Posted on 07/09/2014 7:20:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Hobby Lobby case has produced some ridiculous hysteria and pronouncements, especially from lawmakers and Obama administration officials, and that may have just produced some significant backfire on their own side of the aisle. The White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill put a lot of effort into pushing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) on behalf of the LGBT community, a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination for a wide range of sexual-orientation categories. It passed the Senate with Republican votes that came after adding a clause that protected religious expression similar to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the statute on which the Hobby Lobby decision rests. At the time, LGBT groups thought this was so terrific that they challenged the House to take up the bill, and Democrats hoped to use the debate to fire up their base in the midterm elections.
After a week of sky-is-falling rhetoric over Hobby Lobby, though, the same LGBT groups that pushed ENDA now have disavowed it on the basis of the Hobby Lobby demagoguery:
Several major gay rights groups withdrew support Tuesday for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would bolster gay and transgender rights in the workplace, saying they fear that broad religious exemptions included in the current bill might compel private companies to begin citing objections similar to those that prevailed in a U.S. Supreme Court case last week.
The gay community is a key constituency and source of campaign donations for Democrats, and calls to rewrite the most significant gay rights legislation considered in recent years is a major setback for the White House, which had used passage of the legislation last fall as a way to draw a contrast with House Republicans, who have refused to vote on the measure.
But the groups said they can no longer back ENDA as currently written in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last week to strike down a key part of President Obama’s health-care law. The court ruled that family-owned businesses do not have to offer their employees contraceptive coverage that conflicts with the owners’ religious beliefs.
Let’s see how many Chicken Littleisms we can pack into a paragraph, shall we?
Rea Carey, the group’s executive director, said in an interview that “If a private company can take its own religious beliefs and say you can’t have access to certain health care, it’s a hop, skip and a jump to an interpretation that a private company could have religious beliefs that LGBT people are not equal or somehow go against their beliefs and therefore fire them. We disagree with that trend. The implications of Hobby Lobby are becoming clear.”
“We do not take this move lightly,” she added. “We’ve been pushing for this bill for 20 years.”
If they’ve been working on this bill for 20 years, maybe they should have studied RFRA and the balancing tests applied to cases such as these. Contra the hysterics, RFRA and similar language does not give anyone carte blanche to violate the law and claim religious expression as the Get Out of Jail Free card. What it does do is require courts to determine whether a regulation or law (a) substantially burdens sincerely held religious belief, (b) serves a compelling state interest, and (c) is the least burdensome method of serving that compelling state interest.
The Hobby Lobby case rested on a finding that (a) was true and (c) was obviously false, since HHS had offered other “accommodations” to other organizations (even though the 5-4 decision did not state that the accommodation actually satisfied (c) either). They never got around to addressing (b) in a definitive manner, but note Carey’s allegation that the court said that “you can’t have access to certain health care.” That’s not at all what the issue was; it was whether Hobby Lobby could be forced to provide contraception when it substantially burdens the religious practice of its owners. There is no limitation on access to contraception as a result of Hobby Lobby, and never was. Furthermore, the Alito decision made clear that this was only in regard to contraception, and not vaccinations or blood transfusions or other “health care,” which gives a hint of what the court thought about (b).
In the case of employment discrimination, though, courts have routinely ruled that government has a compelling interest in ensuring equal treatment regardless of religious beliefs, even those sincerely held. In fact, they have ruled that way even on commerce discrimination, most recently in the case of the bakers and photographers who didn’t want to participate in same-sex weddings. Statutory enforcement such as that in ENDA has been commonly considered the least-burdensome method of addressing that compelling interest. Hobby Lobby didn’t change a single stroke of that precedent. Even if the exemption clause in ENDA is broader than that in RFRA, the overall thrust of the statute and intent of Congress in passing it would still move the LGBT lobby’s goal forward on the ground first, and probably in courts, too — which would still end up having to do the same kind of balancing test that RFRA requires, using existing precedent.
This is a case of hysteria backfire. The White House and Democrats are now left without an easy talking point in the midterms and a way to turn out their base, largely on the basis of their own demagoguery over Hobby Lobby.
HL never said women “couldn’t have” those four contraceptives, they only said they WOULD NOT PAY FOR THEM!
Why would homosexuals need contraception?
The liberals reaction to this case is amazing to me.
You are right, the issue is whether these abortifaceints(sp?) are required to be covered by the health insurance plan, NOT whether such items are available at all. The liberals make it sound as if birth control pills and all birth control are now going to be banned. Which is of course absurd but that’s the liberal line.
I guess lesbians put condoms over their turkey basters. (of course that's absurd....the whole things absurd!!)
Homosexuals don’t need contraception. But they have a vested interest in cutting down any religious exemptions built into our laws or social policies. Reason being, mainstream religions generally do not accept homosexuality, and do not allow homosexual marriage within their religion.
So the homosexual community is worried that this Hobby Lobby case sets a legal precedent of religious freedom which will be used against LGBT peoples at some point.
LGBT, and other groups wit heir panties in a wad, should set up tables outside all Hobby Lobby stores and give away those four contraceptives to the deprived women.
What’s that? You don’t want to have to pay for them? Wow! What a concept!
It’s NOT absurd. You don’t to get any turkey diseases.
Which just shows you the Homonazis intended to use ENDA to destroy religious freedom.
My religion prohibits me from employing buttheads.
This brought back memories of an old British movie with Phil Silvers CARRY ON FOLLOW THAT CAMEL.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061680/
Silvers is in the Foreign Legion and as they attack a desert fort, they find inside, hundreds of boxes of THE PILL!
Silvers says..”What would they need the pill for!”
A squirrely French officer lisps, “I cannot concieve..”
Any other line simply won’t play for them. If they told people what the real issue was, nobody would side with them. So their only option is to lie, because that is more appealing to them than conceding defeat.
A “key part of Obama’s healthcare”? It was never in the law. HHS created it after the fact. There were enough Democrat senators to vote against ACA if it was included.
Yes, their real goal is to use legislation like this as a weapon specifically against religious organizations. They would start with organizations on the fringe, religious-affiliated charities, schools, hospitals, but it would not be long before they tried to sue to get openly homosexual clergy forced on the more conservative denominations.
As mentioned in related threads, please consider the following. With the exception of the federal entities indicated in the Constitution's Clauses 16 & 17 of Section 8 of Article I as examples, entities under the exclusive legislative control of Congress, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate employment issues. The states uniquely have the 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate intrastate employment policy imo.
The effort by the WH to push ENDA is nothing more than corrupt politicians trying to win votes from low-information voters imo, voters who have never been taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
In this case.. to all you LIBERALS out there, "sorry about your luck." /s
They never needed marriage or our endorsement of their sodomite behavior either. They just don’t like the idea of anyone not supporting their sinful behavior, and self-destructive life style.
This is a war upon christian culture and values as much as it is on family and reproduction in general.
It has nothing to do with the many things they needed, and almost universality never honestly wanted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.