Libs boycott organic food company that doesn’t cover birth control

Organic food company Eden Foods doesn’t want to provide contraceptive coverage for its 150 employees. Via Grist.org:

In Eden Foods Inc. v. Kathleen Sebelius, filed in federal court in March of 2013, the company claimed its religious freedom was being violated by the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that employee health insurance cover birth control. The suit argued that “contraception or abortifacients … almost always involve immoral and unnatural practices.” In October, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided against Eden Foods, ruling that a for-profit company cannot exercise religion.

But then, on June 30, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that family-owned, “closely held” companies can use religion as an excuse to flout the birth control mandate. Eden Foods is one of a few dozen “closely held” for-profit companies that have filed suit over the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. On July 1, the Supreme Court ordered the 6th Circuit Court to reconsider its decision against Eden Foods and another plaintiff with a similar case.

The company’s attorneys at Thomas More Law Center released a statement about the case on Wednesday following the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling:

For years, Michael Potter, a Roman Catholic, President and sole shareholder of Eden Foods Corporation, for religious reasons, had arranged for the Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance coverage he designed for his employees to specifically exclude coverage for contraception and abortifacients.  In accordance with his Catholic faith, Potter believes that any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation, whether as an end or means”—including abortifacients and contraception—is wrong.

The HHS Mandate forced Potter to make a choice between violating a foremost tenet of his faith or face fines up to $4.5 million per year.

Potter brought the lawsuit because he cannot compartmentalize his faith and his business practices.

Eden Foods itself tweeted a link to this statement:

Clinton, Michigan – Eden Foods is a principled food company. We were convinced that actions of the federal government were illegal, and so filed a formal objection. The recent Supreme Court decision confirms, at least in part, that we were correct. We realized in making our objection that it would give rise to grotesque mischaracterizations and fallacious arguments. We did not fully anticipate the degree of maliciousness and corruption that would visit us. Nevertheless, we believe we did what we should have.

The objection we filed has never been part of the Hobby Lobby lawsuit.

Naturally, the Sandra Fluke brigade says it will no longer buy Eden Foods’ products:


http://twitter.com/#!/iridelikeagirl/status/483667844735856640

Regardless of one’s views about the morality of contraception, why shouldn’t a company be allowed to configure its health benefits however it wishes? Perhaps it is time for a conservative “buycott”!

http://twitter.com/#!/highside2020/status/485071443781115905

 

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2014/07/06/libs-urge-boycott-of-organic-food-company-that-doesnt-cover-its-employees-birth-control/


Alabama Supreme Court Orders Temporary Stop To New Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

“Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman,” the Alabama Supreme Court states, reaching its own conclusion about the constitutionality of the state’s marriage ban.

Angela Channell, right, and Dawn Hicks, left, display their marriage license on Feb. 13, 2015. Robert Sutton / AP

WASHINGTON — The Alabama Supreme Court ordered probate judges throughout the state to stop issuing marriage licenses temporarily to same-sex couples.

A growing number of probate judges had begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples ever since the U.S Supreme Court let a federal district court’s rulings that the state’s bans on such marriages are unconstitutional go into effect.

The Tuesday night order — to which only one justice of the state’s high court dissented — is the result of an emergency request brought to the court by two conservative nonprofit organizations, the Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Program.

In addition to ordering all probate judges to halt the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples temporarily, the Alabama Supreme Court directs any probate judges who wish to do so to file a response in the next five business days as to why they should not be bound by the Alabama Supreme Court’s order.

Because there is no ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether bans on same-sex couples’ marriages are constitutional, the Alabama Supreme Court stated that it is free to reach its own conclusion about the constitutionality of Alabama’s bans.

The Alabama Supreme Court then decided that the marriage ban in Alabama is constitutional.

Then, because the federal district court injunctions only apply to a couple officials, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered all probate judges who are not specifically covered by those injunctions to stop issuing licenses.

So, how did the Alabama Supreme Court get there?

In the opinion, the court states that the request from the conservative groups claims that “Alabama probate judges are flouting a duty imposed upon them by the [laws and amendment banning same-sex couples’ marriages] and that we should direct the respondent probate judges to perform that duty.”

The court then goes through the process by which same-sex couples began marrying in many counties in Alabama, concluding that “uncertainty has become the order of the day” and that “©onfusion reigns.”

As such, the court held, “There is a need for immediate, uniform relief among all the probate judges of this State” — particularly given the “‘magnitude and importance’ of the issue.”

The court then goes on to decide whether the groups can, in effect, stand in for the state in the action — called “public standing” — and concludes that they can.

“The final procedural issue we consider is whether the federal court’s order prevents this Court from acting with respect to probate judges of this State who … are not bound by the order of the federal district court in [the marriage case],” the court states. “The answer is no.”

The Alabama Supreme Court goes on: “[S]tate courts may interpret the United States Constitution independently from, and even contrary to, federal courts.”

Then, it did exactly that. “After careful consideration of the reasoning employed by the federal district court in [the marriage recognition case],” the court ruled, “we find that the provisions of Alabama law contemplating the issuance of marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples do not violate the United States Constitution and that the Constitution does not alter or override the ministerial duties of the respondents under Alabama law.”

As such, the court concluded: “Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman. Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”

Elmore County Probate Judge John Enslen, originally named as a respondent to the matter, was “realigned” to join the proceeding with the conservative groups because he, essentially, agreed with the groups.

Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis, because he was subject to the federal court’s order, asked to be dismissed from this action. The Alabama Supreme Court asked Davis whether he is bound by the federal court order to grant licenses to all same-sex couples or just the named plaintiffs in the federal case. It was not immediately clear whether he is bound by the Alabama Supreme Court’s temporary halt on same-sex couples’ marriages.

Here is the Alabama Supreme Court’s order:

Read more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/alabama-supreme-court-orders-temporary-stop-to-new-same-sex