Will the Owners of Hobby Lobby Have to Check Their Faith at Their Own Door?


There is a big difference between life saving emergency treatment such as blood transfusions and coverage for completely optional things such as contraceptive.

I had to get authorization from my DH to pick up his prescriptions from the pharmacy, but my employer could see all of my medical records because the company paid for my treatments.

That must have been many years ago. Employers can’t even get medical information to verify sick leave thanks to privacy laws now. They can’t see your medical records. The most they can see is a utilization report and that’s only if they are self insured.

And I know of more than one instance in which a career was destroyed because the employee was diagnosed with a serious medical condition.

Also not legal since the FMLA was passed decades ago.

Why should the quality of your medical coverage and treatment be dependent on where you work?

What should it be dependent upon? Employers have a strong incentive to provide high quality insurance in order to attract good workers. What would be the incentive for someone else (not your employer) to provide better-than-average coverage?

Yes, employers have an interest in keeping having healthy employee, but the state has a much greater one in having healthy citizens

But how would a person get better coverage? This is one of the criticisms levied at Obama-care in it’s more aggressive incarnations. If government is in charge of all third party payments, the health coverage that would be available would be a lower quality of coverage than most people can get through their employers now. The only people who could get better coverage would be those who can pay out of pocket (the rich). I don’t see that as an improvement over a system where a person can get better coverage by getting a different job.


Access also doesn’t mean the same thing as insurance. I don’t have insurance, yet I have access to healthcare (and the bills to prove it.)


I’m hoping the courts do not rule in favor of religious groups; I think overturning the law could have and would have been used for mass discrimination against people based on one’s religious views and would set the countries civil rights back 60 years. It would open up a can of worms.


Religious Liberty, Blood Transfusions, Cigarettes and Contraception


Majority of #SCOTUS justices appear likely to rule firms have right to religious claims, but ruling on merits unclear #breaking


Supreme Court signals support for corporate religious claims


First of all, the USSC isn’t considering overturning any law. It’s ruling on an administrative provision that is part of the implementation. Law would imply that this was something voted upon, at least by legislators, which is wasn’t.

But how would this law result in religious discrimination? Is there some religion that I am unaware of that holds that contraception is mandated and that paying for your own contraception would be against their religious beliefs? Because that is the only thing that happens if companies get an exception from the mandate - some people who want to use contraception might have to pay for it themselves.


That’s kind of what I gathered reading the transcript. Poor Verrilli got hammered. Kagan & Sotomayor started off pretty hard on Clement, but even they kind of backed off. I’ll be curious on which side each of them lands.

I keep seeing expectations of a 5-4 vote with Kennedy being a swing. But, I’m seeing more of a 6-3 or even 7-2 if Kennedy sides with Hobby Lobby. Who am I missing in this equation?

Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas & Breyer vs Ginsberg, Sotomayor & Kagan with Kennedy undecided. Who is the 4th on the govt side?




Breyer is hard to read on this case.


It isn’t a law. It was an interpretation of a law and an administrative ruling by an Executive Agency. The court can rule in favor of the plaintiffs without overturning any laws. In fact, it would be expanding the enforcement of a law.


Not surprising, though, as we’ve seen before, the questions the Justices ask sometimes reveal very little about how they will vote. I do see this vote coming down to a 5-4 or 6-3 majority decision either way. And, I believe that, if Hobby Lobby wins the lawsuit, it will be in a narrower decision, proclaiming that “privately owned” companies owned by one person or a small group of people (like a partnership or family) have religious rights, but publicly held corporations do not - because in a publicly owned corporation, the owners are many and have divergent religious views, many of which conflict with each other.


If the HHS Mandate is upheld then you can pretty much say goodbye to Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, and numerous other Catholic businesses because the fines will put them out of business. You could also say goodbye to religious freedom here in the United States if this disgusting mandate is upheld.




I was thinking he usually goes left, but I don’t believe he asked a single question of Clement and his questioning seemed more critical than supportive, but you could be right.


Agree. I think Hobby Lobby will lose this case. Both Kagan and Sotomayor brought up good points. Hobby Lobby has a third option; they could choose not to provide insurance at all and pay the tax instead. As the Justices pointed out, it would even be cheaper than providing insurance in the first place.


Justice Kennedy commented today asking why congress would let an agency determine the limits of the 1st amendment. He said it should be congress that does that.

He’s right, the first amendment should not be defined by Kathleen Sebelius. I think the HHS Mandate will get shot down, and the issue will be sent back to congress. Given Obama will never get such a provision through this congress or the next one after November, I’m optimistic the HHS mandate will be a thing of the past.


Just because the collective religious views of the owners of a public corporation might be divergent doesn’t make it ok to force a portion of those owners to participate in something they are religiously opposed to.

“This new law will force half of the owners of this corporation to participate in something their religion forbids!”

“Ah, that’s ok. It doesn’t violate the religion of the other half, so we’re good.”

“Oh, yeah, that makes sense. Where do I sign?”

I mean, really?


I think Roberts hinted at what a decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would look like. It would be a ruling that is narrow in scope and defending privately held and closely held (Chapter S) corporations.


That’s how democracy works.


When he did ask a question he seemed to start off trying to suggest arguments to strengthen the government’s case.

I guess we will know in June.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.