Split Decision Fallout

"Frankly, I don’t just want businesses to stay out of the bedroom, I want the government out of the bedroom too."

It has been rather interesting today watching, reading, and listening to the debate following the decision of the Supreme Court in favor of Hobby Lobby. So, what happened? Under Obamacare, companies that pay for insurance for their workers (and decide not to be fined) are required to use plans that include contraception. In the lawsuit, Hobby Lobby (along with other businesses) argued that they should be exempt from the new rule because their owners object to some forms of contraception on religious grounds.

The primary objective was to allow the company to opt out of covering morning after pills and IUD’s totaling 4 of the 20 widely used forms of birth control in this country on the grounds that they believe these measures to be a form of abortion and, therefore, against their religious beliefs. The Oklahoma City-based craft store chain operates 600 stores across the county employing over 15,000 full time employees.

In the end, the court interpreted a 1993 religious-freedom law passed by Congress. In a summary of the decision (the final vote was 5-4), Justice Samuel Alito stated that the aforementioned law gives closely held companies a right to religious freedom. Specifically, Alito concluded, “a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends.”

In the dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the majority was accused of finding in favor of the religious rights of a handful of corporate owners at the expense of “thousands of women” employed by Hobby Lobby and other companies who don’t share those views. To the surprise of no one, the Democrats took this opinion and did their best Forrest Gump impression. Run, Liberals, Run!

Since this decision, all social media streams have been flowing heavily and the party lines seemed to have become bolder since the final decision was reached. From the catchy slogans positioning this as anti-woman to the lies being spread that all forms of contraception are being pulled from the health plans offered by Hobby Lobby, it has been a day of sifting through the garbage and waiting for those brief glimpses of thoughtfulness (from both viewpoints). While the debate still rages as I wrap up this post, and it will certainly continue for the foreseeable future, the verdict has come and gone and individual liberty has won out.

While I am uncertain as to the means they used to reach their decision by expanding the rights of the corporation, I agree with the decision of the court. If it were an outright refusal to cover anything I would hold the opposite opinion. Preventative measures, still supported by hobby lobby, differ from those that are being refused. It is the gray world in which we live and no decision will satisfy everyone. We all make compromises in this country just keep in mind that these products are still available, they are still legal, it is simply a matter of who pays for them.

No one’s rights have been taken away it just takes a bit more effort to exercise those rights… individual rights are the responsibility of the individual. Too many people are expecting things to simply be handed to them. Frankly, I don’t just want businesses to stay out of the bedroom, I want the government out of the bedroom too. And I want the government out of my pocket as, in the end, we are the ones who are paying for these ‘expanded’ benefits whether we want them or agree with them. The government shouldn’t get in the way and/or exercise those rights on your behalf. It is your right, your freedom, your individual liberty, your faith, your responsibility. 

I Think I Agreed With Obama And I Feel Sick!

Yes, I said it. I agree with the President. It occurred a month ago and it felt a little odd, like I was getting sick or passing a stone. I wasn’t sure at the time what to make of the feeling but then I realized that the nauseated feeling churning in the pot of my stomach was caused by me agreeing with one simple statement uttered by Obama at the national prayer breakfast in Washington, DC. During that event he uttered the words "around the world, freedom of religion is under threat."

Obviously, I wasn’t motivated at the time to blog about this strange feeling but certain actions by the Department of Justice have motivated me to finally sit down and write about this one moment when the hell was buried by a blizzard. Actually, it was something I read this week, a local news story that has gone international that served as the catalyst for this post. As was reported at United Press International (UPI), the DOJ is doing wonders for the public school budget in Philadelphia:

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a complaint in U.S. District Court alleging that the School District of Philadelphia’s grooming policy is discriminatory.

The federal lawsuit claims that the policy discriminates against employees who don’t trim their beards because of religious reasons. District rules currently prevent school police and security officers from having beards that are more than a quarter of an inch long.

According to the suit, school police officer Siddiq Abu-Bakr’s Islamic faith requires him to allow his beard to grow. He had allowed his beard to grow uncut for 27 years while working for the district before being informed that he had to trim it via a written reprimand. Abu-Bakr was told continuing to violate the policy would result in “further disciplinary action.”

Abu-Bakr filed a religious discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the matter was referred to the DOJ.

“No employee should be forced to violate his religious beliefs in order to earn a living,” Spencer Lewis Jr., the director of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, said in a statement. “Modifying a dress or grooming code is a reasonable accommodation that enables employees to keep working without posing an undue hardship on the employer.”

While the beard policy is a bit questionable (remember this does apply to religious Jews and Muslims alike) should it really be part of the DOJ’s purview to sue the Philadelphia public schools. Seems more like a waste of time and money, tax payer money. But, in light of my recent revelation, I am moved to support this fight for religious freedom and the expression thereof. While we may not understand many religions it doesn’t mean we should limit them, right? It is a right protected by the first amendment and we know that, as someone who taught constitutional law, the President would do anything to fight for the rights affirmed in the constitution.

Certainly, the DOJ will continue to fight for the religious freedom that we all enjoy and have the full support of this current administration. They would never force someone to do something against their religious beliefs. They would fight for us to make sure those rights are not infringed.

Wait, what’s that? What did you just scream at the screen? Hobby what?  

Oh, that’s right. The DOJ, with the full support of this administration, selectively fights for the religious freedom of the people. Those they don’t agree with they tend to get very angry and judgmental and fight to quash there overly conservative, outdated ideals because if it is not something they believe then it can’t be true and must be suppressed. If that weren’t bad enough, throw in Obamacare and we really have a constitutional CF on our hands. As Ed Whelan write in The National Review:

The pertinent legal question under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause is whether the massive fines that an employer faces for providing an employee health plan that does not comply with the HHS mandate substantially burden the employer’s exercise of religion. As Hobby Lobby spells out (pp. 34-44 of its brief), the answer to that question is clearly “yes” under the Court’s precedents. Indeed, “‘a fine imposed for adherence to religious beliefs is as direct and obvious a burden as one could imagine.” (Brief at 36-37.)… But a victory for Hobby Lobby will not change the fact that the decision whether or not to use embryo-killing drugs or devices will remain entirely with the employees. What it will mean is that employers will not be dragooned to be complicit in conduct that violates their religious consciences.  

Oh, wait, that’s right, Obama doesn’t really care about our rights or the constitution. I am starting to feel much better now. It might have just been gas but I think the origination of the stench was from an external source. All it took was a reminder of how much the President enjoys lying to us all, liberal and conservative alike, as a means to further his own agenda. This is the reason why he picks and choses which amendments to support and which ones he tries to rip from the parchment. And the ones he does ‘support’ only apply to those with whom he agrees.

This is, at the very least, a disturbing stance which has been adopted by both the President and the Department of Justice. We must be vocal in our opposition to such hypocrisy and pay particularly close attention to those who promote ‘ideals’ that are supported by selective adherence to the Constitution! That is our responsibility to ourselves and to our country.