The Hobby Lobby Case: A Misguided Religious Freedom Argument

In the landmark case Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, the corporation was allowed to refuse to provide birth control coverage on religious grounds. This decision has been widely criticized for its flawed logic and implications for religious freedom.

Corporations are Not People

At the heart of the argument is the central premise that a corporation is not a person. Corporations have no personal beliefs or religious convictions. They are legal constructs that serve specific economic and legal purposes. The notion that a business entity can invoke religious freedom is both logically flawed and legally unsupported.

The case of Masterpiece Bakery, where a baker refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding, was similarly controversial. The bakery invoked religious freedom but could not compel the artisans to create the cake against their will. The court should have recognized that the bakery could not force its employees to contribute to a project they found morally objectionable, but instead, it mistakenly extended the concept of religious freedom to the corporation itself. This decision is not only illogical but also sets a dangerous precedent.

The Fallacy of Corporate Personhood

The idea that corporations have religious rights is a misinterpretation of the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom. The First Amendment protects individual freedoms, not corporate entities. The corporation cannot claim religious freedom because it has no conscience or beliefs. Religious freedom is fundamentally an individual right, not an institutional one.

Healthcare: A Private Matter with Public Involvement

Healthcare should remain a private matter with public involvement only for those who are truly needy. Unfortunately, the current healthcare system in the U.S. lacks true free-market principles, leading to skyrocketing costs that are economically unsustainable. The early 1940s saw the imposition of government price controls and wage limits, which were meant to help unions, particularly in the context of World War II. This led to an exception allowing for fringe benefits, including healthcare, to be excluded from price controls.

The progressive move to provide healthcare through employers was a misguided attempt to circumvent price controls. Over time, these "fringe benefits" became a significant cost burden on both employers and employees. Today, the cost of healthcare is a major financial burden, accounting for a disproportionate share of public-employee pay, with private workers facing a significantly higher cost burden at half that rate. This corruption and mismanagement have led to a healthcare system that harms both employers and employees.

Conclusion

The decision in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and the Masterpiece Bakery case highlight the need for a more nuanced understanding of religious freedom. Corporations cannot claim religious freedom because they are not persons with beliefs or consciences. The healthcare system, while crucial, should be reformed to ensure it is affordable and accessible, without the unfair burden currently placed on employers and employees.

It's crucial to reevaluate the role of government in healthcare and ensure that individual freedoms are protected while not burdening corporate entities with excessive religious or moral requirements. The ultimate goal must be to create a healthcare system that respects individual rights and remains economically sustainable for all.