Continuing Attacks on the First Amendment

The First amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, religion, and the press.  We have witnessed many attacks on these freedoms in recent years but it appears to me these attacks have intensified and in fact are being institutionalized by legislation.  Let us look at a few recent examples. 

First, there is the boycott, or attempted boycott, of Chick-fil-a.  The founder of Chick-fil-a is a Christian and runs the business according to his Christian values.  This includes not being open on Sundays because he believes this is a day reserved for worship and not work but this is not the reason for the recent boycott. 

Dan Cathy the President of Chick-fil-a, in an interview with the Baptist Press stated his support of the traditional family led by a man and a woman (1).  According to the afore mentioned First amendment of the Constitution, Mr., Cathy has the right to both practice his religion and close his businesses on Sundays as well as expressing his opinions to a member of the press when asked.  However there is more to this attack then that for the underlying issue here is the lesbian, gay, bi, transvestite (LGBT) community is threatened by Christian values and must stop them at all costs (2). 

Fortunately for Chick-fil-a, the boycott is not working and the opposite is happening as people are flooding to the company to lend their support.  In fact, the mostly liberal and atheistic ACLU is supporting Chick-fil-a against Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s threatened ban (3).  I predict this will blow over and the only affect will be unusually high revenues for Chick-fil-a.

However, what does a business do if an agency of the Federal Government gives them the choice of giving up their business or their religion based on mandates issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)?  This is exactly what the Newland Family of Colorado, owners of Hercules Industries was told (4). 

The requirement in Obamacare that businesses such as Hercules Industries must provide health insurance covering contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs violates their Roman Catholic beliefs.  The first amendment guarantees a person’s right to practice their religion and prohibits the government from passing legislation that prohibits this free practice.  Therefore, the Newlands should be exempted from having to comply with this mandate based on their religious beliefs.  In fact, the entire piece of legislation should be ruled unconstitutional based on this fact alone but we all know that courts can be undependable. 

However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is claiming that since the Newlands religion does not specifically state that they must engage in the HVAC business, they must make the choice of running their business or practicing their religion.  The DOJ reasoned that since the Newlands simply have to sell their business to someone willing to abide by the mandate, they are under no extreme burden because of the mandate (4).  Are you kidding!  They are asking the Newlands to abandon their livelihood.  The Newland’s defense team argues that asking the family to give up their livelihood and property is in itself an extreme burden. 

The difference in these two cases is that the Newlands are facing institutionalized religious persecution brought on by an unconstitutional piece of legislation.  Now I know that proponents of Obamacare will argue that the legislation was ruled constitutional but that involved the individual mandate and whether the fines levied for noncompliance are a fine or a tax.  This case involves whether an individual or business is required to purchase a product that violates their first amendment right to freely practice their religion.  This means that if the Newlands are unable to gain a waiver from compliance to this mandate in a lower court, the Supreme Court may revisit Obamacare on this issue. 

Of course, there is a simpler solution, an all-out repeal of the legislation.  This requires a conservative majority in the House of Representatives, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and electing Mitt Romney as our new president.  With no legislation institutionalizing this anti-Christian mandate in Obamacare, the DOJ will have no grounds on which to charge the Newlands. 

Political Avengers, you know what to do.  Be sure to vote on November 6 and take a fellow conservative to the polls with you.  Also, if you can financially support candidates or if you are unable to lend financial support, volunteer to help in the campaigns.  WE MUST PROTECT OUR LIBERTIES.

1. Walterm. Chick-fil-A, the Bible, and LGBT Bullying. scientiamedia.com. [Online] Scientia Media, July 28, 2012. [Cited: July 31, 2012.] http://www.scientiamedia.com/?p=2684.

2. Starnes, Todd. Boycott about so much more than a chicken sandwich. foxnews.com. [Online] Fox News, July 31, 2012. [Cited: July 31, 2012.] http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/31/boycott-about-so-much-more-than-chicken-sandwich/.

3. Hobin, Patrick. ACLU Backs Chick-fil-A Against Rahm Emanuel's Threatened Ban. Newsmax.com. [Online] Newsmax, July 26, 2012. [Cited: July 31, 2012.] http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chick-fil-a-gay-marriage-chicago/2012/07/26/id/446713.

4. Jeffrey, Terence P. DOJ to Colorado Family: Give Up Your Religion or Your Business. cnsnews.com. [Online] CNS News, July 26, 2012. [Cited: July 31, 2012.] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-colorado-family-give-your-religion-or-your-business.