Hobby Lobby Scores Religious Liberty Win Over ObamaCare

Investor's Business daily ^ | June 30, 2014 | IBD EDITORIALS

[raptor22]

First Amendment: The pen may be mightier than the sword, but President Obama's pen is not mightier than the Constitution or Americans' right to run businesses without sacrificing their religious beliefs and consciences.

While the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania was limited to "closely held" for-profit businesses, and is limited to the contraception mandate, its effect could be one more Obama-Care thread unraveling under the weight of its own injustice and inefficiencies.

The court has rightly decided that businesses such as Hobby Lobby, which is solely owned by founder David Green and his family, who also own the Mardel Christian bookstore chain, cannot be forced to defy their religious beliefs by having to provide insurance coverage for certain types of contraceptives and abortifacients.

ObamaCare's contraception mandate was never passed by the elected representatives of "we the people." Rather, it was the bureaucratic creation of the former secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius.

[raptor22]

HOBBY LOBBY PING

[Repeal 16-17]

Just keep in mind that this decision is based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), not the First Amendment. The Liberals will definitely try to slide into another bill an amendment to RFRA to overrule this decision. Stay vigilant.

[Alberta's Child]

I’m not sure that would even matter. Any case related to these provisions of ObamaCare would be argued on First Amendment grounds anyway — even if the RFRA never existed.

[Sacajaweau]

It's a great win because it is specific to abortion methods.

So if you're a Christian and/or pro-life...now is the time to stand up for your beliefs!!

[Repeal 16-17]

The Free Exercise Clause standard (Employment Division v. Smith) is much more lacks than is that of RFRA. If there was no RFRA, Hobby Lobby probably would have lost.

[RKBA Democrat]

This was a tepid decision, and barely a win. More like a gnawed bone thrown to us.

I found it particularly galling that the oligarchs were willing to pick religious winners and losers. So a company whose owners have a sincere belief that it shouldn’t provide abortifacients are protected, but a company that has a sincere belief that transfusions shouldn’t be provided (e.g. Jehovah’s witnesses) would not be.

To steal a phrase from Orwell; all religions are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[raptor22]

HOBBY LOBBY PING

[Alberta's Child]

So a company whose owners have a sincere belief that it shouldn’t provide abortifacients are protected, but a company that has a sincere belief that transfusions shouldn’t be provided (e.g. Jehovah’s witnesses) would not be.

The Jehovah's Witnesses were not a plaintiff in this case. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court opened that very door with this decision, regardless of what might have been written in Alito's majority opinion.