The Fundamental and Dangerous Problem with the Hobby Lobby Decision

A disingenuous claim, at best (www.rightspeak.net)

I have two problems with the recent ruling in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. One, as I have already tried to make clear, has to do with the intellectual inconsistency of a few justices, led by Antonin Scalia. When justices are inconsistent or dishonest about their reasoning it undermines the political discourse in this country and leads us further away from effective self-governance.

The real danger of the opinion, however, lies in its subversion of the very foundation of democratic government: the acceptance that sometimes you don't get your way. Claiming a 1st Amendment exemption from health care laws is disingenuous. Denial of health care coverage for birth control is not a religious practice, and it does not even stem from a serious religious belief. Rather, it's an expression of a political preference, and the owners of the big box hobby store are bitter that their side lost the political debate.

If representative government is going to work, everyone needs to accept the fact that he cannot always have things his way. Our Bill of Rights was not constructed to guarantee that we never lose a debate. To water down fundamental rights -- or, rather, to use the word "right" inappropriately -- is to weaken the whole scheme and threaten our ability to function as a political society.