Another April Rant du Jour. These things are getting far too frequent. But, so many people are concerned about this Hobby Lobby case opening the door to rampant discrimination that I thought a little history lesson was necessary. In the 1980s, the Supreme Court in Smith essentially held that government could trample religious rights so long as it was done through a universally applicable law. The liberal community realized the Smith decision was a very dangerous decision and, specifically, objected to the impact the cascade of universally applicable laws had on Native American religious beliefs and practices. So, the liberal community pressed for adoption of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) during the 1990s. That act allows exemptions to universally applicable laws on religious grounds if the claimant meets a variety of standards under a strict scrutiny test. Today, the liberal community is in a complete panic because their RFRA has opened the door for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wagon to request an exemption from the ACA based on their Christian and Mennonite beliefs against abortifacient forms of contraception. (Seriously, how dare the religious right use a law that was supposed to only be for liberals! Gasp!) For some reason, the liberal community was upset when the pre-RFRA slippery slope allowed government to impede Native American religious beliefs, but they are not the least bit concerned that the same slippery slope is now allowing the ACA to impede Christian or Mennonite religious beliefs. Quite the contrary, they are absolutely livid that HL/CW are relying on THEIR law in this case. There is this ridiculous, and wide-spread, belief that the RFRA will now suddenly open the door to wide-spread discrimination by employers. But, oddly enough, there is no corresponding fear that emasculating the RFRA will open the door to wide-spread religious persecution by the government ... even though history has shown that is exactly what will happen. Frankly, Im far more concerned about religious persecution by the government than I am about corporations shaping their business models around religious principles. Corporations operate on FREE market principles; government doesnt. And, the RFRA standard is pretty rigorous (strict scrutiny) compared to the wimpy pre-RFRA standard (universally applicable). Seriously, pre-RFRA, all the government had to show was that they were screwing over all religious beliefs equally and it was okey-dokey. So, for those worried about the slippery slope of discrimination if HL/CW win their case, let me ask how they see the opposite side of that slope. Seriously, if HL/CW lose this case and effectively take the teeth out of the RFRA, what can we expect next? Legislation that forbids businesses from closing on Sunday? I mean, who wouldnt love some Chick-fil-a on the Sabbath. Legislation that forbids offensive religious artifacts from being displayed in publicly accessed commercial venues? Take that cross off of your religious bookstore wall now! Legislation that forbids offensive religious music from being played in public? Here Comes Peter Cotton Tail totally rocks; who needs fuddy-duddy music like He Has Arisen playing in the park while church members enjoy their annual Easter picnic. Or, how about legislation that requires pork products be included as a healthy part of all school meals? Those Jewish kids just have no idea how important bacon is to life. If you oppose the right of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wagon to not pay for insurance that covers abortifacient contraceptive because they have strong pro-life beliefs, remember you are opening the door for the government to trample all over every single religious belief in this country with zero recourse and zero oversight. The slippery slope goes both ways ... and, it is far more slippery when you give the government the unfettered ability to control religious freedom.
Posted on: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 21:53:46 +0000