Less, it can be tricky to balance compliance with the law with 1st amendment rights. Generally I would err on the side of the 1st amendment, but if there are overarching concerns with public health or national security, they may take precedence.
One of the most famous examples, IMO, would be Muhammad Ali refusing Army induction based on his Islamic beliefs. At the time, that was considered to be treasonous, but since then, Ali's actions were vindicated mainly because our involvement in the Vietnam War was widely considered to be a mistake.
(Of course, you won't see CJ arguing against Ali's stance or the cowardly Bentway making fun of Ali's beliefs. It's much easier for them to go after "for-profit corporations" than to defend their own selective application of the 1st amendment.)
As for the case with Hobby Lobby, i.e. the new target for left-wing hatred, what's at stake here? Public health? Yeah right. The rights of women to control their own bodies? No one is denying them access to contraception or the morning-after pill.
The only question here is, "Who pays for it?"
And that's the problem with the liberal position. They like forcing others to pay for their own entitlements. They like it so much that they're willing to shred the 1st amendment just to push their own government programs upon us.
Consider this. If Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for said contraception, why can't Obama just step in with an executive order and pay for it himself? It's because he can, but he doesn't want to. Better to force people to pay for it regardless of their position or beliefs.
That is what's at stake here. Not public health, not women's rights, but rather an entitlement. And that's a very WEAK reason to override the 1st amendment.
Tenchusatsu |
