Hobby Lobby Has Come-to-Jesus Ad in Boston Herald

July 1, 2018

Quick refresher course: Arts and crafts chain Hoppy Lobby, which is owned by the Oklahoma City-based Green family, was one of two companies that wound up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court four years ago when it refused on religious grounds to cover contraceptive services for its employees.

As ABC News reported at the time on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, “the Supreme Court said . . . that two for profit corporations with sincerely held religious beliefs do not have to provide a full range of contraceptives at no cost to their employees pursuant to the Affordable Care Act,” since the act’s mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

(Unsurprising sidebar: It was, of course, Justice Anthony Kennedy who provided the swing vote in the 5-4 decision.)

Now, presumably swollen with newborns, Hobby Lobby has resumed its Bible thumping with this full-page ad in today’s Boston Herald.

 

 

The ad is a mishmash of God-and-Country quotes from Presidents, Founding Fathers, Supreme Court Justices, etc. Representative sample:

The apparent objective, beyond bridging the Church-State divide, is to tout the company’s Ministry Projects, which donate to “several charities and organizations that the Green family has selected based on each charity’s specific needs and mission.”

To wit:

Interestingly, the ad did not run in today’s Boston Globe.

Your conclusions go here.

Advertisements

Supreme Difference Between the Local Dailies

March 28, 2013

As you would expect, both Boston dailies today report on yesterday’s Supreme Court DOMA hoedown.

Boston Herald:

Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Charles J. Cooper, Theodore Olsen, David Boies,A boost for gay marriage: Justices question US law

WASHINGTON — Concluding two days of intense debate, the Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it could give a boost to same-sex marriage by striking down the federal law that denies legally married gay spouses a wide range of benefits offered to other couples.

As the court wrapped up its remarkable arguments over gay marriage in America, a majority of the justices indicated they will invalidate part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act — if they can get past procedural problems similar to those that appeared to mark Tuesday’s case over California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Since the federal law was enacted in 1996, nine states and the District of Columbia have made it legal for gays and lesbians to marry. Same-sex unions also were legal in California for nearly five months in 2008 before the Proposition 8 ban.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the decisive vote in close cases, joined the four more-liberal justices in raising questions Wednesday about a provision that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of federal law.

 

Boston Globe:

164726423Most justices voice skepticism on marriage act

WASHINGTON — A majority of Supreme Court justices expressed deep skepticism Wednesday about a federal law denying benefits to legally wed gay and lesbian couples, conveying after two days of historic testimony on the institution of marriage a sense that they would declare the law unconstitutional.

During oral arguments over a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ticked off some of the 1,100 federal benefits the law denies to gay couples who have been legally married in Massachusetts and eight other states: They are not guaranteed family medical leaves, cannot collect spousal Social Security benefits, and cannot file joint federal tax returns and receive a marital deduction.

“With that set of attributes, one might well ask, what kind of marriage is this?” said Ginsburg, interrupting an attorney who argued the law does not violate states’ rights.

As a result of the law’s regulations, Ginsburg added, the nation is left with two classes of marriage: “Full marriage and this sort of skim-milk marriage,” she said, drawing laughter from the packed courtroom.

 

Same story, different details. What does distinguish the two papers, though, is where they turn for sidebar material.

Globe:

Excerpts: ‘Sea of Change’

‘There has been a sea change’

On why President Obama is still enforcing the law if he believes it is unconstitutional (Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.):

ROBERTS: If [President Obama] has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, “Oh, we’ll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.’’

On the question of whether the definition of marriage should be a federal matter (Justice Anthony Kennedy and Paul Clement, the lawyer representing the House Republican leadership in defending the law):

KENNEDY: You are at, at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.

CLEMENT: First of all, the very fact that there are 1,100 provisions of federal law that define the terms ‘‘marriage’’ and ‘‘spouse’’ goes a long way to showing that federal law has not just stayed completely out of these issues. It’s gotten involved in them in a variety of contexts where there is an independent federal power that supported that.

 

And etc.

Herald:

Picture 3

 

And there’s more where those came from – Beyoncé, Ben Affleck, Joe Kennedy 3.0, and etc.

Check it out for yourself.


DOMA v. Sex Offender Registry Edition

July 26, 2012

Different papers, different perspectives.

From Wednesday’s Boston Globe:

Coakley asks high court to sink DOMA

Attorney General Martha Coakley has asked the country’s highest court to uphold a landmark federal ruling in Boston that granted equal rights to same-sex married couples in Massachusetts, urging the high court to officially strike down a federal law that defines marriage solely as a union of a man and a woman.

In a 27-page petition Tuesday, Coakley asked the US Supreme Court to uphold a federal appeals court decision in June that the federal Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against same-sex couples who are legally married, in violation of equal protection laws. That ruling has been stayed until the top court decides whether it will hear the case.

No mention of that in the Boston Herald.

But . . .

From Wednesday’s Herald:

‘SILLY’ POLICY SHELTERS OFFENDERS

The state’s Level 2 sex offenders — from rapists to child porn purveyors — are not listed on any online registry, because some lawmakers are throwing up a roadblock in the name of protecting privacy rights of convicts, advocates charge.

The move is also costing Massachusetts hundreds of thousands in lost crime-fighting bucks and not even Gov. Deval Patrick has been able to convince the holdout legislators to act.

No mention of that in the Globe.

So the hardreading staff went for the tiebreaker.

Only the Inside Track had this:

Oh, baby! Gi’s sooooo pregnant

Well, well, well, wethinks we can take the Gisele Bundchen pregnancy out of the rumor category and file it under confirmed. Because here’s Mrs. Tom Brady[stats] on the beach in Costa Rica with 2-year-old Benjamin sporting an unmistakable baby bump!

The Brazilian supermodel, baby Benji, their dog Lua and other family members were snapped by the paps at x17online.com as they frolicked on the shore near Gi’s vacation home. Brady was not part of the beach party, which is not surprising considering he is due to report for duty down in Foxboro today for the New England Patriots [team stats] 2012 training camp.

IGTLTDT scorecard: Herald 2, Globe 1.