Pizza magnate wins temporary ruling on contraception coverage dispute
Thomas Monaghan, the multimillionaire founder of Domino's Pizza, pictured at the University of Ava Maria, which he founded September 27, 2007.
December 31st, 2012
05:35 PM ET

Pizza magnate wins temporary ruling on contraception coverage dispute

By Bill Mears, CNN

(CNN)– The billionaire founder of Domino's Pizza has won a temporary court victory, with a federal judge blocking enforcement of part of the health care reform bill requiring most employers to provide a range of contraception and reproductive health services.

Some business owners and their staff see that as a violation of their religious rights.

Federal Judge Lawrence Zatkoff issued his order late Sunday, saying Thomas Monaghan had "shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion."

"The (federal) government has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its actions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest," said Zatkoff, a 1986 Reagan appointee. "Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs have established at least some likelihood of succeeding on the merits" of their claim.

Monaghan filed the emergency petition this month, on behalf of himself and Domino's Farms Corp., a Michigan property management firm he operates, not directly related to the pizza-chain empire. Monaghan sold his majority interest in the pizza company in 1998.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

The case will continue to be heard in the federal courts while the stay remains in effect. The Obama administration has the option of appealing the order.

The judge's opinion comes just days after two federal appeals courts in Chicago and St. Louis became the first to rule against enforcement for businesses of the contraceptives mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The policy was set to go into effect Tuesday for many companies whose new insurance year begins on January 1st.

At issue is whether secular, for-profit enterprises– owned and operated by those of a strong religious or personal faith– are exempt from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The separate health care law - dubbed Obamacare - provides such exceptions for religious institutions such as the Catholic Church, of which Monaghan is a member. He argues individually that contraception or abortion does not constitute "health care" and involves immoral practices that destroy "innocent human life."

"Causing death can never be considered a form of medical treatment," said Monaghan in court papers.
Other religious-affiliated groups like parochial schools and church-run hospitals are also temporarily exempted until new final rules are written in coming months.

That followed complaints from a variety of entities over who exactly was covered under the mandates, and who could bring legal objections in court.

The Justice Department, on behalf of the Obama administration, said the 2010 law - upheld this year by the Supreme Court - was designed to provide a range of preventive health services through expanded coverage and lower costs.

Federal lawyers - backed by a range of medical and abortion-rights groups - said economically disadvantaged women in particular need affordable access to reproductive health services contained in the law, which it said was a "compelling governmental interest."

Hobby Lobby faces millions in fines for bucking Obamacare

Under the law, companies with at least 50 employees must provide their female employees of child-bearing age insurance coverage for pregnancy-prevention care, including doctor visits and medicine.

Those firms face daily fines and tax penalties for failure to comply.

Other federal courts - including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor last week– have allowed the new mandates to go into effect. Sotomayor in an order December 26 said the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether individuals or companies can rightfully claim federal mandates under their constitutional rights of religious freedom.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

That case involved Hobby Lobby Inc., and Mardel, Inc. and five family members involved in ownership and control of the corporations, who had protested the requirement.

Those separate companies said they would be required "to provide insurance coverage for certain drugs and devices that the applicants believe can cause abortions," which would be against their religious beliefs.
The petitioners said they would face irreparable harm if forced to choose between paying fines and complying with the requirement.

But Sotomayor - who handles emergency appeals from the 10th Circuit - said the applicants failed to meet "the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief," and that they could continue to pursue their challenge in lower courts and return to the higher court, if necessary, following a final judgment.

There was no indication when or if the high court would ultimately decide the religious freedom question. Several dozen separate lawsuits are pending in various lower federal courts.

The Michigan case is Monaghan v. Sebelius (12-15488).

CNN's Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Catholic Church • Christianity • Faith & Health

soundoff (1,866 Responses)
  1. Steve D.

    This is dangerous stuff, folks. If this ruling stands then individuals businesses and employers can make buisness, hring, and policy decisions based on their personal religious views.. If a federal law on healthcare can be struck down based on the boss's relibion, why not on anything else? There are religious views that say women shouldn't work, teach, go to school, or supervise men. Can an employer invoke those as an end-run around the law?

    January 1, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Kathy

      no, it doesn't say that. It just says that the employer doesn't have to subsidize (monetarily) an employee's bc pill or abortion. Get a hold of yourself.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The principle is the same. You can't force an employer to provide health insurance plans that include coverage for the cost of psychiatric treatment if the employer has a religious objection to that. S'okay with you?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:46 am |
    • Kathy

      No. You extrapolate unnecessarily. Take a chill.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:47 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, you simply can't back up your argument.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:51 am |
  2. seadog364

    Fine...put box of condoms by the door. That should handle it.

    January 1, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Please tell me you always use a rubber.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:26 am |
  3. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Can any of you provide a reason why health insurance shouldn't cover contraceptives, when they prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower everyone's health care costs, and decrease the need for abortion? Stop attempting to use the argument that an "employer shouldn't have to pay for anything you need." That's a bogus argument in this country. Employers DO have to do so. They can't hire underage workers. They must abide by safety standards. They can't pay sweatshop wages. They aren't permitted to force employees to work without lunch and bathroom breaks.

    There is no reason a health insurance plan shouldn't cover basic health care, and that does include contraceptives. You don't have to use them, but you have no right to deny their use to others anymore than they have the right to deny you drugs for diabetes, cancer, or epilepsy.

    January 1, 2013 at 11:16 am |
    • lionlylamb


      Your treating of conception as being similar to a disease tells one so much. :-(

      January 1, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You dismissal of it as a minor inconvenience says more about you, you deluded old fool.

      Are you paying for your shrink out of your own pocket?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • NorCalMojo

      Should they pay for your toothpaste and dental floss, too?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Are you using 10 dollars worth of dental floss every month? If you fail to use it will the dental care such neglect causes cost you nine months of monthly or weekly visits to the dentist? After nine months, will your neglect cause the birth of an unwanted baby?

      Idiot, do you spend 75% of your waking life needing to floss? What's the worst-case scenario if you don't have dental floss?

      What's the worst case scenario if a woman gets pregnant when she doesn't want to be?

      Got any more stupidity to put on display?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:38 am |
    • Trey

      " no right to deny their use to others"

      Sorry spiffy....not paying for them does not deny their use to others.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:39 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The law says that it does, "SPLIFFY." The law requires that employers of companies offer this coverage. It doesn't matter whether you think it should or not. It does.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:41 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Should a company be permitted to refuse to offer health insurance policies that cover blood transfusions? Lots of religious nuts think those are wrong, too. After all, can't you pay for one of those out of pocket? How about psychiatric treatment? Why should that be covered? After all, it's not necessary, if you just pray hard enough.

      Look at Chard. He's a perfect example of the results of that.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:44 am |
  4. Should CNN be sued or should those of you who want to protest Dominos?

    Interesting. Who will pay for the Domino pizza's losses from this boycott? Poor pizza place. Another innocent business brought down by those who miss critical details in their reading. It is important to report facts and read them correctly. He sold the pizza place. Just think, you are so mad about hurting people and their incomes in one arena and you forgot about the impact your mis-reading will have on poor people and their local pizza jobs.

    January 1, 2013 at 11:13 am |
  5. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Can any of you give a good reason why a health care plan shouldn't cover contraceptives?

    January 1, 2013 at 11:06 am |
    • Bob Knippel

      None. Can you give any reason why a business owner should be responsible for your personal life, which includes your health and health care?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Because the company operates under our laws. Our laws require businesses to provide certain benefits. Businesses that don't want to obey those laws shouldn't try to operate a business here.

      What part of that is a mystery to you?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • Tony

      Does your car insurance pay for oil changes? Tune ups? Does your homeowner's insurance pay for getting the grass cut?


      January 1, 2013 at 11:19 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Does your car need a tune-up or oil changes 75% of the time you drive it?

      Why shouldn't a medication that most women use to avoid pregnancy for 75% of their reproductive years be covered?

      Blood pressure meds are covered. Often, people with high blood pressure are overweight. Why should insurance cover that? Why should it pay for cancer treatment for someone who has smoked for decades and gets lung cancer?

      Why should it pay for any medication at all?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hurry up, LL, you babbling idiot. Are YOU paying the bills for your psychiatric care? Because you can BET that costs more than contraceptives.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:39 am |
  6. Some answers

    1. He is a deeply religious man. He was the one who wanted to create the Catholic city with no violent movies etc. He wanted the city to be a place people could move that had Catholic or Christian values. He has spent his life doing good for others. Read about him other than CNN bias page.
    2. He no longer owns the pizza place, please re-read article again (not sure why this reading comprehension thing is so difficult as they write articles at an eighth grade level).
    3. Contraception should not be forced because many believe it is wrong (that is not up to you to decide, we have or had something called freedom in this country). This man wants his freedom to not support something against his beliefs.
    4. He is not dictating what people should do; he is asking that he does not have to pay for it. Strange how people read from their perspective. But, he is actually asking the government not to "dictate what everyone should do."
    5. If you like to argue without facts and without reading articles correctly, then you waste digital space.
    6. Contraceptives are not full proof, many women get pregnant on them, many. They are also linked to many health problems, so the good they do also has a very bad side (taken out the religious component). Please do your research before judging a good man who has principles to stand by. All he is asking is that he be left to run his company how he feels is moral.

    January 1, 2013 at 11:06 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hilarious that someone who can't tell truth from lies is unable to spell "fool-proof".

      You are a piece of work.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • Saraswati

      Many people believe blood transfusions are wrong, and they aren't foolproof. Would you want to be stuck in a situation where the only job you could get (a reality for many) didn't offer them? Or was run by Christian Scientists and didn't offer any real health care?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • dragonfly310

      I just love it when people hide behind religion to deny a portion of our society health care. And there's no war on women, riiiiiight.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:16 am |
    • Cedar rapids

      'that is not up to you to decide, we have or had something called freedom in this country). This man wants his freedom to not support something against his beliefs.'

      yeah, we also have things called laws in this country and that includes business laws, which he needs to follow if he wants to be in business.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • actually Piper, it is often spelled both ways, though you are correct

      It has zero to do with the point and I will take it as a compliment that you have no other argument to stand on. You can to continue to hate rich people and doubt their motives, but you will destroy your own freedoms as collateral damage.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • Chad

      @Some Answers, VERY WELL SAID!!

      January 1, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, you moron, it isn't. There is no such word as FULLPROOF. You just don't know how to write and if you're that stupid it's unlikely you have a clue about law.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    • Chad

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son "Hilarious that someone who can't tell truth from lies is unable to spell "fool-proof"."

      Actually, it can be spelled either way. It's rare that Tom Tom fails in her quest to spell check every Christian poster so I thought I would point this one out :-)

      January 1, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    • Chad

      oops.. rats.. that Tom Tom is an excellent spell checker :-)

      January 1, 2013 at 11:28 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, please. You must really be desperate. Do explain the reasoning behind the term "full proof." Something that cannot be filled? You are hilarious.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:29 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Poor Chard. Now the emoticons are flying.

      I guess that's because he's been caught in yet another lie.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:30 am |
  7. Chad



    January 1, 2013 at 11:05 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So, Chard, you're all for women getting pregnant and having abortions instead of preventing pregnancy in the first place?

      Good to know.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • Chad

      "Causing death can never be considered a form of medical treatment,"

      The issue is not preventing life, but taking it from a newly conceived child.

      It is utterly dishonest semantics to claim that the newly conceived child isnt a child until he/she becomes implanted in the mothers uterus.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:14 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Nope. Again, the liar Chard lifts his slimy head out of the mud to croak falsehoods. Read about how plan B works. It works PRIMARILY by preventing ovulation. If a woman is pregnant, it will have no effect.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • Cedar rapids

      'It is utterly dishonest semantics to claim that the newly conceived child isnt a child until he/she becomes implanted in the mothers uterus.'

      no more so than claiming a woman is pregnant before she is pregnant.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So Chard, I guess you DO approve of abortion. After all, if a woman has unprotected s@x and isn't permitted any other recourse to prevent pregnancy, that's what's left.

      Thanks for playing, Vegetable.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:19 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, Chard's always good for accusing everyone else of the very thing he is guilty of every time he posts.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • Chad

      Very dishonest claim to make.. as you know, "pregnancy" is only scientifically defined as starting AFTER the newly conceived child has attached to the uterus. If you murder the child prior to implantation, you have still murdered a child even if it isnt technically considered "termination of pregnancy"

      January 1, 2013 at 11:22 am |
    • Cedar rapids

      semantics chad, still just semantics.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • Piper likes 4,000 babies being killed daily in USA I guess

      He wills say contraception will stop that, but it won't. It hasn't- actually, it has increased it.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • Chad

      killing a newly conceived child isnt "semantics", it is murder.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:29 am |
    • Really

      The rumour is that you were coceiveved in a petri dish (in vitro fertilization), one of several embryos created at the same time. Yours was the lucky one, your siblings ended up in cyropreservation but eventually had to be destroyed as no donors would accept the characteristics of the donors, your parents, sad but true. Of course, now that you know you will want to have all doctors using in vitro fertilization charged with murder, good luck with that.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, baloney. A recent study showed that when contraception was provided for no cost at all and was widely available, the rate of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies dropped precipitously. The fact that contraception is available to many has ALREADY caused the abortion rate to drop steadily over decades.

      But please, do continue to embarrass yourselves. It's quite entertaining. I can't wait to see Chard spew some more emoticons while insisting that PLAN B works PRIMARILY by preventing implantation. Of course anyone with a brain can look it up and see that he's lying.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:33 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How many women get arrested and charged with murder for having a menstrual period, Chard?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:34 am |
    • Chad

      None, because it was not the intent of the mother to kill the child (if one existed).

      Intent, that's what always distinguishes murder from non-murder.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:51 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, Vegetable, it is not. Look up the definition of murder. Using the pill or plan B is legal. It is no more "murder" than a period.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • really

      Tom Tom the sewer's son is really all about killing innocent human babies, fornicating at will and dressing like a drag queen.

      January 1, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And I win another round. Tom has no case and no argument. Poor little boy.

      Tell me, Tom, do you wear a rubber EVERY time you have s#X?

      January 1, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • Jen

      That's funny, I'm pretty sure that no woman has been charged with the crime of murder in the last forty years despite 'intent'. Why is that??? Oh right, because abortion is not murder (if it was then a woman would be charged with it). Pretty simple.

      And it's my belief that anyone who calls something that has yet to implant a 'child' is a moron. If you feel that way, why aren't you adopting as many embryos (which are much farther along in development) from clinics as possible? If you really cared you would help these helpless embryos before they are 'murdered'. Yet you stand back and do nothing.

      January 1, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Jen hit the subject squarely. Chad does NOT care about any of the issues he discusses here. He certainly does not care for "children" (his definition) because if he did his actions would show it and he'd not even have time to be here on this blog. Similarly, if he really believed that he could bring others to his Christ, he'd be out doing that instead of arguing on a debate board where he knows he will have little impact. The truth is that he'd rather be here making himself a supreme azzhole and liar at every turn. He's either doing it as a Poe or he believes he's "suffering persecution" for his lord. Either way, it's all about pride and vanity. Well done, good and faithful servant. Well done!

      January 1, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • Chad

      How would one adopt an embryo?

      baby shortage

      Because the number of people interested in adopting infants from the United States and Canada exceeds the number of infants in need of adoption, experts have called this problem a "baby shortage."

      article continued at: http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/baby-shortage/54/1.html

      January 1, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Any empirical proof for your god on the horizon, Chad?

      January 1, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Really? Chad? You've got the creator of all reality living within you and giving you guidance and the two of you can't figure out how to save embryos? How small-minded and weak are you two?

      January 1, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • Chad

      What would you consider "proof"?

      remember, it has to be such that people arent coerced..

      responding to the question I posed would be appreciated! Launching into a tirade doesnt do much..

      January 1, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
    • Jen

      Plenty of people donate their embryos to keep them from being 'murdered' Chad. Shouldn't you know that given how concerned you are with newly fertilized eggs being 'murdered'? Surely you are at least as concerned about the more developed embryos stuck in labs begging for life. Don't you want to save at least one of their lives? You must have at least one woman friend who is as pro life as you willing to raise the baby with you.

      This will also solve the baby shortage crisis as well. Oh wait...the women wanting a newborn baby don't want to incubate that baby for nine months? Why not? It's not money issues – it costs a fortune for private adoption. What could it be? Oh wait...maybe bring pregnant is a significant health risk for them? No..that can't be it because every pro life man on here always calls pregnancy a 'minor inconvenience' and nothing more. Hmmm..I'm stumped....

      January 1, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
    • Chad

      Embryos are donated for infertility treatment.. As far as I can tell there exists no overpopulation, and its use as an alternative to abortion seems to be an option rarely exercised.

      January 1, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • Jen

      What are you talking about? There are plenty available right now. Why not adopt one before it's been frozen too long (it's too late? )

      Oh, because you don't care enough that's why.

      January 1, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      No, Chad, it doesn't have to follow your stupid rule of "no coercion."

      Real proof coerces. That's how it works. When I prove to you that two cookies plus two cookies equals four cookies, the conclusion is unavoidable. You've been coerced.

      You have no proof of your god.

      January 1, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
    • Chad

      "real proof coerces"?

      Sorry, no. God will not coerce us into a relationship. He respects our freedom of choice.

      So, you arent going to articulate what would be sufficient proof without coercion?

      January 1, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad, you don't get to define what is and is not proof. Proof is coercive. If I prove to you that my car is green, then you are coerced by that proof. Your god isn't coercive because he is so invisible and undetectable that his existence is irrelevant. A being who's so invisible and undetectable as to be irrelevant CAN'T offer proof or do any coercing.

      Nice job at blustering your way out of offering one single solitary shred of proof, though. Bluster, bluster, it's all you can do. You should pray and ask god to show you how a real apologist would go about doing what you can't, here.

      January 1, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad, give me an example of proof that is not coercive, and while your at it, give me an example of a reason for belief that isn't a conclusion.

      That you ask for such stupidity means you must have examples. LOL!! Prove you're not a complete dipsh!t and provide the examples.

      January 1, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
    • Chad

      I can prove to you that I am real, if you will come to my house and meet me.

      that is proof that is not coercive, you have the option not to come to my house.

      January 1, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • Chad

      1. The origin of the universe
      2. The fine tuning of the universe
      3. The origin of life on earth
      4. The fossil record
      5. The empty tomb

      Conclusion: The God of Israel is real

      January 1, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
  8. Bob Knippel

    An employees health and health care are not the concern of an employer beyond having the employee show up for work when he is supposed to. It is nice if an employer provides health care insurance as a benefit, but making the employer responsible for anyone else's health care is fundamentally wrong and essentially no different than forcing an employer to make mortgage payments or cover transportation costs for the employee, none of which are directly related to the employers business.

    January 1, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son


      January 1, 2013 at 11:05 am |
  9. kd

    Bad ruling. If you don't want to cover what the law says, get out of the business.

    January 1, 2013 at 11:03 am |
  10. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Why shouldn't oral contraceptives be covered by insurance?

    Can any of you give a plausible reason?

    January 1, 2013 at 11:01 am |
  11. Scott



    January 1, 2013 at 10:57 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Scott, please tell me you always use a rubber.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:00 am |
  12. sam

    Dominos = sweat shop. I will never eat there again knowing these millionaires are to cheap to provide insurance to low income people.

    January 1, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • Bob Knippel

      Why should an employer be responsible for anyone else's insurance? What does your personal life have to do with the business of making pizza?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:06 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Because the laws we have in this country require employers who have a certain number of employees to provide health care coverage. The employees aren't getting this coverage for free. They pay premiums. Health care coverage saves ALL of us money, including the employer.

      Get a clue.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:10 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Bob, because the US has refused to provide universal healthcare and for most people this is the only way to get affordable healthcare. If you don't like it, I hope you're supporting an alternate system.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:14 am |
    • mike

      Just an FYI: He no longer owns Dominos Pizza. Dominos Farms in unrelated to the pizza chain he later sold off.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • carpe diem

      Earlier this week, news stories came out that Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan had filed suit against the federal government regarding healthcare. Since that time, the story has been widely misreported to indicate Domino’s was involved in this action, which is completely untrue. Tom Monaghan sold Domino’s Pizza in 1998 and today has NO active affiliation with our company. The media often neglect to note this fact. His views are not our views, nor are his actions in any way related to our actions. Domino's Pizza has made no public statements about health care, as we are still waiting to see how the final rules will affect our network of small business owners. Domino's is not a political company; it is not a religious company – we are a pizza company........From Dominos Pizzas Facebook page

      January 1, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • Rational Humanist

      carpe diem is wrong. Monaghan still owns a 7 percent stake in the company. And their pizza sucks and everyone knows it.

      January 1, 2013 at 8:41 pm |
  13. sam

    Might as well get Ilegal Mexicans or children to work at Domino's, doesn't have to pay any insurance for them.
    Their pizza sucks and is garbage anyway

    January 1, 2013 at 10:50 am |
  14. NYOD

    This is why it should not be left up to businesses to provide health care coverage. It should be up to the Federal government to do so. Otherwise companies like Dominos will use pathetic excuses like 'freedom of religion' to avoid having to pay for it.

    January 1, 2013 at 10:48 am |
    • Scott

      Then move to socialist Europe and leave us freedom loving Americans alone.


      January 1, 2013 at 10:58 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Scott, it's obvious you don't know what the word "socialism" means.

      Socialized medicine /= Socialism.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • Robert Brown


      Do we need an amendment making health care a right?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why does it have to be a right for us to have a single payer plan? Why would we need an amendment?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:03 am |
    • Cedar rapids

      'Then move to socialist Europe '

      That you think 'Europe' is socialist shows you know nothing about either socialism or Europe.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:22 am |
  15. Why do atheists focus so much on God?

    Why do they always get so mad? Festered up anger? Why are they always on sites talking about God and religion. And, the facts are THIS- this guy does not own Dominos any more, so not sure why some of you are still writing that. Also, it is the NON-BELIEVERS and those of different beliefs PUSHING THEIR beliefs on this man and how he chooses to run his company. No one forces you to work there and you ought to be happy he is so successful, instead of envy... I am a history teacher and very concerned for many of you who have no idea what is happening to your country in "small" ways is so similar to other great nations before they fell or were taken by certain types of leaders. This man's freedom is directly being controlled by government. Why is it that ANY of you feel that is a good thing? Look at our debt, look at BIG government around the world, look at how poorly the government ran our schools and wasted so much money... look at the millions of examples... and you still won't care. Why? Because all you care about is your need to be taken care of. I know it is scary to stand strong. But, it also makes you a better person. If you don't want to have a baby and you want to use contraception, take the 10.00 a month it costs and don't get your Starbucks coffee latte (or however you spell that). Make a sacrifice. Why are you all so comfortable with letting this kind of legislation WASTE tax payer dollars. Those tax dollars used to defend these cases, to create the legislation (all the high paid Congress) etc. could be used to feed the hungry you are talking about. OH, wait... those are the CHRISTIANS and other amazing religious facilities feeding them. Where are you? Do you feed them? There is a word for that...

    January 1, 2013 at 10:47 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why shouldn't contraception be covered?

      January 1, 2013 at 10:49 am |
    • NYOD

      You are a history teacher? And they allow people you to teach? Yet another sign that there is no G8d.

      January 1, 2013 at 10:52 am |
    • dave

      Says the guy with the longest post here.

      January 1, 2013 at 10:56 am |
    • Cedar rapids

      'Also, it is the NON-BELIEVERS and those of different beliefs PUSHING THEIR beliefs on this man and how he chooses to run his company'

      no, he is trying tp push his religious belief into business law.

      January 1, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • B.S.

      Christians feed hungry people in the hopes of converting them. You don't have to be religious to be charitable but you do have to be religious to act immorally just as long as the act is done "in the name of god."

      January 1, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • Too blind to see

      Google secular charities, Doctors Wthout Borders, Bill Gates Foundation, Feeding America, many many more. Guess what, they don't tell the poor in Africa not to use contaceptives like some christian lots do. You know Africa, where HIV, other venereal diseases, unwanted starving children, etc,. secular charities provide the help they an withut shoving the babble in ther faces get it, hypocrite.
      PS: Just providing mosquito screens, Bill Gates Foundation initiative, as helped dramatically reduce malaria cases, try and take a broader view.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • chris

      g8d? there's still tons of gated communities around, what are you talking about?

      January 1, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • History Teacher

      You should have indicated ancient history teacher, your mind never got past the dark ages. You don't go up and down the aisles with a ruler smacking kids at random do you? Just asking, we had a sub-techer dressed like a penquin that used to do that.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • MeanOldMan

      "No one forces you to work there " Funny how the right always uses that argument yet when you say the same thing about thngs like Michigans recent "Right to Work" laws and if people don't like unions, nobody is forcing them to work there is scoffed at by the same people. Just shows that their arguements are hollow hypocrisy and in the end they just don't want to spend the money or feel that because they are wealthy they don't have to play by the same rules. All these arguments about healthcare could be drastically reduced if we just came into the 21st century like the rest of the modern world and had single payer healthcare that is far more cost effective and more effective for the people of the country also.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:08 am |
  16. POD

    Domino's, Papa Johns, Pizza Hut....etc. all commercial factory made plastic pies.....Only people like in Kansas where they have no Italians eat this stuff. You can't give this junk away in the East Coast cities

    January 1, 2013 at 10:47 am |
  17. Anon


    January 1, 2013 at 10:46 am |
  18. lindaluttrell

    Rich corporate CEOs dictating what everyone should do! That is the very reason I will never consume Domino's Pizza OR Churche's Chicken! I wish everyone across the country would boycott these two companies and drive them to bankruptcy!

    January 1, 2013 at 10:46 am |
    • Teddy Leib

      How in the world does a boycott of Domino's accomplish anything...He doesn't own Domino's, so if you are driving them to bankruptcy (which you wouldn't anyway, but that's another issue), you would be affecting someone OTHER THAN Thomas Monaghan...a boycott of Domino's has ZERO effect on Thomas Monahan because he has ZERO to do with the company now.

      January 1, 2013 at 10:59 am |
  19. Jinx88

    People that eat his crappy pizza are the ones that need the healthcare.

    January 1, 2013 at 10:42 am |
  20. scary

    IF this really is about religion, there is an argument. But, if folks who hide behind the cloth for networking are going to use things they may or may not really care about as a way to avoid paying money...to use their religion as a way to simply lower the bottom line...

    well...that is just everything I hate about dogma in a bit 'ol fat nutshell.

    January 1, 2013 at 10:42 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.