At the Supreme Court: Liberty is affirmed
The U.S. Supreme Court, ruling 5-4 on Monday, effectively held that Americans do not lose their religious rights when they decide to open a family business.
It's a victory for the Hobby Lobby national chain of crafts stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties of East Earl, Pa. They objected to an ObamaCare provision that forced them to provide certain forms of contraception in contravention of their religious beliefs. Key to the narrowly tailored ruling is that it applies only to “closely held corporations.”
“Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) contraceptive mandate is unlawful,” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
In a second ruling, also 5-4, written by Mr. Justice Alito and narrowly tailored, the court held that in-home care workers in Illinois paid by the state are not similar enough to “government employees” to be compelled to pay union dues. Illinois deemed personal assistants to be “state employees” for only one purpose, Alito wrote — “collective bargaining.”
“If we accept Illinois' argument, we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that ... no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support,” a clear First Amendment violation, Alito concluded.
How wonderfully apropos it is that the Supreme Court would affirm such sacrosanct precepts just as Americans begin to celebrate their independence.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.