Hobby Lobby editorial #2

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg trolls Scalia in blistering dissent of Hobby Lobby ruling (Click here to read more)

By Travis Gettys
Monday, June 30, 2014 12:57 EDT
.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said the ruling on the Hobby Lobby case was based on a misreading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and would likely open the door to a host of unintended consequences.
.

"Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate, for the Court's expansive notion of corporate personhood - combined with its other errors in construing RFRA - invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith," she wrote.

.
The court ruled 5-4 Monday that the government cannot compel closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage for its employees.
.
In a scathing, 35-page dissent, Ginsberg concluded that the contraception mandate did not impose a substantial burden on Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood Specialties - and therefore did not violate the RFRA.
.
She said the Affordable Care Act required employers to direct money into undifferentiated funds to pay for a wide variety of benefits under comprehensive health plans, and Ginsberg said employees were not obligated to use contraception coverage.
.

"Even if one were to conclude that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga meet the substantial burden requirement, the Government has shown that the contraceptive coverage for which the ACA provides furthers compelling interests in public health and women's well being," Ginsberg wrote. "Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence."

.
While the court has recognized First Amendment protections for churches and other nonprofit religion-based organizations, Ginsberg noted that no previous court decisions had ever recognized a for-profit corporation's qualification for religious exemption from any laws.
.

"The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities," she wrote.

.
She said religious organizations exist to foster the interests of people who believe in the same faith principles, but that's not the case among for-profit corporations - and she said that distinction had been clear for centuries prior to the establishment of the Internal Revenue Service.
.

"Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community," Ginsberg pointed out. "Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations."

.
Although previous rulings required employers to accommodate employees' religious exercise, Ginsberg noted, those accommodations could not come at the expense of other workers.
.
"The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court's attention," she said. "One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight."
[...]