Religious extremists continue efforts to corrupt the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court must decide in Kathleen Sebelius Secretary Of Health And Human Services v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. if the Affordable Care Act infringes on employers’ First Amendment protected free exercise of religion.

The Federal government petitioners say, “The legal issue is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation's owners.�

Respondents are Green family members and their closely held businesses, which they operate according to their religious beliefs according to them. They say, “The question presented is whether the regulation (Affordable Care Act) violates RFRA by requiring Respondents to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs, or else pay severe fines.�

Clearly, the Green family statement of the case seeks a Court decision confirming their right to limit contraceptive choices of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. employees based on Green family members’ religious beliefs. They advance the belief of many religious extremists the Constitution protection of religious expression allows them to force their religious values on other people. A lower appellate court decision agreed with them. I hope the Supreme Court will overturn that ruling.

Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Mardel Inc. are corporations and persons under the law. The Green family owns and operates the management company that owns those corporations. Green family members set up their businesses as corporations to separate and to protect themselves legally from adverse consequences of business and for tax advantage. Now, they make the opposite claim that those corporations express their religious belief. It appears they believe hypocrisy is a positive value.

I disagree that corporations are persons with inborn human rights, because they were constructed and not birthed. Nevertheless, a previous decision of the Supreme Court established them as persons with rights. The Constitution protects every person’s First Amendment rights from infringement by others. Therefore, the Constitution prohibits members of the Green family from imposing their religious values on corporate persons. Corporations as inanimate objects cannot have personal religious beliefs. This fact blocks the Green family argument their religious expression extends through the corporation to its employees. The Court should rule against the Green family in this case based on its previous ruling of corporations as persons.

The Court should rule in favor of the Affordable Care Act even if the owner of a business operated it directly under his or her name. The Affordable Care Act requires businesses to pay a portion of employees’ health insurance premium as components of wages and benefits. Employees’ lawful uses of health insurance benefits are personal choices no different from other lawful uses of their wages and benefits. Employers do not have legal or moral authority over the lawful off-work activity of employees’.

Courts ruled schools could ban students’ American flag displays during Cinco de Mayo because of threats of violence. This is an absurdity of some people's reasoning about American cultural diversity. Some students in the United States celebrating a historic event of foreign, ancestor culture threaten violence to other students displaying the American flag that symbolizes protected freedom of expression.

During May 5, 2010, Oak High School of Morgan Hill Unified School District allowed a Cinco de Mayo celebration on campus. Some students of Mexican descent threatened violence against students displaying the American flag that day. Based on those threats, school officials directed students to remove or hide clothing displaying the flag. They excused students from attendance that refused to hide or remove the flag from their clothes.

The students sued in Federal District Court for violation of their First Amendment rights of free speech and for equal protection. The Federal Court ruled in favor of Morgan Hill school officials and so did a panel of U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court reasoned that schools have authority to suppress speech to protect students from threats of violence or to prevent disruption of school programs. This court decision was a perverted application of law. It supported the denial of American students' free speech displays of patriotism while allowing the group threatening violence to display the Mexican flag and complete their Cinco de Mayo celebration.

Perhaps Oak High School officials could have used this occasion as an education event if the illogical beliefs of cultural diversity did not obstruct reasoning. American Cultural diversity presumes distinct inherited ethnic groups differences in important areas of morality, intellect, and human rights. Prejudices of skin color, race, religion, and nationality are the foundation for cultural group identities. Those identities energized by prejudiced-charged emotions convince many Americans that cultural diversity is a zero-sum game-each group advances its interests at the expense of another group. (That is, "White" students' display of the American flag belittles the Mexican Cinco de Mayo celebration." "Schools advance black and Asian cultural interests over white-race interests when they reduce European history and literature in the k-12 curriculum." "Improving Black-labeled students' English Language ability diminishes their African-American culture.")

Commonsense, should alert Americans the disputes over the worth of inherited cultures is unproductive of young Americans' duty to advance a common American culture. The direction immigration flow indicates how people value culture no matter the wistful claims of cultural equality. Americans or their ancestors voted the United States their preferred culture when they emigrated from their ancestral lands and culture.

Life is a relay for survival and not a static picture for admiration of ancestor achievement. Therefore, descendants celebrating past great cultures of the African, Asian, and European continents that no longer are dominant only highlight those cultures' lack of persistence. Alternatively, it highlights the failure of descendants to advance the baton. Ideas of cultural diversity set the United States on that same destructive track.

School officials had the duty to remind students of the patriotic purpose for displaying the American flag. On May 5, 2010, some students celebrated Cinco de Mayo by trying to force other students to remove displays of the American flag from their clothing. This same day, ten thousands American military members displayed the American flag on their combat outfit while at war in Afghanistan defending freedoms of Americans. Many of those military members were Americans of Mexican descent. The display of the American flag on the caskets of deceased military members is the nation's tribute to them.

If this reminder of what the flag represents failed to suppress the threats of violence from its display, school officials should have called for law-enforcement backing to protect students exercising their American freedoms. Alternatively, they should have canceled the celebration. In no manner should they have rewarded threats of violence against displays of American patriotism. Americans' respect for the displayed flag is not for a piece of cloth, but for goals of unity, it represents.