>> There is no reason why the reasoning used in this case cannot be extended to other things.
That is neither here nor there. You are missing the point of the opinion, which is that women have plenty of alternatives and for that specific reason in this specific case, the Court decided that protection of the religious freedom of the owners of the businesses is more important than providing yet another contraceptive alternative.
Specifically:
As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can "opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs." Post, at 1 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.). Nor do we hold, as the dissent implies, that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose "disadvantages . . . on others" or that require "the general public [to] pick up the tab." Post, at 1-2. And we certainly do not hold or suggest that "RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation's religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on . . . thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby." Post, at 2. 1 The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under [*7] that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing.
Especially when it rests on specious grounds, namely their claim that it cannot be used to forbid covering of vaccinations because that is a public health issue. By extension, that means that contraception is not a public health issue when it clearly is.
There is no connective logic, at all, between this case and the hypothetical you suggested. It is not relevant in the slightest.
This is yet another example of the buffet approach to the law the activist Roberts court has made famous.
The Roberts court has managed to piss EVERYONE off. But the reality is that the legal reasoning has been sound on the big decisions. Not that that matters to you.
Seriously, that Ginsberg dissent in this case was off the rails. When I read it I started questioning whether she has started over the edge. Notably, she missed the important legal point, i.e., can government effectively force those with strongly held religious views to avoid the corporate form altogether.
As you are no doubt aware, the very foundation of the country was built on people seeking religious freedom. The notion of separation of church and state was up front and center in our Constitution. Why would we abandon that concept now? |
