There are a lot of differing opinions regarding the Hobby Lobby ruling this week.
The right praises the ruling as a victory for religious freedom and big government Republicans like Rick Santorum is planning on making a movie about the decision. The left is promoting the overused phrase “War on Women,” a contrived Democrat talking point designed to raise more money for the Party.
— Sandra Fluke (@SandraFluke) July 2, 2014
So in a world of lunatic arguments, it’s refreshing to hear some common sense regarding the Hobby Lobby decision.
One of them is from the Objectivist Standard that highlights the inconsistent logic from the SCOTUS’ ruling Monday.
Here is an excerpt from the Objectivist Standard:
“The Court failed to protect the rights of those who may not want to offer the type of insurance in question for rational reasons—such as that insuring such things as birth control is economically senseless or that individuals and businesses have a reason-based right to decide for themselves how they will or will not spend their money.”
Very good point. Why should Christian corporations be the only ones exempt from some of the provisions of Obamacare? Why can’t corporations be exempt based on reason alone?
Here is the statement from the Libertarian Party:
Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com on Instagram.
“It’s strange that liberals and conservatives are making this ruling out to be a huge deal. All the ruling does is remove a very narrow coverage requirement, in very specific cases; 99.9 percent of Obamacare is upheld.
It’s true that closely held corporate entities should not be forced to pay for this particular contraceptive coverage. But focusing on that narrow issue misses the bigger point: No employer should be forced to provide any health coverage at all.
This ruling just draws the line between freedom and regulation arbitrarily. If these employers are free to ignore this particular mandate, why aren’t other employers free to ignore other Obamacare regulations? They should be.
Obamacare is unjust and unconstitutional from top to bottom. No employer should be forced to provide health coverage to its employees, or penalized by government if it doesn’t.
Religion is not the issue. The fact that these employers have religious motives doesn’t matter. Employers have the right to associate freely with their employees, and to come up with any mutually agreeable employment terms, whether their motives are religious, secular, generous, greedy, or whatever.
This ruling is a tiny island in a huge sea of Supreme Court rulings that have supported the federal government’s desire to regulate and control.”