Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 5)

Q::Could it be argued that Hobby Lobby is asking for the freedom to impose it's own religious agenda over that of it's employees?

Lynn seemed a bit hesitant and unclear in his answer but talks of how it is the "the guy who runs the company" whose "religious views are being foisted on ALL of his employees."  Lynn demonstrates this point by pointing out that if one were to take a "poll of their employees, like the rest of the public, 9 of 10 women will have used contraception."  [This next statement a bit unclear and I'm not sure what Lynn is inferring.  Is he referring to actual printed company policy or some type of board of directorship?]  "I wouldn't say that companies have any of these positions themselves, but in this case the president of the company does.  The president of the company is the one who rules in these employee policies IF the SCOTUS buys this bogus argument."

Q::The RFRA says that the exception is when there is a legitimate State interest.  If the anti-Hobby Lobby side is going to prevail, what State interest are they going to articulate in terms of what they are defending?

Lynn characterizes the HL position as such, "They are going to say there is no legitimate State interest here because insurance coverage for contraception is not that big of deal.  You can go out and buy a box of condoms and it only costs a few dollars." [Pondering, will Viagra be cover under the ACA? If so, are they fighting against that?]

"The administration, and those of us that support it with 'friends of the court briefs,' will argue that there is a legitimate State interest in creating a healthcare system that works; and that it works for men and women, the rich and poor.  This is an effort to have a comprehensive system of healthcare in America; at least the beginnings of a comprehensive system.  That's the argument we will use and I think it is a very good one."

Lynn talks of the similarities of this case to the Amish in regards to Social Security law.

"The Amish, who have filed a number of very important lawsuits,,,have claimed that they should not only be exempt from Social Security themselves,,,but they have also said, we don't want to take social security out of our non-Amish employees who work for Amish companies.  The SCOTUS soundly rejected that idea over 20 years ago." [I believe Lynn may have misspoke here in regards to Amish employees as the case United States v. Lee (1982) dealt with an Amish employer, employing other Amish but failed to withhold social security taxes from his employees or to pay the employer's share of such taxes.  Unless there is another case I am not aware of.]

"It is very similar in some ways to the challenge HLs making and it's certainly going to be a case the HL side will need to distinguish itself from if it thinks it's going to get 5 votes, even with this conservative SCOTUS."