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. Janet

    First amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    I suspect the second clause is the basis of the lawsuit.

    January 1, 2014 at 11:32 am |
  2. Jones sabo we assert best wishes

    Just wanna input on few general things, The website style is perfect, the subject matter is rattling good : D. Jones sabo we assert best wishes http://www.kenburgerblog.com/2013/04/01/i-p-freely/#comments

    April 14, 2013 at 7:15 pm |
  3. China Hood

    Does your site have a contact page? I'm having a tough time locating it but, I'd like to shoot you an e-mail. I've got some ideas for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great site and I look forward to seeing it improve over time. China Hood http://www.robinhoodchina.info

    January 31, 2013 at 5:15 am |
  4. RedskinsFan

    Have to love how his freedom of religion means that he doesn't have to have to follow a law, thereby exerting his religious beliefs on those that work for him. Oh well, it's only temporary. The latest Hobby Lobby decision does not bode well for his temporary exemption. I may not like everything in the law, but it's the law. And in this country our laws trump religious beliefs. We could decide to tax churches if we so chose. And we should. Every other year some churches are adding huge additions or nice gymnasiums and such to their campuses where I live. It would be nice to see some of that money go back into the government. I mean, they don't even pay taxes on the building materials or labor. It's sickening.

    January 10, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
  5. The Other Bob

    As has been pointed out repeatedly by both the article and various posts here, Monaghan has no affiliation with the pizza company he founded, and his siuit has nothing to do with that company. So boycott Dominos Pizza because it's lousy pizza and/or to support your local pizza shop, but not because of this dope's lawsuit and hypocrisy.

    January 4, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • crabbyolddad

      This guy has been a putz since I first heard of him 30 years ago. The pizza connection has nothing to do with him any longer but his wacko beliefs haven't changed.

      Must be a good strong religious Republican. Good thing those people are slowly fading away.

      January 4, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Yeah he's slowly fading away into his billion dollar life style brought about by hard work and decent values.

      January 4, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
    • niknak

      Hey, Deacon Blues is back!
      Just in time too, cause I was really hankering for some xtian bashing.
      Cause you know that is all us atheists live for, when we are not hanging out in gay leather bars plotting the overthrow of the government.

      Did you find any proof of your god yet?
      Your homework assignment on that is way past due BillyBob......

      January 4, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
    • End Religion

      I thought the article said he gave up his billion dollar lifestyle? Good thing, since I hear it's harder than threading a camel through a needle to get into heaven with so much dough (get it? snicker, snicker.... i made a pizza joke while tying in a bible passage, snort, snicker, snort, and at the same time i got to once again teach a nutter what he doesn't know about his own religion, snicker, snort, snicker).

      January 4, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
    • Athy

      What is a "decent value?"

      January 5, 2013 at 12:45 am |
  6. The Other Bob

    Bad enough that religious orgaizations can inflict their beliefs on employees, but this clown is running a secular, for-profit business. Monaghan is really worried about his REAL religion: Money.

    That dinosaur who granted the temporary stay needs to be put out to pasture.

    January 4, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
  7. max

    Well, looks like I won't be eating Domino's any time soon.

    January 3, 2013 at 10:20 pm |
    • Atanasio Tzul

      Amen to that!

      January 4, 2013 at 8:33 am |
    • Really??

      Dominoes is one of the worst pizzas anyway. I never go there because they suck!

      January 4, 2013 at 8:39 am |
    • teri

      Our family has not purchased or allowed a Domino's pizza in our home since the 1980's because of his donating 1 dollar, for every pizza sold ,to Pro Life !

      January 4, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
    • Eric

      Really people. READ THE STORY!
      1) Monaghan has NOTHING to do with Domino's Pizza anymore. He sold. He's gone.
      2)Working for a Domino's franchisee in the 80's, I can tell you that the store owners don't make $1 a pizza, and Domino's corporate does not make $1 a pizza, so anyone that ever told you Domino's gave $1 for every pizza sold to pro life is a LIAR and anyone that believes it is a FOOL! (point of fact, Monaghan at the time donated $50,000 to support some pro-life initiative in Michigan at the time. Hardly $1 per pizza, and his PERSONAL money, not Domino's)
      3) Those of you who boycott because of Monaghan end up hurting people who likely agree with you, and don't even touch Monaghan the source of your opposition.

      To re state... Tom Monaghan has NOTHING to do with Domino's Pizza anymore. He does however own a place called Gyrene Burger now...

      January 4, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
  8. damo12345

    Why is this considered an issue for the "Belief Blog"? This is a legal and business matter far more than a religious one. The ruling could have far-reaching effects upon all of us, including those of us that do not you share the faith of this "Pizza magnate".

    January 3, 2013 at 9:25 pm |
    • capitalist

      contraception is a godly matter according to Domino's Properties

      January 4, 2013 at 1:13 am |
    • Atanasio Tzul

      G*d has told me not to eat Domino's pizza.

      January 4, 2013 at 8:34 am |
  9. Richard

    I say that all women boycott Dominos and convince their significant other to also boycott Dominos. He has every right to treat women as second class citizens. Women have ever right to let him know by convincing all the people that love them should abide by their wishes. Until we can stop bullies from hurting people, these Neanderthals will hurt people every chance they can. Why do they do it? Because they can! I will never eat and always promote other pizza places.

    January 3, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      So funny that the pizza revolt persists. It's like if the Dallas Cowboys filed for an exemption and you decided to boycott NASCAR

      January 4, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
  10. Angel Moronic

    It would this forum greatly if Domino's Pizza would come out publicly and declare what their position is on the new Health Care requirements regarding contraceps and viagra.

    January 3, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • lol??

      What if it ain't none of your business, moron angel? Ever heard of privacy rights? Another right down the tubes. Oh, oh, you're an atheist trained by a commie mommie.

      January 3, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • Clyde

      You accidentally the verb.

      January 3, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
    • capitalist

      Ever heard of privacy rights? lol ? Tommie Monaghan's business apparently like to poke its nose in everyone's bedroom.

      January 4, 2013 at 1:11 am |
  11. Nancy

    I'll never eat Dominos again, and will urge others to stay away, what a low-life. Seating there so proud you are a cheap selfish so-called person who cares only of yourself, yuk! You make so much money and pay your help so little..greed the root to all evil! I bet you wouldn't be smiling for long, dirt bag!

    January 3, 2013 at 2:27 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 3, 2013 at 7:20 am |
    • ^^^

      Has a case of broken record syndrome-another mental disorder that requires immediate psychiatric attention.

      January 3, 2013 at 7:51 am |
    • Jason

      Domino's Pizza has nothing to do with the issue. "....not directly related to the pizza-chain empire. Monaghan sold his majority interest in the pizza company in 1998." Read the article and use your brain before you start boycotting.

      January 3, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      What would you do if the government decided everyone had the right to pizza and forced you to pay for it?

      January 3, 2013 at 12:49 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Incredibly stupid analogy, Bill. A better analogy would be to say that your boss told you to give gift certificates to everyone in your office for a local pizza place, but you refused to give the certificates for the pizza place because some people might use those gift certificates to buy pizza with anchovies, and......well.......you just don't like anchovies on YOUR pizzas.

      January 3, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Angel Moronic

      Deacon: more half of the US are already obese (most likely from too much pizza) and we ARE paying for that.

      January 3, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
  12. maria

    Didn't the founding fathers decide to separate church and state? If Christians don't want tax money to pay for abortions and birth control, what's to stop Jehovah's Witness from preventing blood transfusions or Muslim and Buddhists from preventing meds created with animal by-products to be covered? How about Scientology refusing psychiatric care coverage? It can becomes a slippery slope if we let one religious group dictate what tax money will or will not cover in healthcare. Sociological & epidemiological studies, as well as common sense, should utilized in creating healthcare policies not religion. (And no, you don't need a religious belief to have common sense.)

    January 3, 2013 at 12:43 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Most people reject slippery slope arguments because they are speculative.

      January 3, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • Akira

      And yet you just used an example of it with your "right to pizza" post.

      January 3, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Not really. Substiitution is a standard logical exercise. A propositional formula is a tautology if it is true under every valuation (or interpretation) of its predicate symbols. If Φ is a tautology, and Θ is a substiitution instance of Φ, then Θ is again a tautology. This fact implies the soundness of the deduction rule described in the previous section.

      January 3, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      And yet, all the things pointed out in the original post is part of the doctrines of those religions. Allowing a christian owner of a for-profit company to get an exemption that was reserved for churches and religious non-profits that do not get government funding, then you open the door to every other religion. If you don't see this, you're just being obtuse.

      January 3, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • Akira

      Most people reject slippery slope arguments because they are speculative.

      January 3, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I do see that Hawaii. It is the major point which, to me, highlights the abysmal failure of the AHCA. By creating a centrally planned monolithic insurance requirement that tramples the rights of one group, the government cannot help but lay the groundwork to trample the rights of any group it deems. This is the problem with central planning. Whether they are forcing me to buy contraceptives or Nancy to buy pizza, the government has no business and no authority to coerce citizens into commerce. Justice Roberts as much as said so when he stipulated that the AHCA was only Constiitutional as a tax measure. The government can tax you into the behavior they want but they cannot compel you to participate in markets against your religion. The point you are missing because you support contraception is that the sword cuts both ways. If they can compel me, then they can compel you into behavior that you are morally opposed to. It is an infringement of freedom.

      January 3, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      Oh so they're forcing you to buy and use contraception? Pray tell, when did this happen?

      January 3, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • Akira

      Oh, it's much better to trample on the rights of women, being that they're just women.
      He doesn't qualify. Period.

      January 3, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      Also Bill, what you are still not addressing is that this is a for-profit company, and as such not privy to the favoritism that religion currently enjoys in the churches and whatnot. Where will you draw the line of favoritism for your religion Bill?

      January 3, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
    • Akira

      Bill, your religion is against the USE of contraception.
      Please show me where in Catholic dogma it says anything about prohibiting others who do not share your beliefs from using them; or providing insurance that covers it.
      Guess what? It doesn't say a bloody WORD about buying it; just USING it.

      January 3, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • sam

      It's always been hard to take Bill seriously...but lately it's just impossible. Either someone's trolling under his name, or he's had some kind of stroke.

      January 3, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      A court in Missouri has granted an exemption to American Pulverizer, a company that makes industrial equipment based on the undue burden to religious freedom that the contraceptive mandates in the AHCA place on the owners of the company. Maybe you should ask the judge where the line is.

      January 3, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      State judges have no authority to permanently exempt, they only have the authority to temporarily exempt pending ruling from a higher court. Dishonest Bill, very dishonest.

      January 3, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      You're parsing words Hawaii. Unless the federal government appeals (likely as is likely in the several dozen other cases pending in district courts) the exemption will stand. As it is today, American Pulverizer is not forced to provide contraceptive coverage

      January 3, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      They only need to take on 1 case. Once that single case is decided, it propogates. I'd like to see this judges reasons for exempting a company because the owner doesn't like it. Also Bill, are you merely saying that because a judge ruled how you like, that means you're correct? If that's the case, the abortion thing should be dead, but you'd be happy to rail against that wouldn't you?

      January 3, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I don't rail against abortion rights as current law of the land. But, yes I will make a moral and religious argument against them. I can differentiate between religious values and the law. It's important to remember that the law does not make a thing right. It only makes it legal. I am encouraged by the emerging trend of district court findings that the AHCA infringes on religious freedom. It gives me hope that free people may yet have a place in the world. I suspect that the government will drive it all to the Supreme court. At which point, we will see if we are to deconstruct the Constiitution or not.

      January 3, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      And how is it do you find that the owner of a for-profit company should have the right to claim the entire company be exempt from something based on religion? Which types of religious people should be able to claim this exemption? This is opening a door that most people don't want opened. The door being that a for-profit company can ignore federal standards based on religion.

      January 3, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      That's what the 14th amendment is all about. Protecting the rights of individuals against the majority. I think we have reached a place where reasonable government oversight has crossed a line. let me ask you this. Given that contraceptives are essentially free, why the big push to have right to life proponents supply them? Is the victory that much sweeter when you can rub their noses in it? If you are really pro choice, how do you justify infringing on the rights of religious people not to participate in your culture of death?

      January 3, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      That, in no way, addresses what I ask. Congrats, you have used yet another cop-out. Will you actually answer any questions?

      January 3, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • lol??

      The atheists refuse to apply their favorite weapon, demobcracy. Put it to a stockholder vote.

      January 3, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      Did you get tired of starting threads to troll?

      January 3, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
    • lol??

      Property rights must enter the equation somewhere. Course, that's just another right the atheists don't believe in. It's their commie mommie upbringin'.

      January 3, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
    • Akira

      Lol, employees are not the property of company owners...something the extreme religious right has yet to grasp.

      January 4, 2013 at 10:33 am |
  13. Dave

    "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."

    Interesting – in Roe V. Wade, the argument was that a patient has the right to privacy, therefore being free from compelling government interests. The government can compel payment of taxes, even when said taxes may be used for actions that some citizens would consider contrary to their religious sensibilities, but the government cannot generally compel a Citizen to commit an act that they consider to be fundamentally immoral.

    It seems unlikely that there will ever be a universal consensus on whether some procedures, such as abortion is inheritently moral or inherently immoral. Perhaps the simpler question is whether the government should be able to force those who feel it is immoral to pay for an insurance policy that covers abortion to do exactly that.

    Not arguing for outlawing the procedure, just suggesting we move forward with the 95% that would not be controversial and decide on how to best address the moral concerns around the other 5%.

    January 2, 2013 at 11:34 pm |
    • Akira

      The government isn't mandating that insurance companies cover elective abortion, only contraceptives, which this guy is fighting against.
      No tax dollars are going towards abortions, as far as I've read.
      There may be some companies that already covered abortion; that hasn't changed.
      If one doesn't believe in abortion, one won't obtain one; simple as that.

      January 3, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      What if one doesn't believe in paying for other's contraceptives? Still simple? Do you see the logical fallacy in your argument that you can force people against their conscience as long as the line is not too egregious? Who gets to decide where the line of my conscience begins? You? The Government?

      January 3, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • Bob

      Sometimes it is the government, Bill. We all contribute money to things that we may not believe in via the government, simply because that's how it works in America. You pay your taxes. Voters help the government decide on bills and they get reviewed by courts. The money goes out in very generic directions.

      January 3, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      I agree Bob but that is not how the AHCA works is it? In this case the government is mandating that the employers directly purchase the coverage against their conscience.

      January 3, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
    • Akira

      Sure, it's still simple.
      You could pursue it through the courts, like he is.
      And YOU don't GET to decide every one else's conscience, as this man is doing; that's why it will be ruled against, because:
      ...A narrow exemption was added for nonprofit religious employers whose employees “primarily share its religious tenets” and who “primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets.”

      Domino Farms is a for profit organization.

      They do not know who shares its religious tenets.
      They are subject to the same laws any other business is, regardless of their religious beliefs.
      They don't qualify.

      January 3, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Akira, one by one district courts are finding that your understanding of the law is mistaken.

      January 3, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
    • Akira

      No, BD; not MY understanding of the law; it is the law.
      And once the Supreme Court upholds it, trumping the district courts, company scofflaws will have to pay.
      They're not churches.
      They are not non-profits.
      I am looking forward to the day when churches are treated like the money-making veture capitalists they are and taxed to the hilt.
      They don't belong in laws, and they do not belong in politics, and I am sick and tired of those lobbyist who break laws with impunity based on their "religion."
      Their false piety sickens me.

      January 3, 2013 at 4:45 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868

      Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that includes corporations.

      Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

      So please describe for me how you intend to abrogate this amendment for religious people.

      January 4, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
  14. Rina

    But Hobby Lobby has no problem with buying most of their stuff from the chinese who have some of the world's worst human rights violations – including infanticide! Spare me the self-serving hypocrisy.

    January 2, 2013 at 11:13 pm |
    • Angel Moronic

      Profits trump godly principles every time !!

      January 3, 2013 at 12:05 am |
  15. Marty Mar

    Although religion creates this problem, I suspect it is only being used as a tool to further Mr. Monagham's business goals.

    January 2, 2013 at 10:59 pm |
    • Angel Moronic

      Godly principles pave the way for profits.

      January 3, 2013 at 12:05 am |
  16. Pro-choice

    Please see Senator McCaskill's support of a proposal that offers a compromise that protects an woman's ability to have access to the medical care she needs to make decisions that let her to be responsible for her health while also respecting religion. It is critical that we protect a woman's right to have access to resources she needs to make decisions about what is best for her own health.

    January 2, 2013 at 9:34 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I looked over her website and didn't find what you may be pointing towards. Could you provide a link?

      January 3, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • lol??

      Yup, the Beast gubmint, and the sons of the Beast (the corps) must survive.

      January 3, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
  17. Angel Moronic

    Lawrence Zatkoff will change his mind once he eats one Domino's slice

    January 2, 2013 at 9:01 pm |
  18. smjcpa

    I'll never eat Dominos again, and will urge others to stay away. Too bad I have a granddaughter who works there. I will have to educate her so she can move on, and not to a Hobby Lobby.

    After the election of 2010 that saw Republicans gain control of state Legislatures across the country, more than 1,100 anti-choice laws were introduced in 2011 —a new record. Eighty-three measures have been passed into law. So far in 2012, an additional 430 were introduced. We may break the record again this year.

    We need to create a "women hater" list. Women will never be free if they do not have control over their own bodies.

    January 2, 2013 at 8:28 pm |
    • lol??

      If they are having babies they must be having marital relationships, so ask the hubbies for further instructions.

      January 2, 2013 at 9:00 pm |
    • Liar, liar, pants on fire

      So you need instructions, lol?

      January 2, 2013 at 9:01 pm |
    • Roger

      Babe, I hear what you're saying and I could not agree more.

      January 2, 2013 at 9:02 pm |
    • lol??

      OH no! Those s e x toys at hobby lobby will nibble away at her self-government, her self-control so to speak.

      January 2, 2013 at 9:21 pm |
    • 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;

      January 2, 2013 at 10:03 pm |
    • Mike

      Women do have control over their own bodies, say no.

      January 2, 2013 at 11:50 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Mike, if you want to go by Biblical principles, ala Mr. Monaghan, it is the man's responsibility to himself not to consort with women who say yes. Putting it on women isn't right.

      January 3, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How come you consorted with one, BD? You weren't married. You fornicated. When pregnancy resulted because of your lack of self-control and your refusal to wear a rubber, you expected your girlfriend to just have the baby–and you know what happened then.

      Do you not see the results of asinine beliefs like yours in your own life?

      January 3, 2013 at 9:56 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Oh I do Tom, I do.

      January 4, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
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
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.