I am of the sincerely held belief that the Roberts court is so full of it that they must like the taste. It is my sincerely held belief that the Wrong Wing has no idea what the phrase "Religious Liberty" means. Not only do they propagate the mistaken notion that we are a Christian nation, some go so far as to say that religious freedom was only intended for Christians. Before getting into how that could possibly work, I would ask, "Which Christians? Do Methodists have a greater claim than Anglicans? Where do the Catholics fall on the spectrum?"
Now, I'm Jewish. Admittedly more ish than Jew. Do I have freedom of religion? I have read the Constitution and Christ is not mentioned. Neither, for that matter, is God. George Washington added the phrase, "so help me God" of his own volition. While it is true that the phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear in there either, the "Establishment clause in the first amendment : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof- effectively builds that wall.
It is my sincerely held belief that I explain below the fold:
The Wrong will argue that the Hobby Lobby case is a victory for religious freedom, it actually was the opposite. Religious freedom, like all of our unalienable rights (I look up "unalienable" every time I cite it), extend exactly to the point before it might infringe on a neighbor and no farther. The Wrong likes to claim to be defenders of religion (as long as it's Christianity) like they claim to defend patriotism, the flag, our soldiers (until it comes time to pay them or care for them).
In 2012, Senator Rick "Google me" Santorum said of John F Kennedy's religion speech in Houston that it made him want to throw up- that a person of faith cannot hold office. Kennedy said the opposite. He said that if he lost the election just due to being a Catholic, that is bad for America. While he did say that if there were ever a conflict between his conscience and his duties as President he would resign, he said that was unlikely to be necessary, as the oaths of office he'd already taken were similar.
Vice President Biden had it right during the debate with Congressman Ryan when he said that as a Catholic he believed as his Church does that life begins at conception, but he does not have the right to impose that belief on the rest of us. That is how separation of church and state works. Your sincerely held beliefs are yours and you are welcome to them without question.
Justice Alito was right when he said we do not question the sincerity of the beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby even though they happily provided the exact same contraception for years before Obamacare, and they are happy to invest in companies that make the very things they find morally objectionable. We do not question the sincerity of the Mormon faith that suddenly decided to ordain black ministers in the 1970's when they were going to lose tax-exempt status.
However, sincerely held beliefs have no business in a court of law. The fact that someone believes a contraceptive is an abortifacient which works by preventing a fertilized egg's implantation is irrelevant when doctors tell us that is NOT how they work. Would you put a witness on a stand who sincerely believed in someone's guilt even though they did not see the crime?
Be that as it may, the only way that the government could have infringed on religious liberty in this case would be if they forced the owners of Hobby Lobby to use the contraceptives. You have a moral objection knock yourself out! You can morally object to your employees using them, but you should not be able to prevent it. It is similar to the cases on college campuses where Christian groups are told that they can not discriminate against gay people who want to join their club. They are NOT infringing on the religious freedom of the Christians who believe homosexual behavior to be sinful. They are protecting the religious freedom of homosexual's who want to associate with other Christians. You are still free to be Christian and not like teh gay!
But the Supreme Court did worse than that. By attempting to assert that this decision is narrow and applies only to the question of contraception, they demonstrated an arrogant misleading understanding of the way our legal system works. If a closely held company can opt out of providing contraceptive coverage due to the owner's sincerely held beliefs, then they can opt out of other things for the same reason. Who are the Supreme Court Justices to decide which sincerely held beliefs are worthy of protection?
The Supremes then compounded their shameful ruling by essentially contradicting it two days later. In Burwell, Hobby Lobby did not have to provide the objectionable contraceptives because the government had created an adequate mechanism for religiously affiliated non-profits. The court then wrote for Wheaton College that that mechanism was inadequate. Wheaton College claimed that signing the paperwork that they were exempt from providing contraception facilitated sin by allowing the insurance company to provide the coverage. I know that the commercials for Christian Mingle talk about God's plan for its members, but don't they also believe in free will?