The Hobby Lobby case — a bad decision

by Neil Rickert

By now you will have heard of the Supreme court ruling on the Hobby Lobby case.  I believe this was a terrible decision from the right wing ideologues on the court.

Fred Clark (Slacktivist) has a good account of the history leading up to this case:

It started with a bad court decision on Peyote, back in 1990.  At the time, I thought that decision (written by Scalia) was a bad decision.  Congress then enacted RFRA, in an attempt to undo the Peyote decision and some subsequent mistakes.  And now Scalia and others are using RRFA to allow Hobby Lobby to force the owners religious views on employees.

I lost a lot of respect for this ideological court back in 2000, when they wrongly interfered in the Bush vs. Gore election.  And now I have lost any remaining respect.


6 Comments to “The Hobby Lobby case — a bad decision”

  1. I also found it typical and disgusting that Hobby Lobby was willing to profit from and use 401k investments that involved companies which manufactured the very contraceptives that they wanted to deny their employees. It goes to show the ill nature of their agenda and/or their level of ignorance and hypocrisy.


  2. I agree that any employer should not get religion based special treatment. But maybe contraceptives coverage should be optional for anyone’s insurance program.

    I haven’t followed the case closely, but one statement I heard is that Hobby Lobby pays pretty well. Maybe if you’re well paid, your contraceptives costs should come out of your own pocket.

    Re: Lage comment – “…they wanted to deny their employees”. Not including it in an insurance program isn’t quite the same as denying it (especially if the employee is well paid).

    On the other side, on public radio, I heard one sound bite from the pro-Hobby Lobby side, something to the effect of “We shouldn’t have contraceptives forced upon us.” As if including it in an insurance program requires you to use contraceptives.

    BTW, hi NWA.


  3. NWR says in main message:

    “And now Scalia and others are using RRFA to allow Hobby Lobby to force the owners religious views on employees.”

    I essentially said the same in my previous message, but – Denying insurance coverage for certain contraception methods (ones they deem to be means of early abortion (morning after pill, IUDs, and ?)) falls considerably short of “forcing religious views”. It’s my understanding that Hobby Lobby’s insurance program does cover most contraception.

    While the SCOTUS ruling was stated as being narrow, it sure does seem to open things up to lawsuits on other similar things such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions.

    And sorry about the “NRA” – somehow that acronym has a way of getting etched in the memory.


  4. Hobby Lobby sued because their 1st Amendment rights were being diminished by the ACA. The court sided with them against the Govt. because the center and right leaning judges put more weight on individual rights. The left leaning judges, as usual, were more sympathetic to the central control argument. Protection of speech, religion and thought, even if a little whacky, is not such a terrible idea!


%d bloggers like this: