Crying Wolf on Religious Liberty

Hobby Lobby fights government mandate to give employees access to birth control coverage on religious grounds, yet makes millions on products primarily from China where 7 million abortions and forced contraceptive surgeries a year take place

As noted in a number of posts I find nothing more disingenuous - OK, how about outright dishonest - than the claims of the Christofascists that they are being persecuted.  Right up there are the claims of the owners of Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts-and-crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinetmaker, who are claiming that being required to offer employee healthcare plans with contraception coverage is trampling on their "religious freedom."  As is ALWAYS the case with these people, the real issue is that the perceive anything that impedes their ability to inflict their religious beliefs on others as "persecution" and infringements of "religious liberty."  The reality is that unless they are free to trample unimpeded on the rights and beliefs of others, they will claim they are the victims even though they are the ones victimizing others.  It is the reason I hold these types of people in such utter contempt. The New York Times slams these people in a mian editorial.  Here are excerpts:

This week, the owners of two secular, for-profit corporations will ask the Supreme Court to take a radical turn and allow them to impose their religious views on their employees — by refusing to permit them contraceptive coverage as required under the Affordable Care Act.

The Supreme Court has consistently resisted claims for religious exemptions from laws that are neutral and apply broadly when the exemptions would significantly harm other people, as this one would. To approve it would flout the First Amendment, which forbids government from favoring one religion over another — or over nonbelievers.

The showdown will take place Tuesday when the Supreme Court hears arguments on two consolidated challenges to the Affordable Care Act. The owners of Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts-and-crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinetmaker, want to be exempted from the sound requirement that employer health plans cover without a co-payment all birth control methods and services approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

These companies are not religious organizations, nor are they affiliated with religious organizations. But the owners say they are victims of an assault on religious liberty because they personally disapprove of certain contraceptives. They are wrong, and the Supreme Court’s task is to issue a decisive ruling saying so. The real threat to religious liberty comes from the owners trying to impose their religious beliefs on thousands of employees.

 
There are several reasons why the court should find that the law does not apply, starting with the fact that secular, for-profit corporations are not “persons” capable of prayer or other religious behavior, which is a quintessentially human activity. Also, as an amicus brief filed by corporate law scholars persuasively argues, granting the religious exemption to the owners would mean allowing shareholders to pass their religious values to the corporation. The fundamental principle of corporate law is a corporation’s existence as a legal entity with rights and obligations separate from those of its shareholders.

The claim that the contraception coverage rules put a “substantial burden” on religious exercise is very weak. The companies’ owners remain free to worship as they choose and to argue (incorrectly) as much as they want that some of the contraceptive drugs and devices on the F.D.A.’s list actually induce abortions. If an employee decides to use an insurance plan for such contraceptives, that would be a personal decision. It does not burden religious exercise.

[E]mployers are not actually required to offer employee health plans. They could instead pay a tax to help support the government subsidies that are available to those using a health insurance exchange.Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government plainly has a “compelling” interest in reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, and in furthering women’s health and equality. 

If there is a Supreme Court decision in favor of these businesses, the ripple effect could be enormous. One immediate result would be to encourage other companies to seek exemptions from other health care needs, like blood transfusions, psychiatric care, vaccinations or anesthesia. It could also encourage toxic measures like the one vetoed last month by Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona that would have given businesses and individuals a broad right to deny services to same-sex couples in the name of religion. The Supreme Court cannot go there.

Bottom line: the owners of these corporations want special rights - which is what we see the Christofascists demanding over and over again.  The Supreme court needs to respond with a resounding "No" and drive a wooden stake through the heart of this line of dishonest claims of "religious freedom."