RUSH: I want to go back, ladies and gentlemen, to the Jeffrey Toobin sound bite, not 'cause it's Toobin, but because he read Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg dissenting opinion which, by the way, is 35 pages long. That's pretty sweeping dissent for a narrow ruling. Thirty-five pages. And she whines a lot in her dissent.
For example, "Until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in 'the commercial, profit-making world.'" I knew I was right about that. I knew that in that sense, I don't think we can call landmark, but it certainly is unprecedented. We've never had this kind of a ruling which allowed a for-profit -- and boy, the commercial profit-making world, oh, those are fighting words, profit-making world, that their religious beliefs can trump opponents. It's never been affirmed as such until today.
So I want to go back and listen to the Toobin sound bites. He analyzes some of the things that Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg said in her sweeping dissent.
TOOBIN: Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting opinion is devoted to the proposition that it's not narrow, that the idea that a privately held company can exercise religious beliefs in deciding which benefits and which customers to deal with is potentially a very broad idea. In fact, you know, she points out that there are religious owners of companies who believe in the separation of the races. Should their religious beliefs be honored? There are people of conviction and faith who believe that homosexuality is evil and immoral and don't want to engage in business with gay people. They could take advantage of these rulings.
RUSH: You mean like a bakery in Colorado that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple getting married, and they were pursued and sued and lost and decided to get out of the business? Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg also said the Supreme Court's ventured into a minefield with this ruling. She writes, "In a decision of startling breadth" -- meaning it isn't narrow, for those of you in Rio Linda -- "the court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations" -- that's showing Dracula the cross, to say that word, corporation. They hate 'em, cause corporations are not people, you understand. Corporations are evil organizations that kill customers and screw customers and cheat customers and injure customers and destroy the planet and do all this horrible stuff. They bring filthy oil out of the water and the land, it's just ew, yuk. They're not people.
So it's not incidental that she includes this word here numerous times in the dissent, even though it was a corporation that was up for grabs, narrowly held, "closely held" corporation. "The Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships." Again, we were right on the money here in assuming this could include small business. Sole proprietorship. She's worried. "Sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."
Here's another passage from her dissent. "The court's determination that RFRA extends to for-profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects. Although the court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private."
She's right about that. You know, that's why these leftists are saying it's narrow, Hobby Lobby, big company. But she's just said, sole proprietorships, partnerships. The logic extends to corporations of any size. She even links, in her dissenting opinion, to a list of large private companies, including Koch Industries, the notorious Koch brothers, Dell computer, which also may be eligible to opt out of the mandate under the court's ruling. Religious freedom First Amendment is what RFRA means. It's the acronym. But note the inclusion of the Koch brothers in her opinion.
Now, the Regime, the Obama administration has colluded -- and I'm bouncing off Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Obama administration has colluded with the 57 Muslim governments in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on UN Human Rights Commission Resolution 1618 which calls on member countries to make speech that could incite hostility to religion illegal.
Now, follow me on this. The Regime, the Obama administration, has colluded with 57 Muslim governments in something called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on UN Human Rights Commission, which had a resolution. The resolution calls -- and the Obama administration colluded in this resolution -- calls on member countries to make speech that could incite hostility to religion illegal.
Now, Islam prohibits homosexuality. I give you as example A the sultan of Brunei, who just announced the institution of Sharia law in Brunei, which has led to a massive boycott here in Los Angeles of the Beverly Hills Hotel, which is owned by the sultan of Brunei. Now, I just wonder here if Justice Ginsburg just incited hostility to Islam by complaining about religions that ban homosexuality.
Let me read to you Toobin's transcript again. "In fact, you know, she points out that there are religious owners of companies who believe in the separation of the races." By the way, does anybody know which company that is? I don't. I mean, not denying. I'm just... What company believes in separation of it races, today? "Should their religious beliefs be honored? There are people of conviction and faith who believe that homosexuality is evil and immoral and don't want to engage in business with gay people."
Well, the Regime has colluded with 57 Muslim governments in stating that speech that could incite hostility to religion is illegal, and did she just do that? I ask. It's an ironic question. Did she just incite hostility to Islam because Islam prohibits homosexuality? So has Justice Ginsburg just incited hostility to Islam by complaining about religions that ban homosexuality? I'm just asking. I don't expect to get an answer. I'm just asking.
"There are people of conviction and faith who believe that homosexuality is evil and immoral and don't want to engage in business with gay people." Are they going to have the right to be able to do this now? So she's quite properly concerned that this is somewhat broad and not narrow.
RUSH: Here's Ben in Stockton, California. Great to have you on the program. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you for taking my call, Rush. I appreciate it.
RUSH: Yes, sir.
CALLER: In relation to the Hobby Lobby decision, I think it's gonna open up a can of unintended consequences. Let's say a Muslim-owned company wants to institute Muslim law and cut off someone's hand because they stole something. That would be a "closely held" company that would be making a decision based on their religion.
RUSH: Well, that is where the ruling here I think is narrow. And let me try to explain this, because what the issue here is, is which people, regardless of institution, get to make decisions about how they live and what they pay for. The court said today that, "Look, in businesses that are 'closely held' that reflect the views of its founders and owners, we're gonna apply the First Amendment, religious liberty."
Now, Ginsburg and Toobin, who reported what she wrote in her dissent and I mentioned some of the passages she wrote, nobody is denying anything to anybody here. This is the key. The left wants you to think that women are now gonna be denied contraception. Women are gonna have to get pregnant no matter what and they're gonna have to have the baby. That's what the left wants women to think. There's no question they do. But nobody is being denied anything here, in this ruling, anyway. If somebody wants abortion inducing drugs, nobody is stopping them. It's just today some people are now not required to pay for them who have contrary religious views.
But nobody is denying abortifacients, contraception, or anything else to women. And these parallels to civil rights issues or homosexuals or what have you, I don't think have any real application here. The 14th Amendment protects minorities from unequal treatment, and when you go on and make these absurd parallels, for example, forcing somebody to buy abortion inducing drugs for employees, which they can purchase on their own without difficulty, and comparing that to equal rights, I mean, that diminishes the civil rights fight by these liberals.
It's nine dollars a month. But even if it was $18 a month, the ruling only said that certain people can uphold religious views and not pay for it. But nobody is being denied anything. The left wants to wrap every one of their policy demands in civil rights because they know it works emotionally with people.
RUSH: This is Victor, Silver Springs, Maryland. It's great to have you, sir. Hi.
CALLER: Hey, Rush.
CALLER: Blind dittos!
RUSH: Thank you very much.
CALLER: Okay. Today's Supreme Court ruling concerning Hobby Lobby.
CALLER: Could the bakery in Colorado and the photographer in Arizona sue because their religious rights were violated as well?
RUSH: That's a good question, and I don't know. I'm not enough of a legal expert to know if something like ex post facto doesn't work in reverse here. I think those people decided to go out of business anyway. Could they sue? My gut tells me no, but I get your point because this specific thing is addressed by Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg. It's actually addressed. She's worried something like that could happen.