Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 9)

Q::  Is there an distinction between freedom of religious expression (things we normally think about in terms of having rituals and choosing which god to pray to or don't pray to) versus what Hobby Lobby seems to be saying:  that their religious freedoms involve never doing anything that is against the tenets of their religion.  Is there a conceptual divide between those two kinds of things?

I think they (HL) and these companies, as well as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, have done a very effective job of confusing a lot of Americans in the middle of the SOCAS issues over the past year or so.  What they have argued is that religious liberty can only be protected as corporate entities, including big hospitals or, in these cases, for profit companies can exercise something that is previously unrecognized in law, that is CORPORATE RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  Now we do know the CHURCHES have some rights, all corporations have some rights.  We don't eliminate their ability to do things without utilizing "due process of law." It's the same constitutional standard that we use in so many cases.

But I honestly don't think that in this case you could make a credible argument that this is about religious liberty.  This is about whether a religious organization, or in the case a for profit organization, whose boss happens to be very religious can supersede the conscience claims of employees, of third parties.

Does this have an adverse effect on third party?  Of course, because the contraceptives they're talking about are not even used merely for birth control.  (Although I don't think this will be the turning point of the case either.)  But we do know many women take some of these same drugs for other purposes and they are unrelated to family planning or birth control.  So this is such a sweeping claim, "we won't do it, we won't cover these drugs" that it does have an impact on the health of women generally, even if they're not using it for family planning.

So they're making a lot of extraordinarily broad arguments and this is only remembered, as you mentioned earlier, in the medical arena when it comes to other laws they don't like. Whether they are pay equity based on the fact that they think man should be the head of the household therefore women don't need to be paid as much as men.  Or whether they make arguments that the civil rights laws shouldn't apply to them because they feel more comfortable with people just like themselves.  I think we have heard that argument throughout the history of race relations and gender relations in this country.  There are always groups that say, sadly often religious groups, that say, "well, we think black and white should eat in different places because we feel more comfortable that way.  And they might also footnote and "we can find some way that the Bible could be contorted to support our view."