The Newland case.

A new term in the lexicon apparently: "for-profit, secular business"

UPDATED: Temporary Injunction Granted! Dept. of Justice to Colorado Family: Give Up Your Religion or Your Business - Politics & Policy - Catholic Online


Newland v. Sebelius resource page - Alliance Defending Freedom


Excerpts from DOJ response as printed by the ADF:

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/NewlandDOJquotes.pdf


Selected quotes from actual DOJ filing:

Plaintiffs’ challenge rests largely on the theory that a for-profit, secular
corporation established to manufacture heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(“HVAC”) products can claim to exercise a religion and thereby avoid the reach of laws
designed to regulate commercial activity. This cannot be.

Nor can the owners of a for-profit, secular company eliminate the legal separation provided
by the corporate form to impose their personal religious beliefs on the corporate entity’s
employees. To hold otherwise would permit for-profit, secular companies and their
owners to become laws unto themselves, claiming countless exemptions from an untold
number of general commercial laws designed to improve the health and well-being of
individual employees based on an infinite variety of alleged religious beliefs.
Comment: So is it illegal for Chick-fil-a or any other company or business to be closed on Sunday? Or closed on Saturday if you are of the Jewish faith? Or on Christmas?

Such a system would not only be unworkable, it would also cripple the government’s ability to
solve national problems through laws of general application. This Court, therefore,
should reject plaintiffs’ effort to bring about an unprecedented expansion of
constitutional and statutory free exercise rights.
Comment #1: Such a system would...be unworkable. As the critics of this law have said all along!
Comment #2: 'unprecedented expansion...of constitutional free...rights'. So much for that thing call the Constitution apparently. It apparently limits people, not the government according to this response.

Hercules Industries is a for-profit, secular employer, and a secular
entity by definition does not practice religion.

...

It is well established that a corporation and its owners
are wholly separate entities, and the Court should not permit the Newlands to eliminate
that legal separation to impose their personal religious beliefs on the corporate entity or
its employees. The Newlands cannot use the corporate form alternatively as a shield and
a sword, depending on which suits them in any given circumstance.
Comment: I do not see where Hercules Industries is incorporated or even an LLC. It is apparently owned by 5 family members.
They could be a partnership. Just because you have a business does not mean that that business is a separate legal entity that is
separate from its owners. Corporations, LLCs and partnerships are created to with the intent to create separeate legal entities but
they are not required. This is why the DBA acronym exists - I can be an ordinary person, running a business doing business as (DBA) 'ABC company'.
A business is NOT necessarily separate from its owners.

Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims are equally meritless. The Free Exercise
Clause does not prohibit a law that is neutral and generally applicable even if the law
prescribes conduct that an individual’s religion proscribes.
Comment: Lets read that again (and again): The Free Exercise
Clause does not prohibit a law that is neutral and generally applicable even if the law
prescribes conduct that an individual’s religion proscribes.

Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim, which rests primarily on the theory that the religious
employer exemption discriminates among religions, is similarly flawed. The exemption
distinguishes between organizations based on their purpose and composition; it does not
favor one religion, denomination, or sect over another.
Comment: Exemptions to the law have been given to numerous religious functions, groups, businesses, entities, etc.
Regardless of the intent or reason this law is not being applied to all. It is being applied or exempted for purely political
reasons. The exemption are a terrible case of what in legal terms is 'arbitrary and capricious' application. That is always illegal.

Furthermore, the regulations do not violate plaintiffs’ free
speech rights. The regulations compel conduct, not speech. They do not require
plaintiffs to say anything; nor, as shown by this very lawsuit, do they prohibit plaintiffs
from expressing to Hercules Industries’s employees or the public their views in
opposition to the use of contraceptive services.
Comment: This passage indicates speech is only spoken words. How naive and legally wrong. As Supreme Court has indicated -
money is speech. So providing money or having to provide money in this case is 'forced speech'. You are having to acknowledge - via
monetary payments - your agreement with something you oppose. This is basically 'forced speech'.

Finally, even if plaintiffs could show a likelihood of success on the merits, the
Court should not grant plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction because the balance
of equities tips toward defendants.
Comment: This says - the law is too big to fail. Its that simple. Even if they are right - this will tear apart our wonderful law. That is the net summary of the DOJ.



Sorry for the long post. But now you know. There is nothing the government can not control about you with this law. That includes your ability start or run a business as you want.