to reality?

See, there's another example. That reminds many of us why organized religion does not make on a better person.

And there you go again, injecting religion into the topic for no good reason.

Senior Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court in Colorado has granted an injunction in favor of the Newland family, saying they do not have to comply with the Sebellius dictate that they provide contraception coverage .

Kane( a Carter appointee), said the government's arguments "are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.

"As the Tenth Circuit has noted, 'there is a strong public interest in the free exercise of religion even where that interest may conflict (with another statutory scheme) ...' Accordingly, the public interest favors entry of an injunction in this case."
First plaintiff beats Obama HHS-abortion mandate in court - New York Catholic | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/first-plaintiff-beats-obama-hhs-abortion-mandate-court)
TAX THAT!

If someone opposes birth control on moral or religious grounds, that is their right, but I don't see why that should give them the right to deny birth control to someone else who doesn't share their beliefs. For example, someone working as a cashier at a convenience store may not approve of adult magazines or videos, but if a customer wants to rent or purchase one, they cannot refuse to do it, so why should businesses and pharmacists be allowed to refuse to provide birth control to anyone?

No one forces them to work there . What is being objected to is the government forcing businesses to provide services/products /benefits they are morally opposed to.

If someone opposes birth control on moral or religious grounds, that is their right, but I don't see why that should give them the right to deny birth control to someone else who doesn't share their beliefs. For example, someone working as a cashier at a convenience store may not approve of adult magazines or videos, but if a customer wants to rent or purchase one, they cannot refuse to do it, so why should businesses and pharmacists be allowed to refuse to provide birth control to anyone?


Part of your thinking as it applies here is incorrect. The difference being that as per your example a third party is paying for an item or service. What the current debate about birth control is over is the company (entity) paying for the birth contol for someone else to use. There is a huge difference.

What the current debate about birth control is over is the company (entity) paying for the birth contol for someone else to use. There is a huge difference.
Well the company is not really paying for it, the client's premiums are the funds used to buy the goods... that the client uses.

Well the company is not really paying for it, the client's premiums are the funds used to buy the goods...that the client uses.

In this case the company is the self insured entity that is providing the premium payout. So yes the company is out of pocket for the expenses and not a third party entity.

Well the company is not really paying for it, the client's premiums are the funds used to buy the goods...that the client uses.

The company is paying the premium so yes they really are paying for it.

No one forces them to work there . What is being objected to is the government forcing businesses to provide services/products /benefits they are morally opposed to.


Hi tom,

I don't necessarily disagree with this position. In fact I tend to support it. However, I feel as through this issue does not come under a blanket definition. Each case should be treated on its merits, or lack of them.

What I am saying is that different companies can object to the mandate based on the moral standing of the owners. But I don't think they can oppose the mandate because they feel as though it interferes with the employers beliefs and what they think their employees ought to believe. In other words you can't claim both at the same time while really meaning just your beliefs. This would clearly be wrong.



Tut


Let's look at it this way.

What if it is the case that a particular employer objected to the mandate on the basis that it interfered with their religious beliefs? In other words, they have clearly stated that their goal is in fact to exercise their religious beliefs in the daily work practices and business dealing.But the stated goal also entails the desire to promote the religious development of their employees.

In this particular instance is a problem because it becomes difficult to distinguish your motivation for opposing the mandate. In other words, you would have big problems defending your position.

Fine but that is not the case. Even the Catholic Church does not discriminate in employment due to religious beliefs ;nor is their goal to convert them. Employers like Hercules HVAC before Obamacare were permitted to offer health insurance as a benefit (no one told them they had to provide any insurance ) .NOW ,the new rules state that they not only have to provide it ,or pay a punitive penalty (aka tax according to SCOTUS ) ,and not only that ;they are forced to provide provisions like abortion pills to their plan ,even as they are morally opposed to it.

Few if any companies pay the full premiums no matter what the group rate is. They do however deduct an agreed upon amount of the employees wages as an offset, and even in the case of a self plan they are required by an underwriter to provide funds for unforeseen health care emergencies.

I can bet that since a union friendly company already has insurance agreements in place these lawsuits are brought by NON union corporations. Still checking, but since discrimination is against the law,as far as hiring practice, it would seem that foisting ones beliefs on those same employees would be a form of discrimination also.

Now if the employees formed a union at these non union workplaces, I doubt seriously if they would be happy with the boss discriminating against a spouse because of gender. And in the real world,who quits a job because of the pill or abortion for that matter? Who has those options?

Most taxpaying employees DON'T! Bread winners sure don't! Could this be about worker rights versus church rights? Just asking.

Lucky for me that I'm not an employer . For if I was ,and I was compelled to take actions against my convictions ,I would be forced to make the terrible choice of surrrendering those convictions ,or surrendering my business. I suggest that in a free nation ,an employer should not be compelled by the state to make such a decision. Since the employees had already decided that the contract between the employer and them was worth the conditions ,then the government intervention is abusive.

In the fiction 'Atlas Shrugged' ,when confronted with the intolerable option;the employers destroyed their businesses rather than submit. What happened then to all the jobs the employers created ?

The competition would expand and fill the gap. Isn't that the free market at work.

What if employees stop working? All of them? A national strike? Oh that's right, rich guys can make product without workers.

Fine but that is not the case. Even the Catholic Church does not discriminate in employment due to religious beliefs ;nor is their goal to convert them.



This does not necessarily apply to the Catholic religion. The mandate could be seen to be a violation by any number of religious groups. Although, it is most likely a violation of Catholic beliefs. Most of the complaints seem to be from those of the Catholic faith.

I have seen at least one example of whereby an employer; through their Mission Statement wants to promote the spiritual development of their employees.

I am NOT saying there is anything wrong with this. I am also NOT saying that all employers want to promote some type of spiritual development of their employees. But it would seem that it is the case in at least one instance when you look at this particular company. More specifically their Mission Statement.

My point is this... If this company has (among other things)a stated goal in terms of the spiritual development of their employees then this puts them in a tenuous position if they want to claim they are opposed to the mandate. Opposed on the basis that it is against THEIR religious belief.

Based on their Mission Statement regarding employees spiritual development one could easily say they oppose it for two reasons. Their own reasons is of course the main one. But the other reason is that they want their employees to adopt certain religious values.

This is why I am saying that each case should be based judged on merit.

That is, those who don't have a desire to promote a religious belief for the employees and those that state that this is their desire.

Tut

I'm just going by the law and how HHS is applying it. They make no such distinction ;and the Newlands are offered no choice .

I'm just going by the law and how HHS is applying it. They make no such distinction ;and the Newlands are offered no choice .


Hi Tom,

In the end you are probably right. My suggesting was pretty much whistling in the dark.

I guess I am saying that in this particular instance; if you are going to challenge the Obama mandate then it is probably best that you don't confess you are trying to influence the spirituality of you employees.

This is not in any way a legal opinion on my part.

Tut

Hi Tom,

In the end you are probably right. My suggesting was pretty much whistling in the dark.

I guess I am saying that in this particular instance; if you are going to challenge the Obama mandate then it is probably best that you don't confess you are trying to influence the spirituality of you employees.

This is not in any way a legal opinion on my part.

Tut



I think there may be a much simpler way to look at this and as to why objections are happening.

Lets use this for an example:

I invite you to dinner on the town. Since Im the one doing the inviting Im also the one who is paying for it. So the decision of the eatery we go to would rest on my shoulders.

Given this example most people would object if I had invited you out for dinner and then you demanded we eat at a certain establishment of your choosing.

I think you can see where my point is going. The person paying the tab is the one with the choice. The other choice is that of the guest as to participate or not. If it is by mutual agreement then we are free to come to consensus as to where we go since we both are paying our own tab.

I think there may be a much simpler way to look at this and as to why objections are happening.

Lets use this for an example:

I invite you to dinner on the town. Since I'm the one doing the inviting Im also the one who is paying for it. So the decision of the eatery we go to would rest on my shoulders.

Given this example most people would object if I had invited you out for dinner and then you demanded we eat at a certain establishment of your choosing.

I think you can see where my point is going. The person paying the tab is the one with the choice. The other choice is that of the guest as to participate or not. If it is by mutual agreement then we are free to come to consensus as to where we go since we both are paying our own tab.


When you invite me out to dinner and you are paying I have no problem going to the restaurant of you choice. Seems fair to me. If you told me beforehand that you are taking me to a vegetarian restaurant then I would have the opportunity to pull out.

However, it would be unfair if you took me to a restaurant and then told me that the only meals you are prepared to pay for are vegetarian.

If the reason you gave me for you decision is that you are a vegetarian and that you would like to try and influence me in that direction.


It would be equally unfair if you took me to a restaurant then suddenly hit me with this ultimatum.

Now that I am seated you are telling me if I don't like it I can go elsewhere or pay for my own meal? Not really much of a mutual agreement.



I actually support the objections to the mandate. All I am suggesting is that it would have been better for someone else to make a legal challenge to the mandate. Some other company who hasn't made a statement that it is their goal to influence the spiritual development of their employees. It isn't really a good look.

That's really all I am saying

Tut

I actually support the objections to the mandate. All I am suggesting is that it would have been better for someone else to make a legal challenge to the mandate. Some other company who hasn't made a statement that it is their goal to influence the spiritual development of their employees. It isn't really a good look.

That's really all I am saying

Tut

I think it's a great look, and part of what made this country what it is today. There's nothing wrong with wanting to "influence" your employees, great business leaders do that sort of thing. The only problem with this is the left in this country can't make the disconnect between influence and coercion.

I think it's a great look, and part of what made this country what it is today. There's nothing wrong with wanting to "influence" your employees, great business leaders do that sort of thing. The only problem with this is the left in this country can't make the disconnect between influence and coercion.


I agree it is a good look.

I think you should should challenge the mandate when it goes against your religious beliefs. This is a good look as you say.

The bad look is when you challenge the mandate on the basis of your religion while publicly stating that you want to influence the spirituality of you employees.

Tut

I agree it is a good look.

I think you should should challenge the mandate when it goes against your religious beliefs. This is a good look as you say.

The bad look is when you challenge the mandate on the basis of your religion while publically stating that you want to influence the spirituality of you employees.

Tut

There is no law against it, the right to exercise freedom of religion doesn't end when you become a business owner. When it becomes discrimination or coercion is when it becomes a bad look.

There is no law against it, the right to exercise freedom of religion doesn't end when you become a business owner. When it becomes discrimination or coercion is when it becomes a bad look.


There is no law against it.

But how are you going to argue that the mandate is against YOUR religious beliefs while at the same time stating that it is your goal to influence the belief of your employees.

Surely there are two motivations at work here, not just one.

If you are objecting to the law solely on the basis that it is against YOUR religious convictions then I don't see a problem. But once you have claimed you are trying to influence the beliefs of your employees then it can be argued you are also motivated by a desire to determined their choice.

In other words it could seen as an attempt not to comply with the regulation because you don't see it in the best spiritual interests of your staff and yourself.

I am not saying this is necessarily the case, but you could certainly mount a very strong argument for this position. As as said not a good look.

Tut

There is no law against it, the right to exercise freedom of religion doesn't end when you become a business owner. Hello again, Steve:

You're right... Take the case of Wheaton College, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/wheaton-college-birth-control_n_1734919.html) an evangelical liberal arts school in Illinois. Like you, they were OUTRAGED about Obama trampling on their religious freedom. So, they asked a Washington, D.C. federal court on Wednesday for an emergency waiver to PREVENT Obama from FORCING them to violate a sacred religious principle..

But, Wheaton's health plan ALREADY covered emergency contraception. They had to scramble to GET RID of that coverage in order to qualify for the exemption that would prevent Obama from REQUIRING them to purchase the insurance coverage they just got rid of, in order to qualify for the exemption, that would prevent Obama from requiring them to purchase the insurance coverage they just got rid of, in order...

Yeah, I'm getting dizzy... The bottom line is, they weren't TOO outraged when they themselves were covering contraception, but certainly managed to MANUFACTURE some when they thought Obama was trampling on their rights.

Was it FAKE outrage?? Sure.

excon

Fake my a$$, what part of 'Inadvertently' do you not get?

'Wheaton College 'Inadvertently' Covered Emergency Contraception Before Birth Control Mandate"

I imagine a lot more who share their convictions have re-examined their coverage so it does not provide things that violate their conscience. Nothing hypocritical about it, a little self-examination is a good thing.

'Wheaton College 'Inadvertently' Covered Emergency Contraception Before Birth Control Mandate"You'd think after the very first claim they'd have that fixed, but no...

Nothing hypocritical about it, a little self-examination is a good thing.Hello again, Steve:

No?? So, you think it SLIPPED by. You think these religious organizations were covering the dreaded birth control pills and abortion services WITHOUT knowing it. Really??

Ok, that COULD be true... But, if they had such a VISCERAL and RELIGIOUS objection to covering those kinds of services, you'd think they would have done some of this "self-examination" BEFORE they wrote the check...

In fact, after a bit more deliberation, and given the abhorrence that the church displays over contraceptives, I CANNOT believe they didn't have 10 religious people POURING over their insurance coverages to make absolutely CERTAIN that they weren't buying these ANTI religious services...

But, you believe it just SLIPPED through, huh?? I'm having a very hard time believing that..

excon

You'd think after the very first claim they'd have that fixed, but no ...

And you think the employer gets copies of the EOBs and medical records? Um no, that's a privacy issue.

Hello again, Steve:

No????? So, you think it SLIPPED by. You think these religious organizations were covering the dreaded birth control pills and abortion services WITHOUT knowing it. Really???

Ok, that COULD be true... But, if they had such a VISCERAL and RELIGIOUS objection to covering those kinds of services, you'd think they would have done some of this "self-examination" BEFORE they wrote the check...

In fact, after a bit more deliberation, and given the abhorrence that the church displays over contraceptives, I CANNOT believe they didn't have 10 religious people POURING over their insurance coverages to make absolutely CERTAIN that they weren't buying these ANTI religious services...

But, you believe it just SLIPPED through, huh??? I'm having a very hard time believing that..

excon

You have a hard time believing a religious institution can't make a mistake? I don't buy that for a minute either.

You have a hard time believing a religious institution can't make a mistake? I don't buy that for a minute either.Hello again, Steve:

IF one of the MAIN tenets of my religion is to AVOID contraception AT ALL COSTS, and they're not a rinky dink corner church, YOU BETCHA I don't believe they made a mistake...

This is the one that we KNOW about too. For SURE there are others...

I SUPPORT religious freedom too. You should KNOW that... My reaction stems from the fact that church's, like Wheaton College, have been under a STATE requirement that mirrors the FEDERAL one, for YEARS and nobody made a peep until the ACA..

That's why I think the outrage is manufactured...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

IF one of the MAIN tenets of my religion is to AVOID contraception AT ALL COSTS,.

Wheaton isn't Catholic, I doubt they avoid contraception at all cost. I know of no objection in my own church to contraception. The objection to Wheaton is forcing them to buy abortifacients, did you read your source? I fail to see it as much of a stretch, especially since insurance companies change their covered drug lists on a regular basis, for this oversight.


I SUPPORT religious freedom too. You should KNOW that... My reaction stems from the fact that church's, like Wheaton College, have been under a STATE requirement that mirrors the FEDERAL one, for YEARS and nobody made a peep until the ACA..

You guys keep saying this but what states mandate an employer buy abortifacients?

Insurance Coverage for Contraception State Laws (http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx)


In August 2011, HHS accepted the IOM's recommendations and will require new health plans to include these services without cost sharing for insurance policies with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012. HHS also released a proposed amendment, open to public comment, to the regulation to allow religious institutions that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether to cover contraception services. After a number of objections related to religious concerns, in February 2012, President Obama announced a final policy to exempt churches and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections and instead, requiring employers' insurance companies to offer contraception coverage to women directly and free of charge.

Now what's your problem? Oh that's right, private for profit businesses should have the rights to make their employees follow THEIR religion right?

Why can't Muslims practice SHARIA law then? Oh yeah that's right Christians are the only ones with rights, right?

Insurance Coverage for Contraception State Laws (http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx)

Did you even bother to see how many of those offer exclusions on religious beliefs and/or do not mandate emergency contraception, i.e. abortifacients? Apparently not.

[QUOTE]n February 2012, President Obama announced a final policy to exempt churches and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections and instead, requiring employers’ insurance companies to offer contraception coverage to women directly and free of charge.

Same straw man you've been using, an exemption that isn't an exemption and no exemptions for employer funded plans. You still think the money for this is going to come out of the insurer's pockets? Get real. The costs will still be passed onto the customers and it still forces religious organizations to both fund and facilitate access to drugs and services that violate their morals and their constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The 'accommodation' changes nothing.


Now what's your problem? Oh that's right, private for profit businesses should have the rights to make their employees follow THEIR religion right?

Wrong, you'll not find me saying or supporting any such thing.


Why can't Muslims practice SHARIA law then? Oh yeah that's right Christians are the only ones with rights, right?

Wrong again, we already have the same judicial system for both Muslims and Christians, and everyone else.

Hello again, Steve:

Religious freedom, Texas style..

DeWitt R. Thomas, who has a Hawkins address, filed a federal lawsuit against Two Rivers Grocery Store & Market in Big Sandy because he believes his civil rights and religious freedom were violated when an African American sacker touched his groceries against his wishes.

“DeWitt R. Thomas said: “Wait a minute, don’t touch my groceries. I can’t have someone negroidal touch my food, (http://www.news-journal.com/bigsandy_hawkins/news/two-rivers-lawsuit-claims-sacker-violates-customer-s-religious-freedom/article_caa368da-b3e8-5bdf-ba2b-b9f48e33d355.html) it’s against my creed!”

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon