Hobby Lobby Update

Hobby Lobby’s application was handled by Justice Sotomayor who denied their request. By appealing directly from a district court to the Supreme Court with a request that the SCOTUS stop implementation of federal law, Hobby Lobby’s application was a long shot. Among the criteria Hobby Lobby had to meet was establishing that their right to relief is “indisputably clear.” It is far from that.

The Drudgereport includes a hyperlink for Justice Sotomayor upholds free ‘morning-after’ pills under Obamacare, a misleading description. Instead, she ruled on an unusual application that was subject to meeting particular requirements, and the substance of the religious objection to supplying insurance for “morning after” pills was never addressed.

Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby intends to defy the mandate.

Advertisements

8 Comments

Filed under Courts, Religious rights

8 responses to “Hobby Lobby Update

  1. Jenny

    As a Christian who’s a HL employee, I’m grateful for HL’s stand against the federal company and believe this whole matter is evidence that our country is fundamentally changed by Obama/Obamacare. I am astounded at my co-workers who seem clueless about the fallout from their voting for Obama. One of them (who insisted Paul Ryan was such a creep he must have bodies buried in his basement) said, “I don’t know enough about Obamacare to have an opinion.” One of my managers said how glad he was Obama had been re-elected because he was going to solve the fiscal cliff and wondered if going over the cliff would cost $500 billion or $500 trillion! My other manager seems to know health insurance is in jeopardy at HL and that the Green family won’t pay for abortions, but he and I seem to be the only people who are aware of what’s going on, and I’m only part-time and don’t have health insurance.

    • Richard, the Illinois construction company also had a plan that covered what they now oppose. Here was the court’s reaction: “it is well‐established that a religious believer does not, by inadvertent nonobservance, forfeit or diminish his free‐exercise rights. See Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2012) (“a sincere religious believer doesn’t forfeit his religious rights merely because he is not scrupulous in his observance”).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s