Does the Hobby Lobby Decision Threaten Gay Rights?
How Hobby Lobby Split the Left and Set Back Gay Rights - The Atlantic
At first glance, the Hobby Lobby case seems slightly ludicrous: on grounds of tender conscience, the crafting retailer refuses to include certain contraceptive methods on employee health insurance plans mandated by the Affordable Care Act ACA. Most of us would not intuitively feel that a for-profit corporation has a right of religious expression that would exempt it from a generally applicable law. But it is the nature of First Amendment cases to take rights that are intuitively necessary in counterintuitive and slightly absurd directions. The Supreme Court has elevated that tendency to a fine art, and it does not seem likely to stop now: it will hear Hobby Lobby alongside a very similar case, Conestoga Wood. The precedents point in two directions, for and against the corporations, and are worth exploring.
In the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court, law is not ethics
Hobby Lobby is unique among retail outlets or, in fact, businesses of any kind. As Green explains his views on company ownership, "If I have anything, it's because it's been given So I have learned to say, 'Look, this is yours, God.
The regulations in question require employers with 50 or more employees to provide medical insurance coverage for 20 specific methods of birth control approved of by the Food and Drug Administration. The Supreme Court addressed the differing opinions of the lower courts to resolve the question and issued an opinion which was in itself divided. The primary issue in the Hobby Lobby opinion is whether or not a closely-held, for-profit corporation should be entitled to the same exemption from the ACA regulations as other organizations who are exempt. Currently, religious employers such as Churches are exempt, and so are certain other religious nonprofit organizations who object to providing coverage for contraceptive services on religious grounds.