Hobby Lobby’s Hypocrisy, “Religious Freedom,” the Supreme Court and Why This Ruling Should Worry People

supreme-court-corporate-interestsBy now it’s not exactly breaking news that the Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby earlier today in saying that corporations have some sort of religious rights. It’s a decision that really shouldn’t be a shock to anyone considering this is the same Supreme Court that ruled corporations are human beings during the Citizens United case.

Now I’ll be honest, this isn’t the doomsday ruling some are making it out to be – at least not yet (we’ll get to that shortly).  Odds are President Obama will simply make a few administrative adjustments and contraceptives will be covered more on the government side of the Affordable Care Act than the employer side.

And naturally some are shaping this ruling as “an attack on women’s health.”  I can understand why some might be making that argument, but to me that’s the smaller issue at hand here.  While contraceptives often do pertain to women’s health, this is much more about allowing a corporation to force their religious views on people who might not share those same beliefs.

But that’s the line these conservative justices on the Supreme Court have drawn when it comes to corporations – they’re people too.

So what that tells me is that the CEO of Hobby Lobby, David Green, doesn’t only enjoy his own individual Constitutional rights, but the entity he created has those rights as well.

The question I ask to these folks who believe that corporations are people is pretty simple, “Then why don’t we prosecute corporations the same way we do individuals?”

Oh, I know why.  Because corporations aren’t human beings.

GM has admitted to knowing about an issue with some of their cars that led to the deaths of 13 people.  Guess how many people who knew about this issue, yet ignored it, will face murder/manslaughter charges?  Here’s a hint: It’s between zero and zero.

But I think what really floors me about Hobby Lobby’s claim that they’re this beacon of religious purity is the fact that I’d venture to say around 98% of the stuff they sell is made overseas, most likely in sweatshops.

Especially in a country like China where their one-child policy led to millions of forced abortions.  But I guess it’s okay for Hobby Lobby to benefit from the cheap labor in China (endorsing a communist country which has forced women to have abortions) because they’re making a lot of money exploiting Chinese sweatshops.

Oh, and for the record, Hobby Lobby’s CEO David Green is worth $4.9 billion.  Because nothing says “I’m a man of God” quite like accumulating a massive fortune while exploiting borderline slave labor overseas to maximize revenue.

I always find it fascinating to see some of these very wealthy individuals claim “religious beliefs” on issues such as homosexuality or birth control, yet ignore the numerous instances where the Bible sternly warns against greed.

And while some are claiming the ruling was very limited and won’t open the floodgates for other corporations claiming “religious freedom” to discriminate, I don’t buy that.  Because what’s the difference between saying that a corporation like Hobby Lobby can deny access to birth control for employees based on religious beliefs and a corporation claiming that it doesn’t hire homosexuals because of their religious beliefs?

Or is it the argument of the Supreme Court that some religious beliefs are more valid than others?

Because that’s what this case really says to me.  Either corporations are given “religious freedom” and are now allowed to break laws by simply citing “it’s my freedom of religion,” or they just ruled that some religions are more valid than others.

I just don’t see how you’d say it’s okay to claim religious freedom in one instance but then deny it in another.  That doesn’t make any sense.

And that’s why this ruling worries me.  We’ve already seen this Supreme Court prove that at least five of its members are nothing more than shills for corporate America.  But now it’s given corporations the right to force their religious views on employees?

Because couldn’t Hobby Lobby now argue that they’re within their rights to deny homosexuals employment, or promotions, because they don’t want to endorse “that lifestyle”?

What about same-sex marriage?  What if a homosexual is getting benefits for them and their spouse?  Couldn’t Hobby Lobby then say that they shouldn’t have to provide health care to gay couples because they don’t recognize same-sex marriage?

Some people believe that racism is justified by religion.  We saw this decades ago with individuals who supported segregation.  Can’t someone now say they should be legally allowed to discriminate against minorities because that’s their religious beliefs?

There are seemingly an endless list of possibilities now opened up for corporations to claim “religious freedom” and violate our laws.

Because this ruling wasn’t a subjective stance on Constitutional rights that just happened to include religion in a certain context.  This case was specifically about religion, the ability for a corporation to hold certain religious beliefs, and legally be allowed to ignore laws because of those beliefs.

So it goes back to what I said earlier.  Either all religious beliefs must be recognized by this ruling or the Supreme Court just determined that some religious beliefs are more valid than others.

And if that’s the case, we should all be very worried.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • mre2000

    great photo. wrong justices.

  • sherry06053

    I used to respect the Supreme Court. I used to believe their opinions and decisions were based on the Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers and what was best for the country as a whole. That is not the case with this court. Lately, their decisions have given corporations more rights than people have. Corporations should have NO rights.

    • Russ Klettke

      A friend of mine studied law at the University of Chicago in the early 1980s when Scalia was a professor there. My friend says he was just as much a fathead then as he is today.

    • Joe Crowe

      Corporation = ‘groups of people’. Groups of people should have no rights? Huh?

      If you are arguing for individual rights vs. collective rights, I suppose I can see your point. I believe that people should be allowed to use collective bargaining, but I also believe that individuals should be ultimately responsible for their contract negotiations.

      • Stephen Barlow

        A corporation is a piece of paper filed with the State. It is a set of rules and procedures. It is also a tool that exempts people from responsibility.

      • Pipercat

        Indeed, a tool. An instrument that acts as a firewall separating the owners (shareholders) from the business operations. Limiting liabilities and tax exposure.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Thankyou. And PAPER has no Constitutional rights.

      • Pipercat

        Indeed again, sir! Only provides certain protections!!

      • Eris de Suzerain

        When corporations begin receiving the same legal treatment as people (i.e. trial and imprisonment for murder, intentional or un) then we can talk. Right now they are getting the rights of people without the responsibilties.

      • Stephen Barlow


    • Stephen Barlow

      This is the price of partisan Republicanism.

  • Charles Vincent

    Let the crying commence…

  • Andy4theppl

    Being wealthy isn’t necessarily a sign of greed. Poor people can be greedy. Also, speculation about where the products are manufactured is a waste of time. Take the time to present facts in order to back up your claim. Truth is truth. No need to villify someone on opinion. It’s unprofessional.

    • ladbrady

      Fuck those greedy poor people. They are always keeping me from having the stuff I want.

    • MLR

      I don’t begrudge people their wealth. There’s nothing wrong with being wealthy. But I do think it matters where their products are made. You shouldn’t be able to claim you’re against abortions but yet get your products made in a communist country that practices forced abortions. That’s pure hypocrisy. Over here they’re throwing a tantrum over Plan B and the IUD, neither of which cause abortions. In fact, the IUD is the only choice for women that can’t tolerate hormonal contraception. This decision was based on junk science…oh yeah that’s right, conservatives don’t believe in science.

      • Joe Crowe

        Unfortunately, using the logic that you shouldn’t do business with people who do intolerable acts would exclude you from doing business with most of the world, including our own country. Helping the Chinese people improve their standard of living gives them opportunities for education, and also gives them financial power which can be used to fight for various freedoms from the authoritarian power of government.

        Giving government here more authoritarian power over family-owned businesses is unlikely to improve the lot of Chinese people there.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But that is NOT what hobby Lobby does. They couldn’t care LESS about their ‘moral high ground’ when it comes to FUNDING 330 MILLION abortions in China. GOVERNMENT MANDATED ABORTIONS.

        THAT THEY GLADLY FUND WITH TARIFFS on all the products they import. THe got away with perpetrating a fraud on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

      • DKA

        A tariff is imposed by the country to which the goods are imported, i.e. the United States, not by the country who is exporting the goods. Hobby Lobby buys products from businesses not the Chinese government.

      • Stephen Barlow

        WHo collects is irrelevant, that FACT that they pay to NOT support
        then have the gaul to sue AGAINST what they have supported with insurance premiums since they opened their first store.

        Yes I know about the 90th percentile wages. But that it the alpha/omega of their pay, 20K is a living wage for a single person, not for single mothers who will now have EVEN MORE UNWANTED CHILDREN because of the lawsuit.

      • Stephen Barlow

        They didn’t even consult the science in this case. This is ultimately a “Money is free speech” case. A check writing employer now has control over an employees uterus.

    • Russ Klettke

      This has nothing to do with wealth. It has everything to do with hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. Hypocrisy in that Hobby Lobby makes its billions off the backs of sweatshop labor in a country where abortions are a way of life. Cognitive dissonance in that the SCOTUS decision cannot possibly provide coherent direction to the lower courts in future religious freedom cases. Let’s see them handle the Jehovah’s Witness business owner who refuses blood transfusion coverage in his policies. Let’s see that first refusal of gay employees and their spouses from getting a family health insurance policy by a for-profit company in a marriage equality state. Writing this off as some expression of class differences is simple minded at best.

      • Joe Crowe

        The Jehovah’s Witness practice is easily handled. Get rid of ACA altogether and let the people working for the Jehovah’s Witness-owned company pay for their own blood transfusions.

        First of all, government should stay out of the marriage business altogether. Is it a church or a state? That revolutionary notion aside, we should get rid of ACA altogether and people could then use social and economic pressure to have for-profit companies provide health care insurance to any people who wish to purchase health care insurance. Then, all you have to do is claim a single person as a spouse if you purchase family insurance. Those of us who have the good sense God gave us to spend our money in ways that improve our overall health will be free to do so. The good thing about freedom is that there’s plenty to go around.

      • Stephen Barlow

        END the health insurance industry.

      • Stephen Barlow

        They specifically said that ONLY contraception can be argued with a Religious Freedom claim. But I remember “separate but Equal”.

      • Russ Klettke

        So we then assume that only contraception will meet the constitutional test? On what legal argument? This is a country full of people distraught with gay marriage and gay rights, not to mention other forms of bigotry, where there will be scores of challenges to employment anti-discrimination laws on the basis of this newly recognized “religious freedom” carve out. Katie bar the bigot door.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I hear you, but READ the decision, which sPECIFICALLY LIMITS Religious Freedom arguments about the ACA to contraception.

        I KNOW RED lawyers will use this as a foot in the door to legalize religious prejudice and I KNOW this court has no integrity.

        But the ruling is pretty clear. But it DOES open the door.

      • Russ Klettke

        There’s been good reporting by Rachel Madow and others about the Roberts Court’s “narrow rulings,” which end up opening the door to much broader things. It’s a two-step deception, and the liberal justices were burned by it a couple of times after tamer dissents. This is why Justice Ginsberg was so strong in her rebuttal.

      • Stephen Barlow

        She is also 92 and most likely has had enough. Wonder who Hillary will put on the bench? You know the REDS will obstruct. Who are the 5 most liberal judges in America.

    • Joe Crowe

      Poor progressives are the greediest of the lot. They would steal from their own brother…

      If they were looking at facts, they wouldn’t have an argument at all.

      Any mention of Chinese exploitation is a red herring, and particularly galling coming from progressives who tend to promote government intervention as the appropriate means of assuring ‘sustainability’. If humans are causing problems such as global warming, eliminating humans is the answer, according to many of these ‘revolutionaries’. That’s ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’. Claiming that giving jobs to people is a form of exploitation is a communistic (a.k.a. silly) argument considering that the standard of living in China has IMPROVED thanks to corporations like hobby lobby doing business with them.

      Americans have lost jobs and have a lower standard of living thanks to this competition.

      So much for progressive socialism moving a country ‘forward’.

      People angry at the verdict are ignoring that the ruling only applies to corporations run by a small number of owners. The number of employees is irrelevant. They are also somehow oblivious to another very important factor. Nothing in this verdict prevents women from getting health care. Nothing in this verdict denies ANYONE from getting health care. A person can still work for hobby lobby and in exchange for that work, hobby lobby will give them legal tender. They are then free to exchange this legal tender for the items that their family needs to meet their health concerns: food, clothing, shelter, toothbrushes, contraceptives.

      The only thing that worries me about this ruling is that it wasn’t unanimous.

      • Ryan

        “People angry at the verdict are ignoring that the ruling only applies to
        corporations run by a small number of owners. The number of employees
        is irrelevant.”

        That’s over 90% of corporations in this country, genius.

        Also, you’ve missed the entire point. The point is that the Supremes have opened the door to saying “I believe x, therefore the law does not apply to me”. Except we all know they really just mean Christians (wink, wink) It was a profoundly bad decision, and one that even the most stalwart Conservative will regret.

        Of course, they’ll just deny that these guys were REAL Conservatives, and point out that a Demoncrat was President, to better fool their moronic base, and all will be well in Rightyville. You people sicken me.

      • Joe Crowe

        Interesting that you would say “that’s over 90% of corporations in this country, genius”. Does it take a genius to understand that it is irrelevant to this conversation whether it was 1% of corporations that fit that description or 100%? Perhaps it does.

        The door has always been opened that the intent of our form of government is that there be a separation of church and state. No system is perfect, but this concept isn’t some new thing, sub-genius.

        This ruling doesn’t just apply to Christians, so remove whatever is in your eye; it’s blocking your vision, sub-genius. The point is, that Hobby Lobby is a craft store and shouldn’t be in the business of being the source for health care at all. Having been forced into that position, the line has been drawn by the SCOTUS at a specific point where it clearly violates their religious views, which is better than drawing the line nowhere. That’s the entire point.

        By the way, a Muslim-owned company will likely, thanks to this ruling, be allowed to refuse to provide pills which use pork-based gelatin.

        There is another important point: perhaps a craft store isn’t the best place to be your health care provider. If you make all your life decisions in this way, perhaps that is what is why you are sick.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I practice, it DOES only apply to “Christians”.

        Your argument is that NO business should be in the business of providing health insurance as a benefit to employees.

        Which you disagree with. LMAO

      • Stephen Barlow

        hit the nail right on the head. Special exceptions for those who think like Me.
        If a muslim owner had made this case, it wouldn’t have gotten past Appeals.

        If Carly Faye Tucker had found ALLAH… would any one have ever known, much less paid for a national defense against her execution?

        Remember, she was the orgasmic ax murderer. if I did her interview, I’d have asked her if she had orgasmed since her killing tryst.

      • Stephen Barlow

        ANd those 330 million abortions…THEY are part and parcel of that ‘improved chinese standard of living. SO hobby Lobby should be clamoring they will ONLY cover those 4 Contraception medications!!!

        In the name of improving the standard of living of their beloved employees.

  • Pipercat

    “A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends”

    Associate Justice Samuel Alito

    In re: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell

    Gee Sammy, did you write that in crayon?

    • Joe Crowe

      He could have written it with a feather dipped in squid juice. Would that have made the statement more or less true? The truth of the statement should be our chief concern and the statement is completely true. There are certainly connotations of the word ‘corporation’, but the legal definition refers to groups of people.

      I must say here that in this interpretation, all should live by the sword and die by the sword. GM, as a corporation, should pay penalties as a whole for the corporation’s screw-ups. BP had to pay fines as a corporation for the oil spill and employee deaths. However, the individuals within that corporation should also be held criminally responsible when appropriate. If the Safety Coordinator of BP knew of dangers to people’s lives and failed to act, he/she should be responsible. The people at GM, if they knew that lives were at risk because of faulty products, should be held criminally responsible. Hobby Lobby might use the fact that they are a small family-owned corporation to excuse them from paying for things they disagree with on religious grounds, but their corporation status should not absolve them from individual responsibility from knowingly selling lead-tainted chew toys (just an example, not an implication).

      I understand and acknowledge that there is a distinction between a group of people, taken as a whole and a collection of individuals taken singly, but both are in the legal sense of organization quite the same. Those who strongly favor unions and collective bargaining should be careful in noting the similarities. I personally find unions an outdated concept and consider collective bargaining groups tools of socialism that often foster mediocrity by coddling the mediocre… BUT I also consider them a legitimately useful, legal and entirely constitutional form of free assembly. Unions are essentially corporations which theoretically are greater than the sum of their parts.

      Fighting against hobby lobby’s right to assemble and upon assembling to practice the beliefs of the assembled would be the equivalent of fighting against the right of people to form unions or bargain collectively. Regardless of your views on unions, is it right to do this?

      • Pipercat

        My, that was wonderfully verbose. If you do not understand the meaning of my little snark, then all I can say is: I hate that for you.

  • lsusan10

    I do not believe any male species, supreme court, corporation owner, or general public, should have any voice on this matter. The male supreme court justices should not have been able to make any decision on this. If you have never experienced pregnancy personally, then how would you know how to make the correct decision? Stupid! I hope mr ignorant hobby lobby meets karma one day.

    • Hmm

      you are the reason that feminists have a bad name! Of course you can’t compare men and women on the pregnancy issue because that’s like comparing apples to oranges. It takes a man and a woman for a pregnancy to happen, so then yes, men can still take it personally. Even on the basest level, if you have a sperm donor, well, it still comes from a man!

      • Joe Crowe

        If we were using Isusan’s logic, all manner of injustices could be justified. Non-slave owners shouldn’t have been allowed to vote on eliminating slavery? Having never experienced slave ownership personally, how can they make a correct decision? I don’t think that’s very logical at all. Women would have never gained the right to vote if Isusan’s philosophy were in operation. How can we make smuggling black tar heroin across international borders illegal if we’ve never smuggled black tar heroin across international borders? How do we KNOW jumping off bridges is harmful unless we are a greasy spot at the bottom of the support beam? Luckily, most people have more sense than to think that way.

    • Joe Crowe


  • MLR

    This ruling is worrisome because it does set a dangerous precedent and those who say no are full of shit. I bet there are a lot of people who don’t care because oh wtf it’s just birth control. But what’s next? This opens up a huge can of worms. This generation takes for granted the rights others worked so hard for, suffered for and even died for. SMH!

    • Joe Crowe

      Your opinion is full of b.s. If you disagree, you are full of b.s.

      What can of worms? If this is followed to its logical end, the court may rule one day that companies should not be forced to buy health care? What then? People would be forced to pay for goods and services that they want for themselves? Oh the humanity! We must stop this freedom while we still can!

      • Ryan

        You are about as sharp as a bowling ball, Crowe. The can of worms is asserting that religious belief trumps law, you moron. When a Muslim files on the basis of this precedent and wins, you and your crowd are gonna scream bloody murder.

      • Joe Crowe

        Ryan says I’m a genius. Does that make him a moron, too? I don’t think so. Ryan is merely sub-genius. He relies heavily on ad hominem attacks and conjecture based on his own preconceived biases and stereotypical ideas. His philosophy is banal and collectivist and therefore he can not fathom that those who disagree with him are not equally banal and collectivist, even when those he disagree with cite individual rights and liberties as one of the highest values. So cut Ryan some slack, okay?

        When a Muslim files on the basis of this precedent and wins, I’m going to thank God that the 1st Amendment is still protected and that we still live in a free country.

  • poppaDavid

    The court set the standard that those corporations that are owned by a few people blur the line between “corporation” and “private owners”. So be it, eliminate the financial protection given to those owners by corporate law. Subchapter S corporations, lawyer corporations, Cargill corporation, Wal*mart, should all lose their protection, the owners should be liable for all debts and any legal action for negligence, wrongful death, etc.

  • Alexander

    Why would you want to make the statement that the women’s health issues involved in this decision are the smaller issue? You just lost half your audience! Not to mention the fact that it’s quite possible that the women’s health issues you minimize will galvanize women across the country to elect the first woman to the White House. You make some good points, but your frame needs work. I get that, as a man, women’s health issues aren’t important to you. They should be.

    • Joe Crowe

      As a human, freedom is important to me. As a human, my love for freedom extends to my fellow human being. This isn’t about women’s health. It has nothing whatsoever to do with women’s health issues. The people being affected are employees, which means they are working and being paid. They are free to spend their money directly on health care or give their money to charities that educate people on women’s health issues, or to research facilities that seek to find cures for diseases that affect women’s health or to spend their money on preventative care. Don’t women also value freedom?

  • K Carroll

    Regardless of “religious freedom” or not, let’s not lose sight of what we ALL desire. Freedom. Freedom to choose to marry a same sex partner, to smoke marijuana, to home school our children and to decide what our companies will or will not offer. We get so caught up in screaming at the opposing player that we forget we want the same things, but it all looks different. For once can we not work for each other instead of against, regardless of how we personally feel about the “cause”. There is NO such thing as liberal or conservative, because everyone wants what THEY think is right.
    And for the record, I am Christian and I am happy about the decision for Hobby Lobby. But not for the cause, but for the right to choose.

    • wuzzi

      I am actually personally pro-life, but believe that taking away abortion access could cause more harm to desperate people, even if it would also save countless unborn lives. Since others have religious and scientific opinions different than mine, in this country, I cannot force my beliefs on them.

      This case has bothered me from the beginning. Somewhere, somehow, SOMEONE was going to be told that THEIR beliefs mattered more than another’s. You could side with the corporation, as the entity purchasing health insurance, whose owners believed some choices ended a human life, or you could side with the possible majority, the many employees, who would not be allowed some health choices because of their EMPLOYER`S religious beliefs (not their own). I part way hoped that the Supreme Court, when weighing things, would err on the side of the access for the majority vs. the ethical considerations of the minority, because, even though the government was requiring that the company buy a health insurance policy that met certain conditions, and in exchange provided tax incentives, etc., (which could be argued were subsidizing any part the employer didn’t want to personally pay for), the company was a small group which, as the ruling now upholds, gets to limit the choices of a lot of people.

      Yes, this case is just certain types of birth control, and ones that are unlikely to be used by many of the company’s employees. It might not affect many people. It isn’t this case that upsets me. It is its precedent. It says that the employee – the weaker, more dependent person, can have their choices dictated by their employer, someone they need that provides the money that keeps the roof over their head and food on the table. If another employer follows a rare subgroup of Christianity or another religion which refuses medical care entirely, they can opt out of ACA and tell the employees they must only use faith healing for medical care, and no health insurance will be provided. At that point, the employees will be on their own, and in some states in this country, will not be eligible for anything they can afford (i.e., states that refused Medicaid expansion).

      That is a big deal. A very big deal. Then again, it gives those intent on dismantling the ACA a nice crack to open up – get every closely held corporation’s owners to convert to the right religion and have them all opt out of ACA. At that point, there aren’t enough healthy people to keep the plan going and it falls apart and needs serious reworking or outright appeal. In a way, I think that is what has them happy as much as anything – it is about freedom – freedom to continue to maximize profits as much as possible, further enrich the richest among us while continuing to impoverish the working people.

  • Maridawn

    why is Hobby Lobby forcing anything when they are just needing freedom to exercise religious freedom from doing business with the abortion pill which is abortion which is against the Christian faith? Why is this hypocritical? This is being true to the faith. It appears to me that people are trying to do the forcing on them.

  • Stephen Barlow

    “Hobby Lobby remains quiet about its dealings in China. The company did not respond to requests for a list of Chinese factories it does business with, and did not provide information about what percentage of its merchandise comes from China.

    Then there’s China’s controversial record on abortion. The country’s one-child policy was slightly relaxed in 2013, but the family planning bureaucracy still exists. Since the government instituted the policy 40 years ago, there have been more than 330 million abortions in China, according to health ministry data cited by the Financial Times. Though fewer instances of forced abortion, infanticide and involuntary sterilization now occur because they’re banned by the government, they still happen, The Washington Post reported last year.

    This week, Hobby Lobby’s crusade against contraceptives scored it a victory in the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, the court ruled 5-4 that so-called “closely held corporations” don’t have to provide certain kinds of contraception for employees.

    “Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill,” Hobby Lobby founder and CEO David Green wrote in an open letter in 2013. “We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.”

    Yet the company is happy to profit from the business it does with China, critics argue, even though political conditions in that country have led to hundreds of millions of abortions.”


    If David Green where an HONEST CHRISTIAN and GENUINELY BELIEVED as his case claims he does, then he would NEVER EVER have done business with ANY CHINESE FIRM.

  • Colleen Faler

    The one branch of our federal government that is supposed to be above politics is the most politically driven one of them all! Politicians nominate people to the bench (at any level for federal court) and elected politicians grill them on POLITICAL issues (because your personal politics and track record are what they’re really worried about—not whether you actually understand the laws of the land and the role of the judiciary in terms of the Constitution or if you actually understand Constitutional Law beyond what someone with an AA degree in Legal Studies may have gotten in a summer trimester course)——and of course, every damned case that gets granted certiorari is one that is more about political posturing than protecting the people from laws that go against the Constitution. Too bad the court’s lost sight of their role and are making laws from the bench that go against the very Constitution they are sworn to protect.

  • Michelle Hensler

    every time i think i couldnt be more relieved NOT to be american they pull a stupid stunt like this and suddenly im even HAPPIER to be Canadian

  • Tim Corbett

    Don’t forget dropping coverage for a single pregnant woman, (ironic, since she couldn’t get birth control covered), because the “company” doesn’t agree with sex outside the confines of marriage. All sorts of possibilities in play here.

  • Kate Hoover

    A wise understanding of the biggest problems that will develop out of this ruling, esp. on the heels of the Citizens United ruling. It has become plain that 5 on the highest court have fallen to the lowest they can be. I only know one thing that drives men to such amoral, corrupt, unethical actions…greed. If we cannot learn the truth soon, certainly the future will uncover what exactly prompted these men to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby & Citizens United. Only payoffs, blackmail, bribes or something equally insidious. The ruling that “some religious beliefs are more valid than others” brings to my mind another comment, from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

  • DKA

    You really need to read the Hobby Lobby decision and understand the decisions before it. For a political science major, you show an appalling lack of understanding of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its history. Keep in mind this act was passed nearly unanimously in Congress (97-3 in Senate) and signed into law by President Clinton. The example of not hiring homosexuals doesn’t work under the law because there are no “least restrictive means” for the government to step in and employ the person who is discriminated against, as there was in Hobby Lobby and the cases before it where nonprofit corporations had certain of their health care expenses covered by the insurer or the government for health care drugs that they had a religious issue with providing to employees

  • MIDawn

    When I first heard about the case, my thoughts went immediately to the sweatshop issue. Are the health needs of overseas employees being met? So I was excited to see this article, feeling like I couldn’t accuse Hobby Lobby of sweatshop labor forces just because I thought it was darned likely. But I see that the article says “most likely sweatshops” and then builds the entire argument based on something the author has clearly not checked out. So in the college course I teach – in which we’re currently discussing sweatshops – I still have no evidence that Hobby Lobby, like so many American corporations, is using what I do agree is virtually slave labor. Let’s do this. Let’s work for justice for all exploited employees, on both sides of the ocean, rather than picking out one company that happens to be in the news and happens to be faith-based.