In Theory: What’s your take on the Hobby Lobby decision?

In a controversial decision June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the religious rights of the closely held for-profit Hobby Lobby crafts chain, whose owners objected to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptives mandate. (The court did not apply those rights to publicly held corporations.)

In a Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll conducted in April, Americans backed the contraception mandates of the healthcare law by a 2-to-1 margin. Some of those objecting this week to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 vote in the matter say they’re worried it could have broader implications in healthcare coverage, perhaps encouraging employers, citing religious grounds, to balk at providing their workers access to vaccines or blood transfusions.

We’ve already begun to descend a slippery slope. But it’s not been a descent into special rights for Americans with particular religious convictions. We’ve seen a progressive deterioration and denial of their rights. We’re experiencing growing pressure to put on a nonreligious face in the public square. The Supreme Court’s decision for the Hobby Lobby was an appropriate “putting on the brakes” to slow down this growing discrimination against people of faith.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest stated the President’s position that “the owners of for-profit companies should not be allowed to assert their personal religious views to deny their employees federally mandated benefits” (https://www.politico.com, July 1). But we should understand that by requiring owners of privately held businesses to violate their religious convictions the federal government is violating their right to freedom of religious practice. The government is offering freedom of religion with one hand and trying to take it away with the other.

Though the context was somewhat different, Paul’s exhortation to the Galatian church is appropriate for American business owners of faith: “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1). And if need be, as “Peter and the apostles … said, ‘We must obey God rather than men’” (Acts 5:29).

Pastor Jon Barta
Valley Baptist Church
Burbank

--

I never thought that people’s sex lives should be funded through the public coffers, and neither should employers (of good moral fiber) be expected to support and provide the means to facilitate them. As a Christian, I have no qualms with our God-given human sexuality, but as with anything, there is a time and a place, and there is personal responsibility. If you want to engage in one-night stands, serial fornication, or whatever else, then buy your own condoms and pills and whatnot, and take responsibility for the aftermath of your own decisions. Neither Hobby Lobby, nor any other business should be forced into the business of funding or facilitating abortion, either through surgical means or chemical, whether months after conception or the “morning after.” And standard birth control pills are also abortifacients, which means they equally end a human when it’s conceived. We live in a weird world where it’s legal to do that, kill a conceived child, and it isn’t moral. But in this land of the free, let’s uphold the “free exercise” of our religious citizenry to decline collusion with worldly sin. There are plenty of circumstances where we recognize the culpability of those who through history have simply turned a blind eye saying, “Well, it’s just orders,” or “we just went along.” Hobby Lobby couldn’t do that, and they should be applauded for their stance, and the Supreme Court should be given kudos this once for making a correct judgment in their favor. To those who object and say, “but married people need contraceptives too,” let me suggest they engage in safe-and-sane fireworks (to borrow a phrase from this past Fourth) and obtain them on their own dime and at their own reasonable risk.

“The eyes of the Lord watch over those who do right” (1Pe 3:12 NLT).

The Rev. Bryan Griem
Montrose Community Church
Montrose

--

It remains to be seen whether we are about to go down a slippery slope. I am somewhat disappointed by the high court’s decision, but I am glad that the court also said big companies should not try to keep from paying contraception benefits by waving a “religious” flag. Our country is so diverse, and there are many voices on all sides of issues. Also, it has been said before that the law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. And the 5-4 decision points out exactly how divided our country is on some religious issues.

Again, although I am disappointed at the decision, the ruling is not a blanket fiat for right-wingers to do whatever they want and trample over the issue of the separation of church and state. And here is a novel idea: Stop electing right-leaning Presidents, because those leaning in that direction will appoint justices who lean to the right, also. Please save Roe vs. Wade and vote Democratic in the next presidential election!

The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge

--

The Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby decision has moved us farther down the slippery slope, and ahead is deeper erosion of the separation of church and state. Future bone-headed decisions will be based on it, no matter that only a bare majority of 5 to 4 justices agreed.

Justice Alito pooh-poohs the threat to other medications and medical procedures, and he denies the sweep of his ruling beyond family-owned businesses, as if that weren’t bad enough. Both are pretenses and he knows better. After all, Citizens United is based in part on a tiny footnote in an otherwise unrelated Supreme Court ruling on corporations.

Let us be clear that the true concerns of the plaintiffs in this case are money and abortion.

They could drop employee health coverage and be fined significantly less than they currently pay for insurance each year. But it would be an unwise business decision requiring huge pay increases to attract workers willing to forego health benefits.

They accept providing coverage which includes numerous forms of birth control, while wrongly claiming that IUDs and emergency (“Plan B,” and “morning-after”) contraceptives are abortifacients. Medical experts say otherwise.

The Bible is silent on birth control and abortion. Even so, many Christians believe in a right to life that isn’t merely being antichoice — one that is truly and consistently compassionate. Not killing means supporting all that is needed to nurture life, including though not limited to food, shelter, healthcare and education.

Conservative ideologues and the Supreme Court justices doing their bidding believe that right to life begins at conception and ends at birth. The right they worship above all others is to profit, with no regard for science, common sense and the welfare of the rest of us.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

--

The recent Supreme Court decision goes to the heart of the 1st Amendment’s section referred to as ‘separation of church and state.’ Let’s look at the text: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Supreme Court’s ruling respected the family owners of Hobby Lobby’s belief that abortion and other forms of birth control violated the “free exercise” of their religion. In the 1st Amendment sense, the Supreme Court is correct in its ruling. Regarding whether this begins a slippery slope for the Supreme Court vis à vis other employers limiting the healthcare benefits of workers based upon the employers’ religious belief, I believe it does. The important question for me is whether the religious rights of an individual interfere with the well being of the country. So I have a compromise. Its source is also found in our Constitution. The Constitution’s Preamble states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to… promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The Federal Courts must decide which allows “free exercise” and which prohibits “general welfare.” For example, not vaccinating children or adults can endanger them and the general population. Having or not having children is a choice, providing (for) domestic Tranquility (less disease, less trauma), the general Welfare (well citizens are healthy citizens), and (continuing the) Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, is not. It is our responsibility. That is the difference!

Rabbi Mark Sobel
Temple Beth Emet
Burbank

--

The LDS church supported Hobby Lobby’s case by filing an “amicus,” or friendly, legal brief to the Supreme Court. After the ruling was announced, a church spokeswoman called the decision “a milestone event in upholding religious freedom,” according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

Hobby Lobby balked at including contraception in its health coverage because the owners believed that some methods allowed by the Affordable Care Act amount to abortion. In the eyes of the company’s owners, the law would have required them to act in a manner that was contrary to their beliefs.

This, I believe, gets to the heart of the LDS church’s decision to support the company. As the church points out on its website, the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom includes the right to “act according to one’s moral beliefs and convictions.”

“More than the freedom to worship privately, it is the right to live one’s faith freely and in public,” the statement says.

Logically, this also includes the right to refrain from actions that violate one’s convictions. Had the contraception mandate been allowed to stand, it may have opened the door to additional restrictions on religious freedom.

The LDS church doesn’t oppose the use of contraceptives. It is considered a private matter for couples to decide. However, LDS leaders have for some time expressed concern over legal and cultural intrusions on the free and open exercise of religion, both in the U.S. and abroad. The court’s ruling at the very least reinforces the concept that certain religious beliefs must be respected under the law.

Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta