Replies

The Hobby Lobby ruling made no mention of whether or not birth control kills a human being, only that the personal beliefs of the owners of a closely held company were enough to deny insurance coverage for those prescriptions.

True, they couldn't rightly do that without re-opening a huge can of worms, could they?

But surely part of the unspoken context would be that this involves something very important and controversial: if owners of the closely-held company refused to pay for all forms of birth control would the court have reached the same decision?

I was coming at this more from a theological or moral point of view, rather than a legal or political one, though. If you believe something is wrong, is it wrong just for you or wrong for everybody?

My first thought was live-and-let-live, but on reflection, it does look like the stronger your convictions the more likely you are to believe that your belief should apply to everyone, whether or not you want that belief enshrined in law.

Of course, that has nothing to do with what the court ruled actually ruled in the case, but hypothetical questions can get us moving in different and unexpected directions.

“Of course, that has nothing to do with what the court ruled actually ruled in the case, but hypothetical questions can get us moving in different and unexpected directions.”

Which is why the “unspoken context” is a bad way to make law and set precedence. If the only justification for a ruling is a deeply held personal religious belief, the interpretations are vague and arbitrary that will more than likely lead to the courts deciding what religious beliefs are valid.

The morality in question is that of the employer whom Obozo was coercing to PAY for what the employer deems to be immoral behavior. No one, by virtue of the Hobby Lobby decision, is telling the employee that the employee cannot use birth control or abortifacient birth control or even have his/her baby surgically dismembered in utero as inconvenient. If you wanted to do any of those things and I, a total stranger, refuse to pay for your desired procedure because I deem that procedure immoral, just how am I denying you any asserted right to birth control, abortifacient birth control or to have your baby surgically dismembered in utero???? I am not! And, if I were your employer and likewise refused to pay for the cost of your doing any of those things, that would not make any difference whatsoever as to whether you are allowed to do any of those things.

I believe verrrry strongly in your right to keep and bear arms. In fact, it is the law. If I were convinced that you were somewhat less responsible than my comfort level would require, I have every right NOT to go to the local gun shop and buy a Beretta for you, much less pay for it with my own funds. That way, if you stick up a liquor store and shoot the clerk, at least I am not responsible for your behavior. I don't have to lend you my car much less buy one for you, especially if I know you to be a heavy drinker even when driving. And, in a free society, I don't think I need SCOTUS to approve my decision to say no but, during the dictatorship of Obozo, it is a comfort to have the Hobby Lobby decision nonetheless.