Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Hobby Lobby ruling is a slippery slope

Isn’t the cloak for the freedom of religion and separation of state lost when a religious group or individuals or a family starts a for-profit business? It’s only for nonprofit organizations such as a church. If they want to start a business, they must follow another set of laws and lose their religious protection. In fact, 99 percent of the people who run Hobby Lobby aren’t part of the owners and their beliefs. If we follow this logic through, aren’t all of the employees’ religious rights as important? Can’t all of the employees now sue the government if their religious rights are being violated at work?

Let’s say Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in medical treatments, only prayer for the sick. If they started a business, (“a closely held corporation” that qualifies under the new law), why couldn’t they sue to not give any medical benefits at all to their employees? They couldn’t get in trouble if they didn’t call an ambulance or gave medical treatment when an employee got hurt at work! Talk about the proverbial slippery slope! OK, say a Muslim family started Lobby Hobby; their religion doesn’t let women talk in public; now, the Supreme Court must rule in favor of these religious owners and bar women from speaking at work. Don’t give that limited ruling argument.

The Supreme Court knew this was a messed-up slippery-slope case when they tried to make this a limited ruling. There is no such thing as a limited ruling since America is founded on “Justice for all.” So this sets a huge precedent because all new court cases always use older court cases as a tried and true way to win a new case. Plus, the Supreme Court cases hold the most value/weight that overrules any lower-court decisions. Also, just like the employees, why can’t bigger companies argue this limitation to do the same thing? Is Hobby Lobby an island onto themselves?

Walter Cobler

Bayfield



Reader Comments