Hobby Lobby decision extends dangerous precedent

Bigotry disguised as "Religious Liberty" is still bigotry!
Sign displayed at the Supreme Court this morning when the Hobby Lobby decision was announced* (Image: ThinkProgress)

The Supreme Court’s decision this morning saying Hobby Lobby does not have to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees because doing so violates the owners’ religious beliefs came as no surprise. After its Citizens United ruling that corporations are essentially people, this one was a foregone conclusion.

I won’t repeat all the well-known pro and con arguments in this case. But I do want to pass along one compelling observation I came across this morning in a Think Progress story entitled “Why Today’s Hobby Lobby Decision Actually Hurts People Of Faith.” It quotes David Gushee, an evangelical Christian professor:

“One way to look at it is this: The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability,” he writes. “Therefore, Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.“

Indeed it does. And yet with both Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court has done exactly that — allowed corporations to have it both ways.

Brace yourself for many more corporations wanting to have it both ways.

Image: ThinkProgress


*Note how far from the building the demonstrators are standing. In an infuriating bit of irony, the court imposes a protective buffer zone in front of its own building, a protection it was unwilling to afford the women of Massachusetts.


And in case you missed it:

Hobby Lobby awash in hypocrisy



22 thoughts on “Hobby Lobby decision extends dangerous precedent

    1. They’ve made some terrible, terrible decisions. Rolling back the clock on women’s rights, one step at a time. Empowering corporations and corrupting our election system. And now establishing the dangerous precedent that for-profit corporations have religious rights.

  1. Customers are more powerful than the Supreme Court, or even the constitutional rights of individually and corporately owned businesses.

    You (we) have he power to implement whatever the majority of us (customers) think is just.

      1. I agree. Vote with the wallet. If you don’t like their policies, don’t work or shop there. That’s your right, too…so far…these days, who knows what’s next.
        Not pleased about the “protective buffer zone” – signals something’s going wrong

        1. It infuriates me. The court can have a buffer zone to protect itself from harassment (or worse) by protesters, but it won’t accord clinic patients the same protection!? What hypocrisy!

          1. As noted elsewhere, these 5 justices are (a) male, (b) Catholic, and (c) Republican appointees. That’s all the explanation I need.

  2. It’s been a while since Hobby Lobby got any of my money, and this is one of the reasons. For all the far-right’s cries of activist judges, it seems that they’re getting just about all they want from the Supreme Court lately. This is just sad.

    1. I decided a long time ago that an activist judge is any judge who makes a decision you don’t like. Today that means there are five activist judges on the court, all appointed by Republicans.

  3. The merit, or lack thereof, of the contraceptive coverage requirement aside, I think the grounds given for the way the court ruled are just ridiculous. Once again, hypocrisy has ruled the day, and, once again, I hope EVERY voter remembers…

    1. In this particular case I’m not nearly as concerned about the contraceptives as I am about a company getting away with claiming they have a religious freedom that needs to be protected. The court is once again making people out of companies. If the Greens have a problem with contraceptives, they don’t have to use them. Their for-profit company, however, is a company, not a person.

    1. Yeah, that link at the end of my post talks about the Mother Jones report on Hobby Lobby investments. You’re wise to run away, though, before I start throwing things again.

... and that's my two cents