Post-Hobby Lobby, expect these cases in the courts

The Hobby Lobby decision actually hurts most people of faith.

personhoodThe Supreme Court agreed that some companies can refuse to cover contraception. Bestowing more personhood on entities devised to mitigate personal liability than on actual women baffles me, but there it is.

The next challenges to Obamacare coverage on religious grounds are listed right in the dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

“Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”

“Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”

The floodgate of cases is already opening.

I tend to agree with the notion that the Hobby Lobby decision actually hurts most people of faith.

Moreover, I find it disingenuous when I discover Hobby Lobby invested in numerous abortion and contraception products while claiming religious objection.

The root of this mess, of course, is health insurance, therefore health care, tied to employment. As Charles Turecek correctly noted:

Health care should be managed by the government, as it is in almost every advanced country in the world except the U.S. People shouldn’t be forced to take or keep lousy, low paid jobs because they are afraid of losing health benefits. Get corporations out of the health insurance business and force them to pay a fair share of taxes. That’s fair, isn’t it?

There are people, notably George Takei, who have suggested a boycott of the 500 stores of Hobby Lobby, which I would support. Though in fact, I’ve never been to a Hobby Lobby and didn’t realize until the day the decision was announced on June 30 that there one in Albany County. The argument against boycotting, that the employees of HL would be economically harmed, while theoretically true, is unconvincing. I imagine there will be some people who will actually seek out the stores because of the stance of the owners, the Greens, who I am fairly sure are unrelated to me.

Now as a result of the ruling, I DON’T really expect to see this, which is an obvious parody: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LITTLE CAESAR’S RIGHT TO FEED CHRISTIAN EMPLOYEES TO LIONS. Sometimes, the absurdist makes the point in the best way.

Author: Roger

I'm a librarian. I hear music, even when it's not being played. I used to work at a comic book store, and it still informs my life. I won once on JEOPARDY! - ditto.

3 thoughts on “Post-Hobby Lobby, expect these cases in the courts”

  1. Thanks for this. Every time I’ve tried to write a post about this case, it’s devolved into an angry rant, more or less, and I’m trying not to do those anymore.

    One thing I will say, though, is that the hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby isn’t limited to the fact they invest in the companies that make the four contraceptives they don’t like, but also that they source most of the products they sell from China, a country that performs some 13 million abortions a year, some allegedly forced, and a huge percentage of which are for population control.

    I’d really like to see you expand on how YOU see this ruling as bad for people of faith. Do you see this case alone as being bad for religion and/or religious people, or is it the ideology behind it? In either case, what bad effects do you personally expect to see or fear may happen?

  2. I’m with Arthur about trying to right and then fuming, but I managed a simple poem this week, “Hysterical Women Running Amok” (!) which said a bit. And it even rhymed.

    The Supremes are in the pocket of the Koch Brothers (at least the five conservatives) just like Congress. They should be completely impartial and apolitical…instead, they accept cruises and yacht club invitations from the Heritage Foundation. Also, the case of Clarence Thomas’ wife accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars through hubby’s connections? That never went anywhere.

    How about this? After the next one retires or dies, set TWENTY-YEAR TERM LIMITS for justices. This would avoid the power of one president to put in multiples… and any and ALL corporate or privately funded junkets and gifts, appointments for family members… will all be grounds for dismissal.

    I am a strong advocate of sep. of church and state. This country was NOT built “on Judeo-Christian values.” The Founders were mostly slave-owning deists who believed in Creation, not a One God. Oy. What’s next, Sharia Law for FOX News? After all, one of the owners is Muslim; the other is Australian…

  3. Funny you should mention Sharia law, Amy—a lot of people (including me) have been wondering if the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way if it had been a Muslim-owned company seeking an exemption from doing something on religious grounds. The logic in their ruling was so thin-to-non-existent, I’d bet no, they would have ruled differently. Anyone else have a thought?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial