5 Major Takeaways From The Hobby Lobby Decision

The Federalist ^ | June 30, 2014 | Sean Davis

[NYer]

Hobby Lobby owners noted that they also felt compelled by their religious beliefs to provide health insurance to their employees — including coverage for 16 different types of contraception (Hobby Lobby’s objection was to mandated abortifacient coverage).

This is an important distinction which the mainstream media is not addressing. Ping!

[NYer]

Notice the excerpted comment above. This is an important distinction which is being ignored by the mainstream media.

[colorado tanker]

Hardly anything reported about this case in the MSM is correct. Betcha hardly any of them know the opinion is based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress, not the First Amendment.

[Salvation]

**One of the main reasons the Obama administration’s arguments failed to convince five justices is that the federal government did not necessarily need to mandate employer-provided contraceptive coverage in order to ensure access to contraceptive coverage. For example, rather than mandating employer coverage, the government could have easily established its own program to provide or pay for contraceptive coverage:**

And it may happen that the government will pay for such contraceptive coverage......guess whose pocket that comes out of?

[Steve_Seattle]

Fact: A liberal 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

Liberal reaction: "Settled law!!!"

Fact: A conservative 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

Liberal reaction: "Activist right-wing judges!!! Shredding the Constitution!!! George Bush!!! American Taliban!!! Fascism!!!"

[ilgipper]

Thanks, Justice Roberts, for creating this mess.

[Alberta's Child]

Good summary. While today's court decision was drawn along very narrow lines, I believe they've opened an enormous hole in the ObamaCare mandate for many private employers. In this particular case one of the employers did not object to providing contraceptive coverage in general (only abortifacients), but the court's exact same reasoning would apply to another employer whose religious morals dictated that no coverage for contraceptives could be provided.

[nickcarraway]

This decision was actually a near total loss for conservatives.

[Alberta's Child]

Many of us were pretty dismissive of the Court’s prior ruling because we recognized that there were far more solid legal grounds for mounting a challenge to ObamaCare (the First Amendment arguments in this case, for example) than the prior case that had been brought before the court. Today’s decision supports my earlier contention about the prior case.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And maybe it is, if people keep depending on humans.

[Alberta's Child]

I’m not sure how you’d make that case, but I’m happy to see what you mean by it.

[trisham]

The Hobby Lobby owners seem to be nice, decent people. God bless them.

[HiTech RedNeck]

In the very BEST of manmade efforts at morality, stands the possibility of it going completely south.

I don’t think this is any new observation.

In terms of power, Demons > Man.

However also, God > Demons.

The answer is quit hoping in man and start looking to God to take advantage of WHATEVER situation you get. I believe it is quite clear that something of God showed through this one. Let’s not let that ball just sit there. Let’s ask the Lord how to run with it.

[IncPen]

Good summary. While today's court decision was drawn along very narrow lines, I believe they've opened an enormous hole in the ObamaCare mandate for many private employers. In this particular case one of the employers did not object to providing contraceptive coverage in general (only abortifacients), but the court's exact same reasoning would apply to another employer whose religious morals dictated that no coverage for contraceptives could be provided.

One of the holes would seem, in the opinion of this non-professional observer, to be that people will not be treated equally under this (tax) law.

Yes, Justice Roberts created a mess.

[RKBA Democrat]

I would call this barely a win. Basically, a company that provided contraceptives didn’t have to provide a few abortifacients. While at the same time the oligarchs deemed that those with other medical religious objections wouldn’t necessarily be protected. So in effect they decided that there is politically correct religious objection, and politically incorrect religious objection.

[plain talk]

all that plus ... the ruling actually suggested how the feds get around this ... by providing abortion drug coverage themselves. The fact that the Supreme Court has no problem with the federal government confiscating taxes, buying abortion drugs and handing them out is problematic to me to say the least

[Alberta's Child]

People are already not treated equally under this (tax) law. That was one of the factors Alito cited in his opinion: he pointed out that it’s ludicrous for the HHS to argue the case on “equal protection” grounds in this case when they’ve already granted ObamaCare waivers to millions of Americans.

[Alberta's Child]

My sense is that there are quite a few upstanding, moral business owners out there who didn’t much care how the court ruled in this case because they had no intention of abiding by any stupid ObamaCare mandates anyway.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And that’s very fine, but ultimately man’s efforts alone to keep up some sort of good morality are going to fail.