Clay Jones by Clay Jones

Clay Jones

Comments (23) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. crabbyrino

    crabbyrino GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    The only sanctity HOBBY LOBBY “gets” is the Almighty Dollar. Hey…they could hire the older kids and let them stay in the stores at night. Less labor costs…plus it sure would show any “non-believers” “FAITH IN ACTION.”

  2. mikefive

    mikefive said, 8 months ago

    The Hobby Lobby ruling has nothing to do with the sanctity of life. It is about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Constitutional phrase “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I’m surprised the Supreme Court didn’t cite the PPACA, too.

  3. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, 8 months ago

    Hello? Beneath the hair splitting and legalese, the Lobby Hobby Decision ignores the traditional separation of Church and State mandated in the US Constitution. Hello? Does anybody notice that the Supreme Catholic Court of the United States isn’t adjudicating for ‘The People’ anymore? It’s adjudicating for Corporations that match up with its Supreme Catholic Concepts. Nothing my immigrant Irish ancestors settled here to re-experience, you bet.

  4. mikefive

    mikefive said, 8 months ago

    It is admirable that so many that post here have compassion for the unaccompanied children crossing the border, but is it realistic to conclude that ICE can process 58,000 children (plus the normal numbers crossing). Folks, 58,000 is the size of a small city. You cannot possibly process that many people with the personnel on hand in what many would consider a timely manner and stay within the law.

  5. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 8 months ago

    ZING!

  6. mikefive

    mikefive said, 8 months ago

    @wmconelly

    “… the Lobby Hobby Decision ignores the traditional separation of Church and State mandated in the US Constitution.”

    There is no mandate in the Constitution about separation of church and state. What separation that’s been done has been done by the courts using “hair splitting and legalese”.

  7. emptc12

    emptc12 said, 8 months ago

    Okay, you jokers down in Central America — you’ve had your fun with Saul Alinsky tactics. And it’s not nice, either, that you fed those kids lots of baked beans before you sent them over!

  8. Kip W

    Kip W said, 8 months ago

    If you read the writings of the framers of the Constitution (which are readily available), much of the intent behind the language (not always obvious in a day when some word meanings have shifted and others have become obscure) is apparent. There was serious intent to avoid a ‘state religion,’ and that’s being slid under the rug now by Justices, one or two of whom should have been impeached by now for repeatedly failing to recuse themselves in clear cases of conflict of interest.

  9. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, 8 months ago

    Well, some people here are advocating for a huge military intervention to quell violence, eliminate violent groups and rescue endangered children…
    .
    …in Iraq.
    .
    Maybe someone should “discover” some oil reserves in Guadalajara.

  10. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    A few decades ago when living north of Tucson, the Catholic Church was the biggest importer of “illegal” aliens, to boost their Catholic numbers. Five Justices, Cathollic, have now voiced religion as sancrosanct, along with Corporations, in point of law. Religious teaching trumping law, is not what the Constitution calls for.


    So, where will decisions now come down as these kids come flooding in? Will church membership factor in? What about “wet foot-dry foot” Cubans?


    We seem to be lacking consistency, which is why the laws need to be looked at, reviewed with respect to past precedent, and restructured.

  11. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 8 months ago

    @mikefive

    It is about imposing an arbitrary limit on someones body is what it is about and it violates the First Amendment. It is a bad shoddy ruling.

  12. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 8 months ago

    @mikefive

    You’d better reread the 1st Amendment. That part about our govt cannot support nor suppress someones religion part.

  13. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 8 months ago

    @Tigger

    Regardless it is a bad ruling and Hobby Lobby had no cause or right to interfere with their workers’ rights.

  14. pbuckland

    pbuckland GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    Hobby Lobby is not interfering with anybody’s right to do whatever the hell they want. They simply do not wish to pay for something about which they have strong moral and religious convictions. They objected to just four out of twenty birth control methods, which were ones that can induce a post conception abortion.

    Advocates of abortion chant the slogan “freedom of choice” Does the right to not participate in abortion not constitute choice? Current abortion laws in most countries simply allow abortion; they do not require it.

    Many try to claim that a corporation is not a person and therefore has no rights to religious convictions etc. However, if a corporation commits a crime such as fraud, the shareholders and officers are the ones charged. The moral and ethical beliefs of a corporation have to be accepted as being those of its owners and or officers. In a closely held private corporation, this is usually the owners. Otherwise we have no right to prosecute the owners when a crime is committed.

  15. sclark55

    sclark55 GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    Here’s a bunch of kids, sent by their PARENTS out of their country – not just their home but their country – without decent care or supervision – how well were they RAISED? As much as my parents & I didn’t get along, they never dreamed of throwing me out. (Well not that I ever heard of!)
    That alone is reason to send them back where they came from.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (8).