Hobby Lobby Could Be a Slippery Slope in the Right Direction

No one should be able to use government to force anyone else to buy them something.

As far as it went, the Supreme Court generally got it right in the Hobby Lobby Obamacare contraception case. Unfortunately it didn't go nearly far enough.

The court ruled that "closely held corporations" whose owners have religious convictions against certain kinds of contraceptives cannot be forced to pay for employee coverage for those products.

I wish the court could have said this instead: (1) No one has a natural right to force other people to pay for her (or his) contraception or anything else (with or without the government's help), and by logical extension, (2) everyone has a right to refuse to pay if asked.

For people about to celebrate the Fourth of July, these principles ought to be, well, self-evident.

A group of politicians cannot legitimately have the power to compel one group of people—employers, taxpayers, or insurers—to pay for things that another group wants. That's immoral, and it violates inalienable rights. Moreover, when government has the power to issue such commands—always backed by force, let us never forget—it sets off a mad interest-group scramble for control of the government machinery—because control is a license to steal. Is it any wonder that people are willing to spend billions of dollars to influence who makes government policy? If people face the alternative of controlling the government or being controlled by it, those who have resources will buy power and influence, even if only in self-defense.

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) say the court decision permits the favored employers to make health-care decisions for women. No it doesn't. It only prohibits women, unfortunately in only a narrow set of cases, from being able to use government to force their employers to pay for those decisions. When did we start equating the right to buy contraceptives—which hardly anyone disputes—with the power to compel others to pay? It is demagogic to insist that prohibiting the latter violates the former.

Equally ridiculous is the claim that if employers choose not to pay for their employees' birth control, employers are forcing their religious beliefs on employees. If that were true, it would also have to be true that a non-Christian's refusal to pay for a Christian's transportation to church on Sundays would be equivalent to forcing the non-Christian's religious beliefs on the Christian. That's ridiculous.

But, say the ACA's supporters, contraception is important to women's health care and can be expensive. Let's grant both points. So what? How can that justify forcing employers to pay? That is the question. By what right does someone resort to the aggressive power of government to obtain something he or she cannot or does not want to pay for? (It is not only low-income women who qualify for free contraceptives.)

The end doesn't justify the means.

Another objection to the ruling is that religious freedom doesn't apply to family-owned corporations (or any corporations). Corporations are not people, the critics say.

True, corporations are not people. They are groups—of people. It's not clear why individuals who run companies don't have the same rights as other people.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg worries that the ruling puts the country on a slippery slope: If religious employers can opt out of paying for contraception coverage, why not other things, such as blood transfusions and vaccinations?

Why not, indeed? This surely is a slippery slope. But here's the thing: some slippery slopes are good. This is a good one.

This controversy would not exist if government didn't privilege employer-based insurance or mandate "free" services, which  are not really free because the expense is made up by reducing future wage increases. Indeed, this controversy would not exist were it not for licensing, patents, regulatory insurance and medical cartels, and other features of the corporate state.

Free persons ought to be at liberty to opt out of any decree that violates their rights. (Decrees against murder, theft, and rape do not violate rights, so one may not opt out of them.) This libertarian principle means that a person would not only be free to opt out of a contraception mandate on religious grounds but would also be able to opt out of any mandate on any grounds—moral as well as religious—or no grounds at all! That's freedom.

Think of the benefits: you and I could opt out of paying for war and empire. This is a slippery slope all freedom-loving people should embrace.

This article originally appeared at the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Wait, it's not about the Jews and something Eisenhower did in 1953? Did someone hack Richman's account?

  • Irish||

    Well, it's at least slightly about the Jews.

  • ||

    How could I overlook that? I am covered in rue.

  • Ted S.||

    Better than being covered in roux.

  • ||

    That explains my thickness.

  • GILMORE||

    Needs pepper

  • stefan2563||

    my neighbor's mom makes $66 an hour on the internet. She has been without work for 5 months but last month her income was $16989 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site works33.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • JPyrate||

    Yeah but you need to brown the butter first.

  • Wlinden||

    Aaarggghhh! Like the Roe ukase didn't "venture into a minefield".

  • sarcasmic||

    Not forcing someone to buy something is the same as not allowing them to buy it at all.

  • PapayaSF||

    Sarcasmic won't buy me lunch, so he's denying me food!

  • WDATPDIM!?||

    I wish the court could have said this instead: (1) No one has a natural right to force other people to pay for her (or his) contraception or anything else (with or without the government's help), and by logical extension, (2) everyone has a right to refuse to pay if asked.

    And then they should say that AGW is bullshit, and that Voyager sucks, man!

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Okay, look, we can tell that you're on drugs.

    Just tell us what kind of drugs, so we can share in the amazing world that you live in.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Free persons ought to be at liberty to opt out of any decree that violates their rights. (Decrees against murder, theft, and rape do not violate rights, so one may not opt out of them.) This libertarian principle means that a person would not only be free to opt out of a contraception mandate on religious grounds but would also be able to opt out of any mandate on any grounds—moral as well as religious—or no grounds at all! That's freedom.

    Think of the benefits: you and I could opt out of paying for war and empire. This is a slippery slope all freedom-loving people should embrace.

    Someone should come up with a libertarian version of imagine called "Think Of..."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I have paid no poll-tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night

    -- Henry David Thoreau

    Remember when they just threw you in jail for a day like the town drunk instead of surrounding your house and killing your child in cold blood?

  • fish||

    Where's the fun in that.

    No dressing up in soldier costume with the newest toys and intimidating "rescue" vehicles!

    ...."back then" must have sucked.

  • ||

    Thoreau only got out because someone else paid the tax for him, against his wishes.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    No, I don't remember that.

    They've been doing that since I was born.

  • Rich||

    A group of politicians cannot legitimately have the power to compel one group of people—employers, taxpayers, or insurers—to pay for things that another group wants.

    Good grief. Sheldon, Sheldon, Sheldon.

  • wef||

    So, is the current regime legitimate or not?

  • Warrren||

    There's some uncertainty.

  • Brandybuck||

    Why does Sheldon hate womyn?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    He hates children too.

  • Atanarjuat||

    No bosses in my bedroom. Unless I want to take the morning after pill in there. Then, he has to come in, pay for it, and get right the fuck back out.

    Those protesters sound like spoiled teenagers. Dang it Dad, get out of my bedroom! Can't you just give me some money so I can go out with my friends and then go away.

  • Pathogen||

    Yeah, the signs should of said:

    "No bosses in the bedroom, just cab fare on the nightstand"..

  • Suicidy||

    Those bitches DO need a boss in their bedrooms. A man. Cause Goddamn, woman's be thinkin' too much!

    Man folk need to slap them titties around!

  • seguin||

    I have a bad feeling about Suicidy.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Where and how do I subscribe to your newsletter?

  • Duke||

    Too busy grilling and gettin drunk but did look at npr this morning. those folks are crapping themselves over the "religious zealots" trying to control their lives. Of course, there's no mention of the IRS scandal anywhere on the pages of npr.

  • Suicidy||

    Of course. It's ok to demand your will be inflicted on everyone through state force. Unless you're Christian. Then it's the worst thing in the universe. Perhaps even all of time and space.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    Separation of Church and State: Tyranny is fine as longs as it's secular.

  • Tony||

    I hate you morons.

  • Duke||

    That's nice.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    That might be the most coherent thing you've ever posted. When did you finally develop higher brain function?

  • Pathogen||

    As the shit clots pass through the blood vessels, momentary points of coherence and articulation occur. It's like when the sun briefly pokes through those dense storm clouds...

  • fish||

    When did you finally develop higher brain function?

    He didn't...his laptop slid into the tub...shorted out and Tonys hind brain vomited out a coherent sentence.

    Don't get used to it!

  • Malkavian||

    May I ask why? I'm also pro-choice, but arguments presented deal more with freedom of contract rather than abortion as such.

    If you argue that birth control and abortion are expensive, that's fine. I invite to look into reasons why (hint - look at FDA). Your beef is not with Hobby Lobby really, it is with those regulations that make birth control difficult to obtain out of pocket.

  • Irish||

    Like the fact that you can't buy the pill over the counter.

  • Irish||

    Plus you could always, you know, give money to an organization that provides the poor with birth control. If progs spent all the time and money they spent trying to compel Hobby Lobby's owners to go against their religious principles starting a charity instead, they might have actually been able to help people instead of throwing a mindless and incoherent hissy fit.

  • Suicidy||

    Filthy soulless unclean things like progtards are only generous with OTHER people's money.

  • MJGreen||

    But it's only morally good when "we" do it "together," i.e. through the government.

  • Number 2||

    Hey Tony...go out and buy me an elliptical machine and a membership in golf country club, will you? Those things cost a lot, but I need the exercise, which will help keep me fit and reduce the nation's health care costs. And since I am over 50, I am officially a Senior Citizen and therefore a deserving Oppressed Person.

    And if you refuse, you'd be a Fascist TeaBagger who imposes your values on me. And you'd never do something like that, right? So put your money where your mouth is, and pay up.

  • Warrren||

    You're Number 1, Number 2.

  • seguin||

    Show that turd who's boss.

  • jdfinct||

    Well at least you just came out with it rather than trying to argue your usual stupidity.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Listen, for Tony, as a gay man, the issue of reproductive health is vital to him because it is of direct importance to his everyday life; therefore, the ruling has had a direct impact on his life. That's why he approaches the subject with such passion. It has nothing to do with adopting a stance as a way to signal one's ideological and demographic affiliations. And shame on you for thinking that.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It IS important to him. You never know if he might be hit by a bus.

  • seguin||

    With proper birth control, bus accidents only result in pregnancy 8% of the time.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Don't cross the memes!

  • seguin||

    But, it's the only way to defeat Gozer, who has taken the form of a doughy Internet troll.

  • Spawn of Nyarlathotep||

    Wait, Tony still claims to be a put-upon Ghey in Oklamhoma? I thought he'd dropped that shtick in favor of posing as a close personal friend of Bill Gates?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    But Gates now favors a consumption tax instead of an income tax. That will never appease Mother Gaia and her partner!

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    I hate you morons.

    Good... let the hate flow through you!

    ... Hobbit

  • pogi||

    As do we all, but you're mildly entertaining when you get all panty bunched so you get a bit of a break from the Top Moron billing. Yeah, that makes you Second Moron but you do try harder.

  • JPyrate||

    Tony are you drunk ?

  • Mr Whipple||

    Great. Now, go make me a sammich, bitch.

  • ||

    You don't hate us, you hate freedom.

  • Sevo||

    ..."Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg worries that the ruling puts the country on a slippery slope: If religious employers can opt out of paying for contraception coverage, why not other things, such as blood transfusions and vaccinations?"

    I'll bet that imbecile thought this was a KILLER argument! Instead, it's 'yeah, that's true'.

  • Suicidy||

    Can I opt out of Ruth Bader Ginsburg interpreting laws for me?

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    You want to bring back the dark ages when employers were free to choose which medical services they paid premiums to cover?

    It's the 21st century, buddy, not 2009.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    4th!

  • Pathogen||

    Happy 4th Amendment..

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Said the swat team.

  • Irish||

    New York Times shockingly publishes article about over-regulation in Greece destroying businesses.

    But as happens so often in Greece, the bureaucrats had other plans. In a country where you are viewed favorably when you spend money but are considered a criminal when you make it, starting a business is a nightmare. The demands are outrageous, and include a requirement that the business pay taxes in advance equal to 50 percent of estimated profit in the first two years. And the taxes are collected even if the business suffers a loss.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Holy fuck, that's insane.

    I needed only 20 square meters for my baking business, but inspectors told me they could not give me permission for less than 150 square meters. I was obliged to have a separate toilet for customers even though I would not have any customers visit. The fire department wanted a security exit in the same place where the municipality demanded a wall be built.

    I, like thousands of others trying to start businesses, learned that I would be at the mercy of public employees who interpreted the laws so they could profit themselves.


    The best part is that this woman ended up moving to Belgium because there were better opportunities there. But overregulation doesn't result in capital flight, no way!

  • Pathogen||

    Sooo, it really is like a much older, smaller, poorer California..

  • Cytotoxic||

    This is an example of a country that might actually need a military coup/revolution. It might go horribly wrong but it still needs it and it's probably inevitable.

  • PapayaSF||

    They had one in '67. Doesn't seem to have helped much.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Repeat application.

  • Brutus||

    And if they repeal a single regulation, the place will be Somalia in a fortnight.

  • Pathogen||

    Their roadz will be the first casualty...

  • Warrren||

    So their government can only function enough to prevent economic growth?

    Nice.

  • Warrren||

    They just haven't had enough time to make this democracy thing work out.

  • Sevo||

    Warrren|7.4.14 @ 6:38PM|#
    "They just haven't had enough time to make this democracy thing work out."

    Or maybe, entirely too much time and democracy.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    When Belgium has better rules than your country, that should be a good indicator that your country is fucked.

  • robc||

    Belgium went over a year without a government. They are ahead of lots of places.

  • Sevo||

    ..."In a country where you are viewed favorably when you spend money but are considered a criminal when you make it,"...

    Pretty sure that should not be singular.

  • Irish||

    HuffPo is apparently run by the Know-Nothing Party.

    Unfortunately, a majority of the Supreme Court may now be resurrecting concerns about the compatibility between being a Catholic and being a good citizen, or at least between being a good Catholic and an impartial judge. In accepting the Catholic Church's extremely expansive understanding of what constitutes a burden on someone's religious beliefs, while simultaneously being dismissive of concerns that would be raised by minority religions, the Court majority is effectively undermining confidence in Catholic judges and forcing us to ask the uncomfortable question: Is it appropriate to have six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court?

    So the left is run by horrifyingly totalitarian religious bigots. Nothing to see here.

  • Irish||

    Daily Kos goes Even. Fucking. Crazier.

    They called themselves Puritans because they wanted to purify the Christian Church from the anathema of the Catholics.

    Nope, they were fleeing the Anglican church, not the Catholics.

    Despite their oath to uphold the Constitution, which clearly requires everyone be treated equally and nowhere says Catholic dogma controls United States law, they have used the First Amendment to create special exceptions for Catholic dogma in the Hobby Lobby case: they used current Catholic dogma as to when life is created. In the Book of Numbers, the Bible says people don't count as people until they are a month old.

    The Constitution also doesn't allow the Federal government to mandate that anyone provide birth control. That didn't stop you fascist fuckers though.

    Back in 1980's, Gary North wrote a book The Failure of the Baptist Culture. In it, various authors explained how they wanted to create a theocracy here in America.

    That's right! A crazy book by Gary North from 30 years ago apparently explains why a bunch of Ivy League law graduates struck down a mandate on abortofacients.

  • Pathogen||

    "Despite their oath to uphold the Constitution, which clearly requires everyone be treated equally"

    Do they remember their collective pants shitting over their "Diversity Quota" smackdown? Affirmative action clearly requires everyone be treated equally. Gun laws and the second amendment are completely egalitarian in this nation, just ask Bloomberg's bodyguards.. or the police.. or any of vested interests and connected individuals that can get carry permits to exercise a civil right, where J.Q. Public has no prayer. Do they really want to have that conversation?

  • tarran||

    Given that the proggies seem to think "having a national conversation" consists of them appropriating every communication channel to spew their hateful propaganda while people who disagree with them are threatened and extorted to shut up, I think they do want that conversation, but only on their terms.

    Fortunately, they are too stupid to hide their hate for the people who aren't in their camp; those people reject the proggies and the proggies' fury renders them to stupid to figure out why.

  • UCrawford||

    Yup. That is one of the best weapons sane people have against progressivism...the distasteful personalities and obvious intellectual shortcomings of progressives.

    Nobody likes to side too strongly with people who are both dumb and unpleasant.

  • No Tulpa 4U||

    Nope, they were fleeing the Anglican church, not the Catholics.

    True but they opposed it because the CoE was still pretty Catholic in its doctrine and rituals.

  • ||

    Oh, I see, the US was founded upon the idea of purifying the world of Catholics.

    Well, then, I suppose we must get on with it. Didn't realize that outright religious bigotry against Catholicism had become a die-hard tenet of leftist thought, but I suppose we should all get with the program.

  • Cytotoxic||

    At this point they are just stringing buzzphrases together. It's all they've got. Their desperation is heartening but their willingness to defy reality is worrying.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Joan Rivers jokes Obama is gay, first lady is transgender

    [She] was asked by a photographer if she believed the United States would ever see the first gay or female president. Her response was typical Rivers.

    "We already have it with Obama, so let's just calm down," she said. "You know Michelle (Obama) is a trans." ... and if you want to talk about 'politically correct,' I think this is a 'politically incorrect' attack on me because I'm old, Jewish, a woman and a 'hetty' -- a heteosexual ... and I plan to sue the reporter who, when he turned off his camera, tried to touch me inappropriately on the a** - luckily he hit my ankle. Read the book ... if you think that's silly, wait to (sic) you see what I say about FDR and Eleanor!"

    Ok, admit it. Which one of you guys is Joan Rivers? I'm guessing GILMORE.

  • Brutus||

    I thought Michelle was a Wookie?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Irish||

    Unfortunately this is a year old, but it still needs to be posted today.

    Salon: Stop calling it independence day, not everyone in this country is free yet.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If you're going to rip off Langston Hughes, at least mention the brotha's poem in your article.

  • steedamike||

  • PapayaSF||

    The author identifies four central frames at the core of colorblind racism: 1) abstract liberalism, 2) naturalization, 3) cultural racism and 4) minimization of racism.

    Urge to kill... rising....

  • Cytotoxic||

    Virginia DMV has lifted its ban on Uber and Lyft.

    http://inthecapital.streetwise.....-virginia/

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Hey, hey, hey, what's this? Some good news on Reason amid the nut punches and blackhole links to stupidity?

  • Pathogen||

    Your happy freedom day nutpunch.

  • John||

    Salon specializes in DErp. But for the Forth, they published the ravings of a lunatic. You guys tell me what the hell is going on here. It is like someone hired Mary Stack and Herc to co write an article. You can't fake this kind of insanity.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/07/0.....dence_day/

  • PapayaSF||

    The Puritan founders of America’s oldest colleges understood this, but they expected that those colleges’ graduates would serve a theocratic state that would control markets and everything else.

    I don't think this guy knows what "theocracy" means.

  • Warrren||

    Couldn't get past the first graf.

    Of course they will say and do anything to gain and maintain power so nothing is off limits no matter how crazed it looks to normal folks.

    So the fact that all the things they complain about are caused by their policies is irrelevant as long as enough people can be fooled into supporting them it's a win.

    This is why I never engage these people anymore, they're either evil or stupid and it's not worth my time trying to convince the unconvinceable.

  • Irish||

    They aren’t. They’re symptoms, not causes — reactions to widespread heartbreak at the breakdown of what Tocqueville called republican habits of the heart that we used to cultivate.

    I think it's hilarious that Salon quotes de Tocqueville when he was a classical liberal who would have despised everything Salon stands for.

    As for the rest of that essay, I don't know what the fuck is going on. He flies from one topic to another without any sort of segue.

    ▪ Hale’s dignity also anticipated that of three Yale seniors I came upon one wintry morning in 1968 as they gave university chaplain William Sloane Coffin, Jr., their military draft cards to announce their resistance to the U. S. Government on behalf of the American republic.

    I like that resisting the government forcing you to join the army was good and noble, but resisting the government forcing you to give people abortofacients makes you the most evil villain the Republic has ever seen.

  • Rhywun||

    capitalism run amok

    I hate when that happens!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Notice the topics listed at the beginning of the article:

    Topics: Editor's Picks, Capitalism, Ayn Rand, Media Criticism, Fourth of July, Conservatives, Jared Loughner, school shootings, News, Politics News

    Now Ctlr+F through the article. Notice how the article makes not one reference to Ayn Rand? The Salon editors, honest-to-goodnessly, just wrote up a list of things they don't like and called it a topic index.

  • Blueman||

    The only topic that article warrants is "Delusional Progressive Raving".

  • Rich||

    The narratives the world needs now will have to come from other prophets and leaders yet unsung. I do think that Americans will be strong among them, if only because we’ve had so much experience generating that hunger by generating the civic-republican-capitalist effort that has failed.

    "Ladies and germs, I give you ... Jim Sleeper!"

  • Daily Beatings||

    Hobby Lobby's medical plans already covered preventive birth control. This entire case was not about birth control per se but abortion. In the original complaint Hobby Lobby objected to the mandate of supplying drugs such as Plan B and Levonelle since they believe these were a form of abortion.

    The entire issue of entitlements and the war on women is a construct of the media and political pundits. In an election year abortion is too fatiguing on the American public, therefore you need something else to rally both bases in getting those torches and pitchforks raised really high.

  • SoyIsMurder||

    Does this mean we will no longer be forced to pay for Hobby Lobby's employees health care (through tax incentives)? If so, then I have no problems with their childish anti-sex attitudes.

    As long as I am helping them pay for medical care, they should be bound by the separation clause.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You know, soybeans are one of the few food sources that can supply, alone, all of the amino acids needed for healthy neurological development.

  • GILMORE||

    Which may explain the noticeable dearth of higher brain function found in the soy-eschewing community

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Indeed.

  • seguin||

    Not taking is giving.

  • Sevo||

    Up = Down!

  • Rhywun||

    As long as I am helping them pay for medical care

    And... you just discovered the solution that will make this issue go away.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    So long as you are requiring them to pay for any part pf the employee's health care, AND there is freedom of religion in this country, your "right" to make them pay for any part of something they find religiously repugnant is a delusion on your part.

    Of course, we could have avoided this whole mess if we hadn't decided a long time ago that the State had the authority to require people to pay anything but direct fees and taxes.

    This furore amounts to "How DARE anybody express disapproval of OUR sainted opinions and positions"

    Back. The. Fuck. Off.

    You don't want to be made to live like a Protestant Christian Believer, and I don't want to be made to live like an Atheistical Intellectual. Neither of us wants to pay for the other's idiocies, nor should we.

    Please keep in mind at all times that the majority of the Nation self-identifies are Christian, and that the Intellectual Left is famously for Gun Control. You really don't want to establish a precedent whereby those in power are allowed to force their beliefs on others, because you aren't in the majority, and most of you have disarmed yourselves.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    that the majority of the Nation self-identifies are Christian

    That's true, but let's also keep in mind that those American Christians aren't a monolith.

  • robc||

    No group is a monolith.

  • GILMORE||

    That's not entirely accurate

  • Rhywun||

    And it wouldn't matter what The Majority believe if politics weren't deliberately injected into every goddamn aspect of life.

  • Suicidy||

    If it comes down go a fistfight, the left loses because they don't have guns, or almost all the military. Plus the left are total pussies. Never seen a progtard who could actually kick ass.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Happy Independence Day to all fellow libertarians out there.
    Happy Dependence Day to all you Democrats and Republicans out there.

  • Rich||

    Uncle Jay, is that really YOU?!

  • Agammamon||

    These people are scared of the Hobby Lobby decision because its a crack in the long standing tradition of the judiciary allowing the legislature to force one group to provide for another.

    If this stands then people might be questioning why an *employer* should be providing health insurance.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They just can't believe that the Supreme Court actually protected the freedom of religion.

    They've convinced themselves that our rights only exist by way of a popularity contest.

    They think they can vote or legislate our other rights away, as well--especially our Second Amendment rights.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Well, damnit, majority SHOULD rule. The constitution is a LIVING document. That's why we must enforce Prop 8, because... Um, nevermind.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Peru's authorities claim that El Nino peaked last month.

    Temperatures in Peru's Pacific peaked in June, rising 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) above average levels, but have since retreated and will likely return to normal by August, the state committee that studies El Nino said.

    http://www.firstpost.com/world.....LATESTNEWS

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Still wait and see. It can be a late year phenomenon. Let's see how much alarmism the climastrologists can gin up over Arthur.

  • XM||

    Sigh, this is so stupid. If women in America are so afraid of getting pregnant, why not just hold off on sex for a while? That's not being necessarily "puritanical", that's just common sense.

    If you work for Hobby Lobby and you need contraceptives to treat some sort of disease (Endometriosis), then your may provide you with one. They provide 16 of 20 drugs, just not abortion pills. The burger flipping Obama voter won't get anything from the fast food joints.

    Face it, 90% of feminists enraged by this ruling either have no compelling need for contraceptives or is not blocked from getting it themselves. They're just pissed that their ideological opponents (religious right, advocates of limited government, which are the same thing in their view) scored points.

    If the state of Texas mandated every school to provide guns for teachers, and a Quaker raised a religious objections, they would be clapping in approval like trained seals.

  • XM||

    your boss

  • buybuydandavis||

    Wow, I get to agree with SHeldon for a change.

    Must have been what all the fireworks were about.

  • GroundTruth||

    Capitalist!

    Individualist!!

    Libertarian!!!

  • Frozen Costume||

    Where Will the Slippery Slope of 'Hobby Lobby' End?

  • sharonsj||

    You would think that someone writing for a magazine called "Reason" would be able to think logically.... Paying or not paying for someone's transportation to church is not a religious belief.

    Both employer and employee contribute to the cost of health insurance. So why does the employer's religious belief trump the worker's religious belief? Just because the wacky Supreme Court says so? And they state it only applies to contraceptives and not to any other medical treatment--where's the logic to that? There isn't any, because the Supremes are using ideology rather than reason.

    If you think this is a good slippery slope, then what about a bunch of new corporations claiming religious belief allows them to discriminate? Since when are bigots freedom-lovers?

  • sungazer||

    So where are these protesting corporations that have carved out their right to not pay for the percentage of taxes based on the budget for offensive wars? How about the rights of those who share the beliefs of the Missionary Church of Kopimism? I wish I shared your enthusiasm for this ruling, but I fear it is nothing more than sophistry for the privileged few to get a special tax cut.

  • Stevekoby||

    Well said, Sheldon. As an insurance salesman, as a busines owner, and as a religious person, I do not need or want unnecessary government regulation. Thank you.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement