Supreme Court: Collision of rights?

Washingtonpost.com:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday prepared to hear a second challenge to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, this time to decide whether employers must provide their workers with insurance coverage for contraceptives even if the owners say it would violate their religious principles.

What is likely to be the signature ruling of the court’s term presents the justices with complicated questions about religious freedom and equality for female workers. It could have long-term implications for what other legal requirements companies could decline because of religious convictions. And it asks a question the court has never confronted: whether the Constitution or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that protects an individual’s exercise of religion extends to secular, for-profit corporations and their owners.

The 1993 religious-freedom law prohibits the federal government from imposing a “substantial burden” on a person’s exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling governmental interest” and the measure is the least-restrictive means of achieving the interest.

The challengers in the cases before the court Tuesday are family-owned businesses that told the court in briefs that the law requires them “to do precisely what their religion forbids them or face draconian consequences — including millions in fines, private lawsuits and government enforcement actions.”

The Obama administration responded in its briefs that the challengers could not point to “a single case in this nation’s history” that exempted a corporation from a neutral law that regulated commercial activites.

It contends that the RFRA was intended to protect individuals, not corporations, but that even if corporations are covered, there is no substantial burden on the company’s owners. It is the companies, not the owners, who provide the insurance, the government contends, and it is the employees, not the owners, who decide what services they will use.

The court is considering two cases that raise the same issue.

One was brought by the owners of Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts chain that founder  David Green said is run on biblical principles. Hobby Lobby has grown from a single store opened in Oklahoma City in 1972 to more than 500 stores nationally and a workforce of 13,000 people of all faiths. In its brief, the company said it shows its religious foundation by actions such as closing on Sundays and refusing to sell shot glasses.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver found Hobby Lobby’s argument that it was covered by the RFRA convincing.

Shot glasses and closing on Sunday are employer choices.  Using contraception is a personal employee choice.  It just isn’t something your boss should get to decide. Now, if your boss thinks contraception violates his or her rights, then they shouldn’t be using it.  That has nothing to do with you.  Could they deny you a blood transfusion in your coverage?  What if they were opposed to sex?  Could they deny you AIDs testing?  How about vegan bosses?   Could you be denied coverage for any disease thought to be related to eating animals or red meat?

The world is full of unintended consequences.  This statement is particularly true when dealing with the courts.  I have zero sympathy for those who oppose others using contraception.   If you deal with the public and have 13,000 employees, suck it up Buttercup.  Pay for full coverage.  Don’t violate the rights of women and the rights of employees.

Once again, I  cannot believe that in the year 2014, we are still discussing who gets to use contraception.  That is simply absurd to have court cases over what should be a personal decision.  Also, corporations do not have religious beliefs.