The Hobby Lobby case is all about power, not religious liberty

[rug]

This is another skirmish in the battle to define morality

?200

A protestor for Americans United stands outside the Supreme Court. (Facebook.com/AmericansUnited)

By Elizabeth Stoker | 11:07am ET

Last week, arguments closed in the Supreme Court case Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., but the debate over the legitimacy of the case has raged hotly since. While Hobby Lobby argues that it should be exempt from portion of ObamaCare due to its owners' Christian beliefs, what is at stake here isn't freedom of religion. It's about power.

At issue for Hobby Lobby, a business run by conservative Protestant Christians, are the portions of the Affordable Care Act that would require it to provide insurance coverage that includes forms of abortifacient birth control, i.e. birth control that can end extremely early term pregnancies. Hobby Lobby's core argument is that by paying for insurance that provides such coverage, it would thus be morally responsible on some level for procedures, medications, and/or devices it objects to, which would violate the owners' religious beliefs.

Yet it's not so cut and dry.

Let's breakdown the process by which Hobby Lobby "pays" for birth control: Under the Affordable Care Act, Hobby Lobby is required to pay money to an insurance company in exchange for insurance coverage for its employees. A Hobby Lobby employee could then go to her pharmacy and request one of the contested forms of contraception, which would then be paid for by the insurance company hired by Hobby Lobby. By the judgment of the owners of Hobby Lobby, this would mean that its own money would be channeled toward the purchase of potentially abortifacient materials.

http://theweek.com/article/index/259042/the-hobby-lobby-case-is-all-about-power-not-religious-liberty

[C_U_L8R]

1. Like most republiclowns

they just want to tell other people what they can and cannot do.

And for that they get a big friggin' freedom finger from me.