The Supreme Court strikes a few blows for liberty, although LGBT progressives won’t see it that way.
In the long-awaited Hobby Lobby ruling, the court found closely held for-profit companies are not required to pay for employees’ contraceptives (specifically abortifacients) if their owners have religious objections:
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito the court held that as applied to closely held corporations the Health and Human Services regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. … Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a concurring opinion.
The decision is a victory for the Green family that owns the Hobby Lobby arts and crafts chain and the Hahns who own Conestoga, a cabinet making company, who had challenged the so called contraceptive mandate saying it forced them to either violate their faith or pay ruinous fines. The government defended the provision as an essential part of health care coverage for women.
The ruling bodes well for the eventual likelihood that the rights of nonpublic employers (that is, private, closely held firms and small proprietors) not to be compelled by the state to provide artistic or creative services that celebrate same-sex marriages.
Also worth noting: the court’s ruling that government-employee unions can’t make nonmembers pay fees.
It’s a bad day for progressives who believe all rights come from the state, and only that which the state specifically allows should be permissible.
More. Get Equal issues a predictable response. And the Human Rights Campaign helpfully informs us that “countless lesbian and bisexual women as well as some transgender men rely on contraception.”
Returning to the world of reason, some insights from Ilya Shapiro, blogging from the libertarian Cato Institute. And an observation from Cato’s Walter Olson.
And Cato’s Julian Sanchez weighs in:
The outrage does make sense, of course, if what one fundamentally cares about—or at least, additionally cares about—is the symbolic speech act embedded in the compulsion itself. In other words, if the purpose of the mandate is not merely to achieve a certain practical result, but to declare the qualms of believers with religious objections so utterly underserving of respect that they may be forced to act against their convictions regardless of whether this makes any real difference to the outcome. And something like that does indeed seem to be lurking just beneath—if not at—the surface of many reactions. The ruling seems to provoke anger, not because it will result in women having to pay more for birth control (as it won’t), but at least in part because it fails to send the appropriate cultural signal. Or, at any rate, because it allows religious employers to continue sending the wrong cultural signal….
And that, too, is what the demand by progressive activists for conservative Christian bakers and photographers to labor in celebration of same-sex weddings is all about.
Furthermore Additional comments from Ilya Shapiro, via The Federalist website:
The essence of freedom is that government can’t willy-nilly force people to do things that violate their consciences. Americans understand this point intuitively. Some may argue that there’s a conflict here between religious freedom and women’s rights, but that’s a “false choice” (as the president likes to say). Without the HHS rule, women are still free to obtain contraceptives, abortions, and whatever else isn’t illegal. They just can’t force their employer to pay for them.
Still more. Here’s Steve Chapman’s perspective:
The conservative alarms about the alleged threats to religious freedom are way overblown. But there is something to be said for government policies that let people of strongly held opposing views go their separate ways.
On the other hand, this take, via the Washington Blade‘s political cartoonist, is just bonkers, pandering to the low-information, hyper-partisan reader—and the accompanying op-ed isn’t much better.
Here’s a graphic retort.
Even more. Megan McArdle: Who’s The Real Hobby Lobby Bully?:
Cards on the table: I think that institutions Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor are obviously correct—they are being forced by the government to buy something that they don’t want to buy. We can argue about whether this is a good or a bad idea, but the fact that it is coercive seems indisputable.
…the secular left views [religion] as something more like a hobby, so for them it’s as if a major administrative rule was struck down because it unduly burdened model-train enthusiasts. That emotional disconnect makes it hard for the two sides to even debate; the emotional tenor quickly spirals into hysteria as one side says “Sacred!” and the other side says, essentially, “Seriously? Model trains?” That shows in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, where it seems to me that she takes a very narrow view of what role religious groups play in the lives of believers and society as a whole.
I think that’s right.
77 Comments for “A Good Day for Liberty”
posted by Jimmy on
“The ruling bodes well for the eventual likelihood that the rights of nonpublic employers (that is, private, closely held firms and small proprietors) not to be compelled by the state to provide artistic or creative services that celebrate same-sex marriages.”
That is, celebrations of same-sex marriages specifically. Marriages of the already divorced and non-virgins is okey dokey.
When I was a member of the Communication Workers of America, it was understood as a dick-ish move to complain about union dues, especially when the same people where happy to take the bargained for vacations and accepted the bargained for contract raises and other assorted benefits. More fuel for the race to the bottom.
United we stand, divided we fall.
posted by CMTinPHX on
“Also worth noting: the court’s ruling that government-employee unions can’t make nonmembers pay fees.”
It’s obvious that you not only didn’t read Harris v. Quinn, but you also lack even the slightest understanding of the particular issue in the case.
posted by tom jefferson III on
1. The Hobby Lobby decision really did not surprise me too much. It also does not bother me too much from a First Amendment perspective. The challenge with religious exemption is some people only want ‘my church’ to be eligible for exemptions and their is little thought to setting up any sort of parameters from judging every future case of an employer saying “My religion says I should be able to ignore ‘x’ law.”
2. I do not hold to the idea that “everything that a business does is wrong” or “everything a union does is right”. Yet, it is strange that someone in the workplace can gladly accept the benefits that the workplace union has won, but does not want to pay the dues. I thought conservatives were generally opposed to the idea of “free loaders”.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
So, 5 men voted for Hobby Lobby. The women on SCOTUS – against.
Hmmm…
posted by Houndentenor on
All five are men, and all five are Roman Catholic.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
From a evangelical Christian profess0r of Christian ethics and theology at Mercer University:
“One way to look at it is this: The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability,” he writes. “Therefore, Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.“
posted by Don on
I’m not so sure this is such a big win for individual liberty. Hobby Lobby won the right to take away access to birth control coverage from its employees. The co-owners had their religious beliefs upheld at the expense of a few thousand employees’. How is this a win?
And as Aubrey points out, this ruling sounds like it’s going to be a mess for all kinds of other things. Any sober conservative would be extremely wary of granting such a sweeping right that has never before been contemplated.
I’m fine with the ruling. Mostly because it will cause such havoc in the court system and society that it will create strong shifts away from where we are today. I abhor the bizarre idea of employer-based healthcare.
I think any decent conservative who genuinely fears government healthcare should be fairly alarmed at these series of events. Rather than getting rid of loosely-regulated private insurance (obamacare), we’re most likely to get “Medicaid for all” by attacking the only thing that gets people healthcare.
Remember the old gypsy curse: “May you get what you want.”
Or Truman Capote’s epitaph: “I have shed more tears over answered prayers than unanswered ones.”
Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
posted by Houndentenor on
So now not only is a corporation a person but it can also have religious beliefs. I guess all that’s left is for Texas to execute one.
No, this isn’t a good day. There’s no reason to treat contraceptives any differently from any other prescription. This is a giant loop-hole for all kinds of discrimination. And all the more reason to make sure we don’t get another far right Republican appointing the likes of Scalia and Alito to the Supreme Court.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t have any comment on the frothing about evil progressives, other than that it is routine on IGF, but I have two observations, one about Hobby Lobby and one not:
(1) I would be cautious about reading too much into Hobby Lobby in terms of the decision’s possible implications for future decisions about religious objection to public accommodations laws. Both Justice Alito (who wrote the majority opinion) and Justice Kennedy (who wrote a concurring opinion) went out of their way to limit the decision in terms of future implications, explicitly, at one point, knocking the legs out from under a future challenge to employment discrimination law:
What is true of employment discrimination laws is more likely than not to be true of public accommodations laws, as well. I would be very cautious (as Stephen is not) about assuming that Hobby Lobby opens the door to overturning 50 years of settled law with respect to public accommodations.
(2) The Court denied cert today in the California “ex-gay therapy” case, allowing lower court rulings permitting states to ban “ex-gay therapy” to stand. I think that this is the death knell for “ex-gay therapy” going forward in states with enough decency to ban it.
posted by Jorge on
“Closely held” corporations, huh?
Ha-ha! Hahahaha!
I love it! A loophole the size of the eye of a needle, textually, at least.
Also worth noting: the court’s ruling that government-employee unions can’t make nonmembers pay fees.
I do not believe the holding was that sweeping. The abstract made much of the tenuous connection between the state and the plaintiff in this case, given that most decisions were made by a private customer. It states the Court declines to extend the particular precedent to this case, held that such employees First Amendment Rights were violated, and questioned how important the “free rider” objection was because of these circumstances. Although the Court did raise a lot of doubts about the prior Supreme Court case that upheld agency shop fees for nonunion public sector employees, it did not overrule it.
When I was a member of the Communication Workers of America, it was understood as a dick-ish move to complain about union dues, especially when the same people where happy to take the bargained for vacations and accepted the bargained for contract raises and other assorted benefits. More fuel for the race to the bottom.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Unions are pretty dickish themselves, and if they can’t function without imposing a Communist form of unity then they deserve to fall.
I have had it up to here with my union because they are denying me my agency shop refund on a technicality that I believe they never informed me of. But hey. I do not want one red cent of my paycheck to go toward supporting Stupid People Who Run For President. I don’t mind all that the union does to negotiate a good contract that I can enforce it–I don’t mind having an agency shop contract. However, the more arrogant, the more corrupt, the more tyrannical, and frankly the more progresso-wacko the unions are, the less I support anything that will benefit them.
If there are people in my workplace who want to try to get other people to frown on anything I do in my free time, they may do so. But there will not be one word said of this while I am on duty from anyone in my chain of command, nor shall anyone encourage anyone I answer to to say anything about how I should relate to the union. That is a violation of personal rights of mine that are more important than the phantom rights of the majority. Also I would point out (perhaps hypocritically) that bedside manner is important in disputes. I punish people who do not treat me with fairness, courtesy, and respect.
What has my union done for me lately that I should return the favor? Many things. But I decide how and when to return the favor and whether that should include my membership in it. I do not work for the union or even the supermajority of co-workers who support the union. The union works for me.
posted by Jimmy on
“What has my union done for me lately that I should return the favor? Many things. But I decide how and when to return the favor and whether that should include my membership in it.”
You would spitefully let the entire forest burn down because you have a personal issue with a couple of the trees.
posted by Houndentenor on
I complain about my union a lot, but I get paid a lot more than I would without it plus some benefits (being reimbursed for out of pocket medical expenses). And yes, we have “freeloaders” who complain that the benefits aren’t enough while not paying any dues because they are in a “right to work” state and don’t have to.
posted by Jorge on
You would spitefully let the entire forest burn down because you have a personal issue with a couple of the trees.
1) That is a strange response to the part of my post which you actually quoted.
2) Weren’t you saying earlier that united you all stand? Then do not try avoid accountability for the abuses of those you stand with. If you are an iminical to my lack of confidence in the union, then take that stand on your own honor. I alone control mine. It’s not personal, but if you hurt me without cause, I’ll hurt you bad enough that you won’t make the mistake again, even if you’re stronger than I am.
3) The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.–Dune.
If you want me to side with you, then you should give me that which I find valuable and avoid causing me grief. That is how politics works. An effective union is one that can advocate for all of its members, such that all members, even those who choose not to support the union in a specific way, will do what is in their power and ability to support the union.
posted by Jorge on
Read the opinion on the labor law case.
You know how Scalia says this or that case Supreme Court decision made federal recognition of same sex marriages a certainty because it gutted this or that precedent or idea. This case did that even more blatantly without outright overturning precedent.
And that, too, is what the demand by progressive activists for conservative Christian bakers and photographers to labor in celebration of same-sex weddings is all about.
Fine, fine, FINE, I agree…
I’m not so sure this is such a big win for individual liberty. Hobby Lobby won the right to take away access to birth control coverage from its employees. The co-owners had their religious beliefs upheld at the expense of a few thousand employees’. How is this a win?
Free market capitalism happens to coincide with both a libertarian ideology and with situations in which the deck is stacked against the worker. This country traditionally does not consider equalizing power between workers and any one particular employer to be a liberty concern. Your point is otherwise well-taken.
The Court denied cert today in the California “ex-gay therapy” case, allowing lower court rulings permitting states to ban “ex-gay therapy” to stand. I think that this is the death knell for “ex-gay therapy” going forward in states with enough decency to ban it.
Don’t the only such laws in question apply to state-licenced professionals?
Doesn’t the Supreme Court denying certiori leave room for other Appeals Courts to reach the opposite conclusion?
And isn’t it rather early in California’s case? Might not something different happen once the state actually begins enforcing the law?
Anyway, I do not understand why these laws banning ex-gay therapy are anything other than a useless feel good exercise aimed at a target in the complete opposite direction from the problem is. Ex-gay therapy is a scourge that comes from unlicenced, unregulated private quasi-religious groups. How does regulating licensed professionals do anything about it?
posted by Houndentenor on
What this case points out more than anything else is that it’s insane that so many Americans get their health insurance through their employers. I sometimes wonder if corporate America isn’t intentionally pushing us towards single-payer.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I’m not a fan of Andrew Sullivan. But I found a couple of items in his blog of interest today:
“When you consider this a “narrow” ruling because it is restricted to “closely-held” companies (i.e. those with “more than 50 percent of the value of its outstanding stock owned directly or indirectly by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year” and “not a personal service corporation”), you find that over 90 percent of companies in this country fit the bill. That’s not-so-narrow in the broad scheme of things. Alison Griswold notes:
According to a 2009 research paper from NYU Stern School of Business, these corporations account for 52 percent of private employment and 51 percent of private-sector output in the country.
Will they all decide they cannot furnish certain medications, based on religion? Of course not. But they could. And when the potential scope of this sinks in, and especially if more than a few companies start curtailing their female employees’ health coverage for religious reasons, I’d say you’re going to have a very divisive reaction.
Which raises the politics of this. I’d say it’s terrible for the right in everything but the short term. It may fortify the base, but the fact that this decision focuses exclusively on medications for women, and not for men, will surely fortify the other base even more. Even if you worry about religious liberty, why does religion in 21st Century America always seem to be about policing the sex lives of everyone but straight men? That may not be the intent of the ruling, but it is somehow always the effect. It’s not good PR. “
posted by Houndentenor on
Issuing a “narrow ruling” is a ploy of the right wing of this court. They issue the narrow ruling and then use that ruling as a precedent to expand it. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/06/hobby-lobby-the-supreme-courts-narrow-decisions.html
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I have no doubt that Justice Alito wrote the opinion with an eye to to leaving open the door to future wide-scope religious objection expansions.
His opinion, read carefully and taking into consideration what he did not say (e.g. his opinion notes that the opinion’s rationale did not extend to race-based job discrimination, but carefully limited his discussion to race-based job discrimination, leaving open the question of gender-based and orientation-based discrimination) is crafted to suit a radical redefinition of “religious freedom” exemptions, should he and the other conservative justices be able to get away with it.
I think that Justice Alito’s opinion, and its somewhat deceptive limitations on scope, are what prompted Justice Kennedy to write his concurrence.
Whether or not I am right about that, I think that it would be instructive to read Justice Ginsburg’s dissent with care, looking to the myriad of open questions that she identifies.
Reading Justice Alito’s opinion in juxtaposition with Justice Ginsburg’s dissent gives a fair picture of what is possible by way of expansion, should Justices Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia garner the power to force the issue.
posted by Jorge on
It may fortify the base, but the fact that this decision focuses exclusively on medications for women, and not for men, will surely fortify the other base even more.
Men can’t kill people by putting something into their bodies. If life begins at conception, women can. Let women argue that life does not begin at conception. Let them argue it.
Who knew that IUDs could cause abortions?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If life begins at conception, women can. Let women argue that life does not begin at conception. Let them argue it.
What purpose would such argument serve? Roma locuta; causa finita est. It would be as futile as taking science into consideration in discussing whether or not birth control is abortifacient.
posted by Jorge on
What purpose would such argument serve?
It would show that the mantra of reproductive rights has both merits and weaknesses. In so doing it would communicate honesty and conviction and permit the American people to more easily make the best judgment on the merits.
But if the so-called reproductive rights movement is about winning at any cost, then it is quite natural for it to engage in heavy-handed politicking and deception instead. Because Americans are not stupid, I believe this has had a cost.
I feel sorry for women because of the lack of credibility their movement has with moderate and conservative women. They don’t have the same division over method gays and blacks have. They have women who are simply not part of the movement.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It seems to me that the shoe should be on the other foot, Jorge.
If you are going to attempt to use the power of law impose your religious beliefs (human life begins at conception) on me, then you have the burden of proving that my religious beliefs (human life begins at birth) are wrong.
posted by Houndentenor on
If ANY religious beliefs could be proven to be true, there wouldn’t be so many religions and splinter groups of each of those religions, including over 40,000 versions of Christianity. The insistence that things that cannot be proven are undeniably true is and cannot be a statement of fact or of truth.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What I find remarkable, Houndentenor, is that the many of the folks who are lauding Hobby Lobby as “A Good Day for Liberty” see nothing wrong with granting the government the power — rather than personal/religious conscience of individuals — as the arbiter of pregnancy outcomes.
The arrogance, not to mention the cognitive dissonance and/or hypocrisy, is astounding.
To argue that forcing an employer to pay for health insurance coverage that the employer finds objectionable is an impermissible intrusion on religious/personal conscience while making the opposite argument when it comes to forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy to term and then raise the child, is mind-boggling.
And yet, that is precisely what many of the folks applauding Hobby Lobby are doing. Mind-boggling.
posted by Jorge on
If you are going to attempt to use the power of law impose your religious beliefs (human life begins at conception) on me, then you have the burden of proving that my religious beliefs (human life begins at birth) are wrong.
The Supreme Court made it quite clear that no such imposition is occurring. Indeed, it assumed that giving women access to contraception that causes abortions is a legitimate government interest.
“You,” on the other hand, have no interest in this case. It is the Barack Obama government that decided, “We are going to give women free access to controversial contraception.”
Now, I understand the Barack Obama government believes it is doing so to promote the rights of women. It’s an interesting political rationale that has had some success in the ballot box. Which just goes to show that elections matter and that you can fool most of the people some of the time.
What remains is this: the government shall prevail. But if there is any way the government can prevail while leaving one’s religious beliefs untouched, then those religious beliefs must remain untouched.
This ruling heralds a significant decrease in fortunes for the religious right. Hobby Lobby does not have the power to legislate morality for anyone but themselves. That power currently belongs with the Barack Obama administration. It really is quite remarkable. I can’t wait for the Republicans to control the government again.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I can’t wait for the Republicans to control the government again.
I’ll bet.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Oops, the 2nd item:
The reasoning behind the ruling would seem to me what matters, Tom. Not the limitations Alito (and company) tried to use to reassure (and distract) those who would be upset by the logic behind the ruling.
Isn’t that what’s happened with Lawrence v Texas? Wasn’t Scalia right in his comment that the ruling opened the door.
So, isn’t this ruling either an endorsement of a particular religious affiliation (since it supposedly does not apply to any other religious objection/medical procedure)?
Or is the ruling limited because that’s the only issue the case addressed? And with this rationale, future cases will be harder to deny…
I obviously don’t know the SCOTUS. But those are my thoughts.
ps Stephen must be overcome with joy that the so-cons are tweeting like crazy that this means gays can be denied… everything. From employment to medical coverage (AIDS, etc…) to ….
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’ll grant you that the Hobby Lobby reasoning cracks open the door for a reassessment of the boundaries of religious objection and laws of general application if that is what the hard-core conservatives on the Court (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts) are determined to accomplish.
What I am pointing out is that the opinion does not, in and of itself, open the door wide, and that the feared next step — overturning decades of settled law and decisions in employment discrimination and/or public accommodations laws — is a big step, in terms of legal reasoning and legal precedent.
I have no doubt that Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas are radicals, well outside the mainstream of the last half-century of judicial thought, who would, if they could, reverse many decisions that are considered settled law.
But all are constrained by the core judicial principle of stare decisis — “to stand by that which has been decided” — and by Justice Kennedy, who went far out of his way to limit the application of Hobby Lobby in his concurring opinion. I do not think that the radicals will get Justice Kennedy to cooperate with them in overturning fifty years of employment discrimination and public accommodation decisions.
I could be wrong, of course. Justice Kennedy is notoriously quirky in his decisions, case by case, and so there is no telling.
My caution to folks like Stephen and his fellow right-leaning libertarians, as well as Tony Perkins and his fellow social conservatives, who are crowing that Hobby Lobby is the dawning of a new day, a harbinger of a legal flood of Biblical proportions in which the hated “progressive” gains of the last half-century will be swept away, is simply that — a caution. The next few steps are big steps, in terms of legal precedent.
While I’m issuing cautions, let me issue another.
To achieve the next step, which is to gut public accommodation law with respect to “equal means equal”, right-leaning libertarians and their social conservative allies are going to need to develop a coherent constitutional theory on which to pin the desired decision.
Do you see any sign of that happening? I don’t. Stephen and his cohorts, for example, sometimes wax on about “expressive freedom” (a First Amendment theory) and at other times about “religious freedom” (also a First Amendment theory, but with different underpinnings). Neither is consistent with settled law, which allows a “de minimus” exemption. Neither achieves the desired goal What I’ve seen so far is a lot of muddled thinking, and not much more.
Opposition to marriage equality crashed on the shoals of legal incoherence. After all the sturm and drang , what was left of the legal argument against marriage equality? A big handful of nothing.
I think — knowing that I could as easily be wrong as right — that right-leaning libertarians and social conservatives, who have combined forces to blunt “equal means equal”, are going to hit the same shoal.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Thanks Tom for the reassurance with regards to the legal stuff. Did you study law some time ago? All I know is this decision is also a boost for the “war on women” meme. If you think the Democrats aren’t going to take this ball and run with it, you’re dreaming. They’ll remind women voters that not one female SCOTUS Justice voted in the affirmative. Or that only female employees are affected, not males. Soc cons should heed that old saying: be careful what you wish for.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I studied law at the University of Chicago, and practiced for 25 years in a large national law firm. A number of my close friends are constitutional and/or Supreme Court scholars, and we talk about these issues. I tend not to read the newspaper accounts about important cases, but instead read the decisions and the scholarly legal analysis about the decisions that takes a few weeks to develop.
So I’m probably a bit more informed than most people, but I don’t claim to have a handle on it. And I’m certainly no more likely to be right than anyone else who is reasonably informed.
And I am very aware that anyone who is fool enough to predict how the Supreme Court will decide a case is, well, a fool.
I had a discussion the other week about the coming Supreme Court decision on marriage equality with a friend who spent many years in Supreme Court advocacy, both in the Solicitor General’s office and in private practice, and is now a law professor. He gave me a dozen good reasons — citing chapter and verse from Kennedy’s decisions over the years — not to trust that Justice Kennedy will be on our side when the marriage equality case is decided. While I think that the odds are that Justice Kennedy will come down on the side of marriage equality, I don’t assume that Justice Kennedy is in our pocket, as so many seem to do these days.
I think that Hobby Lobby is a dangerous case, not so much because of its implications for employment discrimination law and public accommodations law, but instead because it furthers the line of legal reasoning that “corporations are people”, a very recent line that has the potential to upset a lot of other precedent over time. It is odd, indeed, that a legal entity that is entirely the creation of the government, and can be eliminated at will, is recently being treated as enjoying the citizenship rights of human beings.
That line of thinking about citizenship is very dangerous in my view.
Stephen observes that yesterday was “a bad day for progressives who believe all rights come from the state, and only that which the state specifically allows should be permissible”, but I wonder if he has even a glimmering of understanding that the idea that corporations, created by and existing by action of the state, have the same rights as human citizens further cements the idea that “all rights come from the state”.
If the state can grant citizenship rights to a legal fiction created by the state, and then dissolve the “citizen” it created at will, what does that say about the power of the state to grant and withhold rights of human beings who are citizens? I doubt that Stephen others applauding Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, in their euphoria, have even considered the question.
I agree that Hobby Lobby, like Citizens United, is going to turn into a political fight, and I agree with Aubrey that the decision is “terrible for the right in everything but the short term”. Hobby Lobby and its likely progeny, even more so than Citizens United (which, after all, is about an abstract issue that directly concerns very few people), is going to energize the left/moderate coalition in ways that is going to boomerang on the right-leaning libertarian and social conservative coalition that is cheering so loudly right now. As you put it so well, “Be careful what you wish for.”
posted by Mike in Houston on
Be careful what you wish for, indeed.
My prediction for the Hobby Lobby folks? The Obama administration will issue new rules (following the Court’s instructions) that will have them conform to the rules established for the non-profits — namely that the insurance companies will pick up the tab… and get ready for their general insurance costs (without the 4 contraception options) to go up by that amount and more.
The non-profits that are currently suing (Little Sisters of the Poor) just had their suit pulled out from under them — as the Court has basically alluded to the fact that the regulations promulgated by the Obama administration are “the least restrictive”.
Hobby Lobby is unlikely to actually follow the regulations and fill out the exception form and will likely sue (again).
And somewhere along the line, the ADF or Liberty Counsel will sue on behalf of those poor bakers and photographers to gut the “equal means equal” in public accommodation laws.
We’ll then see if Alito’s fig leaf about “illegal discrimination” holds up or if this whole thing is part and parcel of the radical effort to eviscerate civil rights laws across the board.
posted by Jorge on
I have no doubt that Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas are radicals, well outside the mainstream of the last half-century of judicial thought, who would, if they could, reverse many decisions that are considered settled law.
The two premeses are unrelated to each other. Liberals, moderates, and conservatives alike would all reverse many decisions that are considered settled law. Why you would think all four of them are radicals, indeed have no doubts at all about it, is well beyond my grasp.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Why you would think all four of them are radicals, indeed have no doubts at all about it, is well beyond my grasp.
Yes, it is.
posted by Doug on
According to reports Hobby Lobby will continue to pay for viagra and vasectomies. Thy hypocrisy is stunning. These Hobby Lobby owners are no more christian than my dog.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Nothing un-Christian about boner pills.
posted by Houndentenor on
Most of what you can buy at HL is made in Chinese factories where they force women to have abortions. They also invest in companies that make the very products they claim cause abortions. They are hypocrites of the highest order, and among fundamentalists that’s a high bar indeed.
posted by AG on
Hobby Lobby never objected to providing contraception coverage all together. It strongly objected to paying for abortifacients. I understand that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that life begins at conception. Therefore, providing abortifacients is equivalent to complicity in killing unborn babies. Neither viagra nor vasectomy has moral implications for those who think that life begins at conception.
In general, it’s a good idea not to base your argument on accusations of hypocrisy. More often than not you’ll reveal the complete ignorance of the issue like you did hear.
posted by AG on
Grrr. Obviously should be altogether and here.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Hobby Lobby never objected to providing contraception coverage all together. It strongly objected to paying for abortifacients. I understand that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that life begins at conception. Therefore, providing abortifacients is equivalent to complicity in killing unborn babies.
True enough.
But the Alito opinion, even in its narrowest form, is not limited to the contraceptive mandate solely as it applies to birth control methods considered abortifacients.
In the narrowest form that the opinion can be read, the Alito opinion exempts any serious religious objection to artificial birth control — e.g. a conservative Catholic business owner who takes Sections 2366-2372 of the Catechism seriously enough to avoid complicity in that sin.
I have no doubt that we will see a number of cases going forward that involve religious objections by Catholic business owners to providing any medical coverage for artificial means of birth control, and I cannot come up with a legitimate rationale to distinguish between abortifacient methods (e.g. IUD’s) and non-abortifacient methods under the Alito opinion. Can you?
posted by Houndentenor on
So every fertilized egg that fails to implant is an abortion? Do you have any idea how often that happens.
It’s time to separate health care from employment. I have been against single payer my whole life but now I’m not. Obviously too many employers think they know better than we and our doctors do about what care is appropriate and needs to be covered.
And yes, Hobby Lobby buys most of what they sell from factories in China that force women to have abortions if they’ve already had a child. Where’s there objection to that? Oh right, looking the other way when those women are forced to have abortions (no choice involved) saves them money. Yes, they are hypocrites as are virtually all fundamentalists.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We just added another win to the marriage equality column. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II just struck down the Bluegrass State’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Judge Heyburn immediately stayed the order, pending appeal.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I am — generally — OK with the Hobby Lobby ruling (based on what Justice Kennedy said), but I do agree that their is quite a bit of hypocrisy on the part of Hobby Lobby and that religious exemptions to rules can — potentially – cause lots of headaches.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Well, there’s been a slight ‘edit’ to the SCOTUS ruling re: contraceptive coverage by religiously convicted corporations.
Despite their assurances that this ruling applied only to the contraceptives HL objected to – the SCOTUS yesterday, quietly, upped that ante a bit:
“The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.”
Ginsber’s concern re: this ruling – expressed so well in her dissent – would seem to me to run counter to Tom’s reassurances.
Again, I’m not even doubting Tom. I’m just worried that we’re about to enter that “minefield” of Justice Ginsberg’s dissent.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Again, I’m not even doubting Tom. I’m just worried that we’re about to enter that “minefield” of Justice Ginsberg’s dissent.
I think that entering the “minefield” is inevitable.
The question is not whether we will enter the “minefield” — we will, and we can expect to see many cases seeking an expansion of Hobby Lobby into all sorts of areas outside the scope of the decision — but whether Justices Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia will be successful in expanding the decision’s reach into areas that are now settled law.
With respect to yesterday’s clarification, it seems to me (as I noted yesterday) that Justice Alito’s decision, read as narrowly as possible, applied generally to religious objections relating to contraception. SCOTUS has saved us a lot of lawsuits by making the clarification.
posted by Houndentenor on
As for the latest (as of this posting) addendum, HL is not “paying for” any particular item in the health care. It’s employees are purchasing insurance through their HR department (for which I feel confident in saying they are paying most if not all of the cost) and some of them may require one of these devices (because health care decisions of that sort really out to be made by a woman and her doctor) are paid for through that insurance minus whatever copay they are charged. The freedom of choice these women have is limited by their income which in retail is close to the minimum legal wage. They may not be able to afford paying extra for the appropriate birth control devices. To assume they do shows you to be out of touch of the economic reality of millions of Americans.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
All of the cited commentary comes from staffers at the Cato Institute, a well-funded Alphabet-Street think tank founded by the Koch brothers.
It is a fair guess that all of the commentators earn at least twice the median household income of roughly $50,000, and that not one of them earns anything even close to the $8-10 per hour (roughly $20,000 per year, assuming 50 40-hour work weeks) earned by the majority of Hobby Lobby workers.
How could such people possibly be in touch with the economic realities faced by ordinary Americans?
posted by Jorge on
Tom asks how could middle class Americans possibly be touched with the economic realities faced by ordinary Americans. Quite a revealing question.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It would be — perhaps — if that was the question.
The question was how a man, working for a conservative think-tank, making two or three times the median household income, can understand the economic realities faced by a wage-earning woman earning about $20,000 per year.
Folks like the Catonians Stephen cites incessantly might want to move out of the beltway bubble for a couple of years and move to the area where I live, in rural Wisconsin.
Where I live, $11-16 per hour is considered a good wage, a wage worth quitting your present job for. Most people earn $8-10 per hour, with no benefits at all. Local businessmen boast about the “high wages” that they pay their managers — $28-30,000 per year. Almost all of the families I know have two wage-earners, and often one or the other works 1 1/2 jobs just to make ends meet. Most live paycheck to paycheck, with little or no surplus.
That’s the “economic reality of millions of Americans”. Millions and millions.
posted by Houndentenor on
For a couple of years ending the August before you-know-what I had a job with an ad agency. It was a lot more than I’d been making as a starving artist type and for once I actually had benefits, but I didn’t think I was making big bucks. Then I found out what the median income was in NYC and I was actually a little above the median. People think they are at the median earning $200-300,000 a year. LOL That’s not the middle. That’s near the top.
As for the people at CATO, if they are that out of touch, they are willfully so. They come into contact with people who make far less. If only they (or anyone else in that income bracket…not picking on anyone at CATO as I don’t know any of them) would actually have a conversation with the admins, mailroom workers, and others they come into contact every day. I used to laugh to myself when an executive would spend 10 minutes recounting their weekend to a group of much lower paid admins and others and then walk away never bothering to ask how anyone else’s weekend was. They didn’t care and it didn’t even occur to them to pretend to be interested. That’s how disconnected people at that level are from the real people with whom the interact every day.
posted by Jorge on
[be in touch]
posted by Lori Heine on
People in higher income brackets do tend to be out of touch with “the little people.” But that particular blindness doesn’t only afflict conservatives or right-leaning libertarians.
Spend a couple of hours, as I regularly do, at the farmer’s market just down the street from my house. Amid all the genuinely nice and fun folks, you will find plenty of Babbitts. They cruise into the parking lot in their shiny Priuses, and buy their expensive organic produce, and feel great about themselves. Then they’ll spend the rest of the week shaming lower-income people, every chance they get, for not making the same noble and socially-conscious grocery purchases.
They’re the sort of neutered house pets who think they’re edgy because they watch MSNBC and listen to NPR. They follow politics as if they were sports–just as the conservatives do. But they root for the Yankees instead of the Red Sox, so their team rules.
Genuine progressives, including left-leaning libertarians, laugh at this. It’s like watching little kids play revolutionary superhero out in the backyard.
Most lower-income folks would love to eat healthier and more socially-conscious food. Why don’t some of the revolutionaries invite them over, once in a while, for some yummy organic food?
posted by Lori Heine on
Our whole system is so screwed up, so totally corrupt, that it needs to be completely dismantled. THAT is the libertarian response. The notion that the SCOTUS ruling “struck a blow for liberty” is absurd. It is nothing but a half truth. And a half-truth is also a half-lie.
To quote Kevin Carson, writing on the Center for a Stateless Society blog:
“And questions of free association aside, an economic system in which a small wealthy family can wind up in the one-sided position of exercising their own agency at the expense of 13,000 others is a system that’s broken, sick and rotten.”
Rooting for a multimillionaire family that has utilized government power to strongarm its way into dominance over thousands of other human beings is not libertarian. Nor is a Supreme Court ruling in that family’s favor any more of a “blow for freedom” than would have been a vote for one of the imperial families of old Europe.
Carson’s entire essay can be read here: http://c4ss.org/content/28949
posted by Jimmy on
“Our whole system is so screwed up, so totally corrupt, that it needs to be completely dismantled.:
A Constitutional Convention is in order for the purpose of reforming the way districts are drawn, getting rid of gerrymandered messes and making congressional seats more competitive.
We should enact public funding of elections and stop the bribery.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This is definitely not a libertarian response, but the cause of the conflict over ACA conscience-based objections is that our health care system uses employers as the middle-man. Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College would not present issues but for the role of employers as health insurance middle-men.
If employers were not used as vehicles to provide insurance, then the personal conscience objections to this or that form of coverage would not be an issue.
The problem is compounded because the solution is nonsensical, based on a false premise. As Houndentenor and others have pointed out, few employers actually pay for the cost of coverage. If they are not paying, then why involve them at all?
President Obama blew it, big time, when he did not insist on a single-payer option, allowing Americans to opt out of the employer-based system, which is economically inefficient and conflict-based. We will eventually move to single-payer, which is what we should have done instead of the ACA. The sooner the better.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
“For the last few days, there’s been a broad argument about whether the Hobby Lobby ruling was a narrow one—as Alito himself insisted it was—or was merely an opening volley that opened the door to much broader rulings in the future. After Tuesday’s follow-up order—which expanded the original ruling to cover all contraceptives, not just those the plaintiffs considered abortifacients—and today’s order—which rejected a compromise that the original ruling praised—it sure seems like this argument has been settled. This is just the opening volley. We can expect much more aggressive follow-ups from this court in the future.
POSTSCRIPT: It’s worth noting that quite aside from whether you agree with the Hobby Lobby decision, this is shameful behavior from the conservatives on the court. As near as I can tell, they’re now playing PR games worthy of a seasoned politico, deliberately releasing a seemingly narrow opinion in order to generate a certain kind of coverage, and then following it up later in the sure knowledge that its “revisions” won’t get nearly as much attention.”
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/07/supreme-court-now-playing-cute-pr-games-hobby-lobby-decision
posted by Doug on
Just keep in my that Alito was the one who mouthed something about lying when Obama said that Citizens United would open a flood gate of money into politics. Alito is either a willful liar or has his head up it butt. Either way he does not make a qualified Supreme Court Justice.
posted by Lori Heine on
It has fallen to those capable of being heretics–those who sometimes think outside the box–to bring this up, but if we all stop fuming and think about this from a different angle, the Court’s decision does present an interesting possibility.
This touches upon one of the reasons chamber of commerce conservatives wish the social cons would calm down, shut up and go away. I find it quite fascinating.
Now the Green family, and other soc cons, are saying that WHEN THEY WANT TO BE CONSIDERED “PEOPLE,” they should be. That is, when they want to exert their will over their employees (serfs), then they are people, dammit–and their personhood must be recognized.
All this “duh…they’re saying corporations are people” bumbling misses the point.
Corporations were set up largely to buttress these “people” from personal liability. When they poison our air or water, cause our kids to get sick or be born with deformities, destroy our homes or kill us, they are not personally liable — precisely because they’re supposedly NOT “people.”
Bless Ralph Nader, and some of the left-libertarians, for bringing that up.
Can they now keep the stopper in the jug? Or can the absurdly excessive power of big corporations finally begin to be dealt with? There’s an opening here–if enough of us recognize it.
posted by Jorge on
Tuesday follow-up order was an injunction. Hobby Lobby was a final decision. The two cases involve separate plaintiffs with different religious beliefs who are willing to accept different settlements.
Much of the reason Hobby Lobby was narrow was because Hobby Lobby would have been satisfied with something so easily achievable.
We should treat Tuesday’s decision like the injunctions appearing all over the place staying marriage equality decisions. They’re required to cause the most stability and the least potential injury until the matter is settled by a final decision. Because other plaintiffs may advance arguments distinct from the argument Hobby Lobby made, it is possible they’ll prevail on different merits. But they will have to argue those merits before the courts first, else Hobby Lobby will be applied to defeat them.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Yes, Jorge, it was re: an injunction. But read Justice Sotomayor’s dissent on the injunction.
And then there’s this fact, which should concern anyone (on any point in the ideological spectrum):
“I disagree strongly with what the court has done,” Sotomayor wrote in a 16-page dissent. Noting that the court had praised the administration’s position on Monday but was allowing Wheaton to flout it on Thursday, she wrote, “those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today.”
Sotomayor’s dissent:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf
posted by Lori Heine on
It’s easy to get locked into a serf mentality, and to see aspects of the situation as normal–or at least unavoidable. That is what the bloggers, and many right-leaning-libertarians, tend to do.
Leftists are regarded as the awful plotters to destroy the world–bent on enslaving the populace–and conservatives and those of whom they approve are noble Americans upholding truth and justice. The sky is very pretty, no matter which bubble you’re in.
The fact of the matter is that the system is set up the way it is–and has persisted for as long as it has–because of the degree of almost ironclad control it gives large corporations over their workers. They didn’t mind being the intermediaries for insurance coverage, because it gave them such a stranglehold over the lives of the peasants they employed.
Now their power is being threatened. THAT is what they object to. All this screaming about “having to pay for” this or that is utter nonsense. They always made damned good and sure that their employees paid for the coverage they got.
There will definitely be an ongoing conversation in this country about who pays for what, and how. It simply is no longer going to be dominated by the fat boys. One Supreme Court decision in no way puts the lid on that.
A very ugly can of worms has been opened. There’s no way to shut up the can again.
posted by Lori Heine on
Another point occurs to me. Are corporations, then, going to be “people” when they poison people, or maim them, or kill them, or destroy their homes?
They have been set up largely to shield the “people” behind them from liability for such things. One waits with baited breath to see whether the new humanity we’re supposed to invest in corporations extends to its logical conclusion.
And none of this “closely held” crap. Does anybody imagine, for one minute, that if Hobby Lobby steps on the rights of any of the peasants out there, the “people” the corporation represents will not dive behind their convenient corporate shield?
They asked for this. Let’s give it to them–good and hard.
posted by AG on
Lori, don’t forget to take your meds. That’s all I can say.
posted by Jorge on
From the Washington Blade Op-Ed:
“Walter Dellinger, acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration, posited correctly in an op-ed in the Washington Post, that the result of what the owners of Hobby Lobby asked the court to sanction was the ability to, ‘Selectively deny insurance coverage for contraceptive methods an employer considers sinful effectively making the employer a party to a woman’s medical consultations.'”
That is a very effective argument… that the Supreme Court adjusted to. It’s false as applied to the end result. The government can give a religious accomodation that both supports Hobby Lobby’s asserted rights and accomplish the government’s goals.
But I will take the argument head-on anyway. If I pay for it, if I offer it, I am a party to it. And if I pay for it, it should be my decision whether someone gets a medical procedure that can kill a person. Because the issue of whether it should or should not be my decision whether someone gets a medical procedure that can kill a person even though I’m paying for or offering the procedure is a contentious religious issue, I believe the government should have no role in how that issue is decided.
Let me be clear: the contraceptive mandate as applied and as inclusive of methods of abortion is not necessary on its own merits. It is a regulation imposed by the Obama administration. Because of this, the fears that it is imposed the way it was solely to diminish the power of religious individuals are quite credible. And it’s wrong. Let it play out among the people.
It is not for nothing that we have people suggesting this decision will doom employer-based health coverage.
posted by Jimmy on
“If I pay for it, if I offer it, I am a party to it.”
Exactly. And that goes for every item in Hobby Lobby stores that was made in China. What is laughable is that the closely held belief flies out the window when it comes to applying it to commercial bedfellows. As long as it doesn’t cost them in the market, they’ll stand behind their sacrosanct beliefs. When they decide not to offer items made in a godless, communist country that maintains abortion has a means of population control (and nothing to do with personal conviction), I may be less dubious as to how closely held their principle is.
posted by Jorge on
Exactly. And that goes for every item in Hobby Lobby stores that was made in China.
Uhhh, wha?
No, seriously, where in the Nine Hells is the evidence for your crazy guilt by association argument?
Don’t you know that discrimination based on national origin and religion are illegal in the United States? I’m not sure if this applies to who Hobby Lobby does business with internationally, but surely you can think of something more relevant than appealing to popular stereotypes that may or may not be true in Hobby Lobby’s own dealings.
Who is the Chinese manufacturer Hobby Lobby is doing business with? Do they or do they not force abortions on their workers?
But what is certain is that the United States government is mandating employer health care plans provide prescription drug coverage of drugs that may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
posted by Jimmy on
“Don’t you know that discrimination based on national origin and religion are illegal in the United States? I’m not sure if this applies to who Hobby Lobby does business with internationally, but surely you can think of something more relevant than appealing to popular stereotypes that may or may not be true in Hobby Lobby’s own dealings.”
That’s called a ‘dodge’. You make it sound like Hobby Lobby must do business in China. Hobby Lobby wants to have it both ways. How can they do business with a country that is so hostile to religious liberty? No manufacturers are untainted because they don’t get to do business unless party policies are appeased; that’s the way it is there. If a company is going operate on biblical principles, how can it be in bed with an entity that is 100% contrary to those principles. Why aren’t they taking their business elsewhere? Because that would place the burden on them.
“But what is certain is that the United States government is mandating employer health care plans provide prescription drug coverage of drugs that may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.”
So, Hobby Lobby contributes to 401(k) invested mutual funds that are invested in companies that make such drugs. What’s up with that? I’d also like to see if the owners have similar mutual fund investments.
Like everything else, evidence is a good way to decide what is a closely held belief. I think there is evidence that this case was more about helping to dismantle healthcare reform that about closely held religious belief as it pertains to the medical choices a woman makes concerning her own body.
posted by Jorge on
That’s called a ‘dodge’.
No, it’s called calling out a red herring. Answer my question. Who is the Chinese manufacturer Hobby Lobby is doing business with? Do they or do they not force abortions on their workers? You have made a guilt by association accusation. It is worthless without evidence that the association even exists. Your desperate attempt to discredit Hobby Lobby amounts to nothing. The smoke clears, and Hobby Lobby still has the high ground.
posted by Jorge on
Seriously, who is this Neanderthall who’s trying to make the goverment have the power to decide whether or not a belief is sincere just because they think they can find some false contradictions in it? That kind of State-Church doctrine is the very sort of thing the First Amendment was created to prevent. Leave the state out of religious and ethical questions. Theology is the province of religion, not government.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
So…(in light of the recent ruling).
Can an employer now ‘encourage’ — based on his religious beliefs — his female employees to get on the pill?
Can a Scientologist boss objects to his employees having a health plan that covers mental health services?
Can a Jehovah’s Witness boss object to his employees having a health plan that covers blood transfusions?
Can an employee object to his employee having a health plan that covers AIDS/HIV prevention/care?
and so on and so forth……
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t think that we will know until the next round of decisions clarifies how far the courts will extend Hobby Lobby.
posted by Jorge on
You are asking whether an employer can discriminate against their employees based on religion.
Hobby Lobby is about whether the government can discriminate against an employer based on religion. And the answer to that question was Yes… but only if it has to. It did not have to in this case. That is at the heart of both the legal and political case against the contraception mandate.
posted by Doug on
‘Hobby Lobby is about whether the government can discriminate against an employer based on religion.”
You have it backward, Jorge, the government is not discriminating against an employer based on religion. It was trying to stop HL from discriminating against it’s employee’s based on IT’S religion.
posted by Jorge on
I fail to see how Hobby Lobby is the actor. It’s the government’s regulation that made the government in charge of health care in the first place.
Is there a bit of history I don’t know here?
posted by Lori Heine on
This is precisely the way tyranny grows. It’s how tyrants behave.
We do not get to shield ourselves from liability for the way we treat other people. If we harm others, we can’t hide from our responsibility to others by diving behind a corporate façade. Hobby Lobby’s Green family is now attempting to do exactly that. As are any other “Christian” people who want the privilege of being recognized as people when it suits them, yet of still being exempted from the responsibilities of people when they want to hide from those obligations.
Again, I reiterate that a new door to tyranny is being opened up here. This has been largely ignored by those opposing this SCOTUS ruling. Right-wing libertarians are silent on the issue because they have the (highly mistaken) notion that ONLY the government can engage in tyrannical abuses. But big corporations, shielded by the government from the consequences of the ways they may inflict harm, can certainly be tyrants, too.
That is something everyone needs to consider.
posted by Houndentenor on
Back in early 2008 I found myself debating fellow Democrats about various health care proposals. The one thing I was adamantly against was single-payer. I have since changed my mind and the Hobby Lobby case is the main reason. It’s absurd that your employer can override your doctor’s advice for which birth control method is best for you because of a mistaken understanding of medical science and half-baked (and highly hypocritical) religious beliefs. The only solution is to stop subjecting people to this pointless system of being insurance being linked to their job. There’s no reason Hobby Lobby should have this kind of power over minimum wage employees. If these corporations aren’t attempting to push us towards single payer health care then they are bigger idiots (or doing a lot more cocaine) than even I thought.
posted by Jorge on
I think it is too early to come to your conclusion. The decision in this case allows women employed by Hobby Lobby to get access to this same contraception.
It does, right?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
It was asked: The decision in this case allows women employed by Hobby Lobby to get access to this same contraception –
Um no. Employees will pay for a health plan, but it will not cover any family planning services–at least not the ones for women. How will women pay for such medical services, well they will have to spend more out-of-pocket money. If they do not have enough money, well they get to go without.
Again, if Hobby Lobby can invoke religious beliefs to ignore one rule –saying the Affordable Care Act family planning –, then why not ignore another rule — saying dealing with equal opportunity or general privacy?
Right now it is not entirely clear, but Hobby Lobby could certainly now make the argument that “allowing” its female employees to use birth control violates the company’s religious beliefs.