This post on a news site makes a good point and I agree
"I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court sees through what a terrible precedent it would be to go along with Hobby Lobby.
First of all it would essentially say that a business can be a law unto themselves by deciding that the business has certain 'religious beliefs' and thus can ignore any rule it wishes without consequence. This is something that has never been allowed for persons much less something that a business can simply decide.
Next it would completely undermine religious nondiscrimination laws, which generally say that you must have a workplace accommodating to people of all faiths. But this opens up a route for the Business to use its 'Religious Beliefs' to make a workplace unaccepting of anybody who does not share those beliefs. What would be next? No non-kosher food in the lunchroom because the business is 'jewish' no coverage of blood transfusions because the business is 'LDS' no coverage of vaccinations because the business is 'conservative Islam' and so forth. The full list of various common medical procedures prohibited by one religion or another is quite long.
Finally there is the undermining of Griswold v. Connecticut. This is an extremely important ruling that said that because of a fundamental right to privacy in sexual relationships the government could not be making birth control illegal. The presumed right to privacy in sexual relationships has been the foundation of pretty much every sexual rights case since... Einstadt v. Baird, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas...but if the court decides that companies can micromanage the birth control practices of their employees over moral concerns then the privacy rights of Griswold get shredded and the avenue of support of all the rest gets undermined."
"I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court sees through what a terrible precedent it would be to go along with Hobby Lobby.
First of all it would essentially say that a business can be a law unto themselves by deciding that the business has certain 'religious beliefs' and thus can ignore any rule it wishes without consequence. This is something that has never been allowed for persons much less something that a business can simply decide.
Next it would completely undermine religious nondiscrimination laws, which generally say that you must have a workplace accommodating to people of all faiths. But this opens up a route for the Business to use its 'Religious Beliefs' to make a workplace unaccepting of anybody who does not share those beliefs. What would be next? No non-kosher food in the lunchroom because the business is 'jewish' no coverage of blood transfusions because the business is 'LDS' no coverage of vaccinations because the business is 'conservative Islam' and so forth. The full list of various common medical procedures prohibited by one religion or another is quite long.
Finally there is the undermining of Griswold v. Connecticut. This is an extremely important ruling that said that because of a fundamental right to privacy in sexual relationships the government could not be making birth control illegal. The presumed right to privacy in sexual relationships has been the foundation of pretty much every sexual rights case since... Einstadt v. Baird, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas...but if the court decides that companies can micromanage the birth control practices of their employees over moral concerns then the privacy rights of Griswold get shredded and the avenue of support of all the rest gets undermined."
Facebook
Twitter