Freedom of Religion in Business

Right now Hobby Lobby is waiting on a decision from the Supreme Court. The controversial issue right now is whether or not companies can refuse to pay for certain contraceptives based on religious reasons. Hobby Lobby does not wait to pay for two forms of contraceptives, IUDs and morning-after pills, because they see those as abortion.

On Tuesday, the Hobby Lobby lawyer Paul Clement was questioned intensely by the Supreme court. Here are a few of the questions and responses:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: What about employers who have religious objections to health plans that cover other basic medical procedures — blood transfusions, immunizations, medical products that include pork?

Clement: Each would have to be evaluated by the courts to see if it is fully justified and accomplished by the least restrictive means.

Sotomayor is taking Clement’s logic to the extreme, and asking what would happen if a company opposed to something on religious grounds that was considered basic by all. Clement responded that every instance would have to be handled in a case by case manner, weeding out cases that are obviously preposterous from reasonable ones. He applies the same argument moments later when another justice jumped in.

Justice Elena Kagan: Using that reasoning, an employer might have a religious objection to complying with sex discrimination laws, minimum wage laws, family leave laws and child labor laws, to name just a few.

Clement: Just because claims are being brought doesn't mean that they will all win. The courts, he said, can "separate the sheep from the goats."

I think this is a great defense because it shows that Hobby Lobby’s view really is reasonable and down to earth. Yes, they are taking a stance on a controversial issue, but it is not as if their side cannot be defended through logic and reasoning, like the instances Kagan brings up.

Clement continues to do a very solid job defending this viewpoint, and you can continue to read the dialogue here.

I agree with Clement’s claims and I believe that a company needs to have religious freedom like individuals have. Companies are individuals working together, and everything that comes out of a company is from individuals. If a company cannot voice an opinion and exercise the freedom of religion, then we need to take a look at our government is using the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It’s right there in the Constitution. The free exercise of religion is not to be prohibited, plain and simple. Forcing a company to pay for something it has moral issues with because of religious standards it hold itself to is unconstitutional and un-american.