[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Well.

"Unalienable rights' is a phrase in the Declaration of Independence, not in the Constitution. As it happens I think the DOI should carry some weight, for example in respecting the human rights of non-citizens. But the Supreme Court hasn't caught up with me yet on that one, I don't think.

Civil rights aren't the same, you are correct. Civil rights are the rights one has under law. In usage, it's come to mean rights guaranteed under the Federal constitution and laws, but often denied to some individuals due to discrimination at the state and local level. But in any case, they include unalienable rights, that is the natural rights all humans everywhere have, but only to the extent that those rights are recognized in the laws. The two sets of rights therefore should overlap, at least. Ideally, enlightened civil rights should include all unalienable rights.

Anyway, can you now explain what all this has to do with whats right or wrong regarding the Hobby Lobby case?

Government can not trample someones Inalienable Rights over laws they chose to pass, no way never.