Hobby Lobby Ruling a Boost for Liberty

The High Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act can’t make people who own Corporations choose between their business and their beliefs. Freedom is still alive, even by one vote. The Supreme Court recognized the diversity of this country. Forcing people to pay for what they sincerely believe is the termination of innocent human life is incompatible with the heritage of diversity. Even when we had a draft, we exempted people from combat that was even when national survival was at stake. This ruling preserves people’s right to choose on both sides. You have right to Ella and Plan B, but I have a right not to pay for it. America has always respected the right of people to practice their faith in their business, churches, family, and government. The Constitution bans religious tests. It prohibits laws that inhibit the free exercise of religion. It forbids setting up a state sponsored church. It keeps America from being like Europe. It is why here, religion is a source of peace and strength in public life, while in Europe it has been a source of conflict, persecution, and wars. If you use the force of arms and government to make someone violate their deepest beliefs, they will react. The Supreme Court in today’s ruling has kept the best of our traditions.

18 thoughts on “Hobby Lobby Ruling a Boost for Liberty”

  1. Before the spinning begins, we should keep in mind that BEFORE there was any requirement under ObamaCare, Hobby Lobby already provided free contraceptives to its employees (16 types) — but refused to fund only 4 types that kill a baby after a baby is conceived.

    Let us also keep in mind that people actually can pay for birth control themselves any time they want, they can always obtain supplemental health insurance as well.

    So the only people whose rights were at issue were the religious employers. The employees could always get any birth control they want.

    And yet look how far some people are willing to go

  2. Absolutely. Whether a woman is able to obtain health insurance coverage for contraception is a deeply personal decision which should be strictly between her and her employer.

  3. Nitpicker, then do you think it would be better for women to buy their own birth control, probably in collaboration with the dead beat man who doesn’t take responsibility for anything, rather than getting their employer involved?

  4. I don’t know how to put this politely, Jon, so I’ll just say it: It’s none of your concern how other people conduct their sex lives. Women take the pills, not men, so women pay for them. Do you make your partner pay for your Viagra? Not that it’s any of my business, of course.

  5. Nobody June 30, 2014 at 14:46 “I don’t know how to put this politely, Jon, so I’ll just say it: It’s none of your concern how other people conduct their sex lives.”

    That changes when they ask me to pay for it. THAT’s why it is a great idea for people to pay for it themselves, and not ask to have their boss or the government pay for it.

    If you start a business, you can do it any way you want. However, if you are asking for a loan from someone, then they have a right to ask you lots of questions about how you are going to spend the money and how you are going to run the business.

    “He who pays the piper, calls the tune.”

  6. “If you start a business, you can do it any way you want.”

    Or if you buy one.

    If a Muslim buys the company that someone works for, and decides that all employees will obey Sharia Law, then the US Supreme Court will enforce Sharia Law against any employee who objects.

    Yay, Liberty and Sharia Law!

  7. Nitpicker, you are entirely clueless about everything going on here.

    Neither the US Supreme Court nor any other Court is going to “enforce” Sharia law or any other rule, law or regulation.

    But if a private company chooses not to pay for something, the US Supreme Court is not going to FORCE the private company to PAY for something they don’t believe in.

    A better example would be if Muslims buy a company and decide not to hold a Christmas party because they don’t believe in Christmas within their religious beliefs.

    NO, the Courts are not going to FORCE a private company to hold a Christmas party.

    And isn’t that a good thing?

  8. Or another example would be if an employee wants to buy a Bible and demands that his employer buy him a Bible. The Muslim-owned company says no we don’t want to spend our money to buy you a Bible.

    So under the Hobby Lobby decision, the Muslim-owned company does not have to buy an employee a Bible.

    The employee can buy his or her own Bible if he or she wants one.

  9. Exactly, you do not have a right to other people’s money. They have no obligation to offer you anything but your wages, Social Security matching, and any unemployment and workman’s compensation.

    If you do not like the package they offer, get another job, supplement it with other coverage, or just pay for your own on what is not covered.

  10. The Viagra argument is a not valid. It has nothing to do with birth control or giving me pleasure, or whatever else. It is medicine to fix a medical problem caused by various factors. It is about the body functioning normally. Women have all sorts of treatments and endocrinologists and gynecologists who specialize in their issues. Men just got lucky that a pill was developed. That is still being developed for n women.

    Birth control covered for medical necessity is still covered. Birth control is about changing the body’s natural function and making it infertile for convenience or sociological preference. Except in the case where getting pregnant could interfere with medical treatment, it is a social option not a medical one. Birth control under this ruling may still be covered except for those that arguably end human life. No matter, you can get plan B over the counter at a low cost. Condoms at Walmart are 4 or 5 dollars a box. There is no compelling government interest in advancing a social policy over the fundamental rights of a minority. Too many other options for the proponents exist.

  11. “That changes when they ask me to pay for it. ”

    You misunderstand insurance. If they buy insurance, they already have paid for it.

  12. “the only people whose rights were at issue were the religious employers. The employees could always get any birth control they want.”

    Will the employees get a lower price on their insurance premiums so they can pay for contraception themselves? What about the women who have hypertension and so can’t take The Pill, and require a much more expensive IUD? Why should they have to pay for it themselves?

    You’re so obsessed with others having sex that you’ve abandoned rationality.

  13. Birth control is not health care. It is not treating a disease or an injury.

    Why not demand that insurance pay for your groceries? You will be more healthy if you eat than if you don’t eat. There is a stronger case that food should be covered by insurance than birth control.

    In terms of what the employees paid for, the employees are not paying. That’s the whole issue. The employer is paying.

    We should end the linkage between employers and health insurance. That would be a step forward.

    But Holly Lobby employees were already being provided free with 16 different forms of contraceptives. The new law would have added 4 more. Now the 4 more won’t be added.

  14. You know, Nobody, here is the real issue:

    What if we gave Medical Savings Accounts to all the employees of Holly Lobby? The employer gives a lump sump that goes into a savings account that can only be used for medical expenses. Then the employees could decide what to spend the money on. The law gives the Medical Savings Account the same tax preferences as employer paid health insurance. Then it is the employee’s decision. No problem. Another Republican proposal fixes the problems!!

  15. My biggest beef with the Hobby Lobby ruling is that it appears to elevate religious reasons for company above other valid reasons for policy.

    Company A wishes to withhold paying for health insurance coverage for morning after pill due to religious objections.

    Company B wishes to withhold paying for health insurance coverage for morning after pill because they find it objectionable.

    Aligning compliance (or exemptions from compliance), with laws (in this case the ACA) with religious beliefs, over other equally strongly held beliefs doesnt feel right to me.

  16. Mike: Here is a radical suggestion:

    What if a company pays its employees cash in exchange for work and then the employee can buy whatever he or she wants with their own money?

    If employees simply use their own money to make their own decisions, then we avoid all this, don’t we?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    mike July 7, 2014 at 12:30 writes: “My biggest beef with the Hobby Lobby ruling is that it appears to elevate religious reasons for company above other valid reasons for policy. ”

    Yes, that’s what the First Amendment to the United States Constitution commands.

    The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing any law restricting the free exercise of religion.

    Our U.S. Constitution requires government to allow the free exercise of religion, and not to restrict or interfere with religion.

    If that bothers you, then you reject the US Constitution and America and her traditions. You might feel more comfortable in another country, perhaps.

  17. “Mike: Here is a radical suggestion:

    What if a company pays its employees cash in exchange for work and then the employee can buy whatever he or she wants with their own money?

    If employees simply use their own money to make their own decisions, then we avoid all this, don’t we?”

    There’s nothing radical about that at all. I agree with it completely – you seem to be reading something into my statement above that I did not say. What I don’t agree with is the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to create a linkage between religion and compliance with laws. A law that infringes on the freedom to practice religion is unconstitutional, and should be discarded, not carved up with exemptions.

Comments are closed.