Why I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Hobby Lobby

As you may have heard, the Supreme Court of the United States made a somewhat important decision this week.

Side note #1: Are there any decisions made by the Supreme Court that aren’t important? I mean, isn’t that why they’re the Supreme Court? Do we really need to designate a ruling as being important?

Side note #2: I’m going to avoid using the acronym SCOTUS, simply because it reminds me of the word scrotum. Surely I’m not the only person to think this, right?

If you missed it, several American corporations – Hobby Lobby being the most prominent – wanted to opt out of certain mandates of Obamacare. The specific part that they disagree with is the inclusion of contraceptives. They argued that their religion opposes the use of certain types of contraceptives, and therefore it was un-Constitutional to force them to pay for them.

The Supreme Court agreed with them., and most liberals are up in arms about the decision. Heck, even some members of the Supreme Court are upset about it. As a firm liberal, it feels like I should be jumping on the bandwagon and join in on the condemnation of the Supreme Court (or at least the male members).

But I’m not going to do it. In fact, I actually agree with the court’s decision.

I’ll confess something right off the bat: I am not a woman. (Gasp!) I don’t want to be accused of being “another man telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies.”

I am also not a fan of Hobby Lobby. I think the owners are backwards-thinking people who would be just as happy if the Constitution was replaced by the Bible. But I also believe that they are quite devoted to their religion and are almost 100% sincere in their intentions.

Thanks to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), they are not only entitled to their religious beliefs, but they’re allowed to run their business – which has been deemed a “closely held corporation” – according to those beliefs.

Everybody seems to love laws like the RFRA when they protect our own individual freedoms. But we’re not always happy when it protects beliefs that don’t quite sync with our own.

I’ve noticed that Americans are often very quick to defend the religious beliefs of everyone in the country – except Christians. Even though Christianity is the predominant religion in America, it doesn’t mean that Christians are any less deserving of their rights.

Hobby Lobby is not forbidding employees not to take birth control. They are not firing people due to taking birth control. They are not enforcing their religious beliefs on their employees.

If women want to purchase birth control, they can still do so. But they’ve got to pay for them out of their own pocket.

I realize that some women take these drugs for other medical reasons besides preventing pregnancy. The cost of these drugs is high, and could very well cause some tough choices and hardship. While I sympathize with those women, that still doesn’t change my opinion on the Court’s ruling.

In all the outrage I’ve seen, most people are missing the real problems.

The first problem is that like many laws, RFRA was subject to a large margin of interpretation. And apparently it is so vague that even the members of the Supreme Court can’t really agree on it.

Since the law’s induction, a precedent has been set that it applies to closely held corporations as well as people. If that is how the law has been interpreted, then the owners of Hobby Lobby can indeed enforce their religious beliefs on their company.

I can understand why this interpretation exists. For instance, what would happen if a law was introduced saying that all restaurants must serve bacon with every meal?

Let's all pray that the bacon law never passes. (Image source)

Let’s all pray that the bacon law never passes. (Image source)

I’m sure there are some bacon enthusiasts out there who would be very favor of such a law, but for a restaurant owner who kept kosher, this would not be good news. The law would force them to operate their business in a manner that directly conflicted with their religious values.

Don’t they have the right to run their business in accordance with their beliefs?

The second problem is that the burden of providing health care is being placed on employers. When we place the financial burden of healthcare on corporations, it only make sense that those employers are going to want some input into what is being provided.

A loss for Obama is a win for conservatives? (Image source)

A loss for Obama is a win for conservatives? (Image source)

Many conservatives are pointing to the ruling as a victory. Based on what I’ve read, this is mostly because it was a defeat for Obama and Obamacare, and most conservatives have ceased caring about anything besides defeating Obama and anything he stands for.

But the continued push towards “corporations are people” may not turn out to be such a good thing for business interests. The relationship between a company and its owners has become blurred, and that may limit the amount of personal protection gained by incorporation.

I’m sure there are lawyers out there already dreaming up schemes to sue the owners of Hobby Lobby or other closely held corporations. Perhaps a former employee feels that they were discriminated against due to their religious beliefs. Since the company gains its religious views from its owners, shouldn’t the owners be held personally responsible for any discrimination?

Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued that the Supreme Court “ventured into a minefield” with their decision. While the situation is indeed a bit of a minefield, I feel it was created long before now, back when RFRA was introduced or when the precedent of “corporations as people” was first set.

The Court is now forced to maneuver their way through a terrain that is likely to become even more treacherous in the days ahead. In this particular case, even though it might not have been an especially popular step, I feel that it was indeed the correct one.


About The Cutter

I am the Cutter. I write some stuff. You might like it, you might not. Please decide for yourself.
This entry was posted in Trips and Events and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Why I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Hobby Lobby

  1. List of X says:

    There is some merit in your argument, but it gets really iffy with religious values of HL owners. First of all, as far as I know, their health insurance plan covered those same contraception treatment until Obamacare came along. Second, HL retirement money is invested partially with the very companies that make these offending contraceptives HL was fighting against. And third, most of HL inventory comes from China, the country that practically mandates contraception. Fourth, HL owners object to these contraceptives because they believe they induce abortions, when it’s not at all how they work. (I don’t want to go all the way to 10 because I just wrote a 10 on this decision last night).
    So to me, it’s not the case of religious rights being infringed upon, but the case of people trying to use their beliefs to save a few bucks when it fits them.

  2. Green Embers says:

    Side note #2 <- You are definitely not the only one. Really like your writeup of the issue and agree. The whole thing was a minefield before it was even deliberated and any outcome was sure to cause issues.

  3. NotAPunkRocker says:

    OK, but if their interpretation of religion says they cannot hire women because they belong at home (if anything really even says that, I have no idea what they think), would they be able to use this freedom to ignore the Civil Rights Act and Title VII? If not now, eventually?

  4. Shannon says:

    I hope you know that I just ‘Liked’ your post before getting past the third paragraph simply because your reference to the scrotum made me laugh because I think the same exact thing! (Yes, I am aware using ‘because’ twice in a sentence is frowned upon.) Now, let me get back to what you were saying…

  5. Shannon says:

    Okay, now that I have read your entire article…thank you for sharing this. I think that this is very similar to all the controversy about Chick-fil-A’s beliefs versus their employees. When I first heard about the ruling, I was outraged, thinking of the medical benefits that Hobby Lobby could be preventing by not covering those medications. However, after further research, I found out the exact truth. My friend pointed out, too, that if employees don’t like the result, they are more than welcome to quit. Either way, thank you for sharing this information. I found it very informative.

  6. Lance says:

    WE agree to disagree. Religious organizations have already sued to prevent having to be held to the LGBT hiring degree from the white house.

    This is about to change America in a very bad way.

    The bigots have the decision they want.

  7. goldfish says:

    There are some valid points in here mingled with things I totally disagree with. Yes, this all started with RFRA and Citizens United. Yes, it’s a problem.

    “They are not enforcing their religious beliefs on their employees.”
    In a way, they are. They’re basically allowed to say “we don’t believe in birth control, so you can’t have it,”which creates is a direct correlation between their beliefs and their female employees not having access to birth control. It doesn’t get much more give and take than that.

    “If women want to purchase birth control, they can still do so. But they’ve got to pay for them out of their own pocket.”
    Exactly, and to me, that’s a problem since most Hobby Lobby employees make between $8 and $14 an hour. It places the financial burden on employees when comparable employees at other companies get it as part of their health insurance.

    “But I also believe that they are quite devoted to their religion and are almost 100% sincere in their intentions.”
    I’m sure they are devoted Christians and believe in this cause, except for the fact that they provided insurance to their employees with these forms of birth control before this suit and they’ve invested in companies that manufacture the very forms of birth control they’re trying to prevent their employees from getting.

  8. figtree23 says:

    Another respondent has already made the point but I think its worth repeating. Having China as one of your major suppliers means you are willing to play fast and loose with your religious convictions. We stand against having to pay for sinful abortive contraception but are totally OK with buying products from a country that has mandated abortive policies for more than one child, happily sells products overseas that are manufactured in labor camps by people who are locked up because of their religious beliefs and … oh forget it. World, we here at Hobby Lobby used to cover this but we don’t now because that nasty man Obama is for it, so naturally, NOW, we are against it. Don’t worry about how I exercised my religious beliefs in the past, its how I exercise them now that is important. That’s the thing about religious convictions, they’re a flexible thing, you know?

  9. “The Cutter Rambles” has been included in our Arlynda Lea’s Sites to See #8. We hope this helps to call more attention to your efforts.


  10. Pingback: A Belated Look Back at my Year in Blogging | The Cutter Rambles

Got Something to Say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s