A victory for religious freedom: the Hobby Lobby decision

I applaud the Hobby Lobby decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled in a split decision that the Obama administration cannot require Hobby Lobby and similar "closely held" businesses to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients if they have religious objections to doing so.  This is a victory for religious freedom.

Now I am no lawyer, but I know enough to realize that decisions like this are often made based on the legal technicalities of the case, not on the broad moral issues involved.  Such appears to have been the case here.  The court held that the administration's requirement was not the "least burdensome" approach with regards to religious freedom.

Still, a victory is a victory, and we will take it.  The technical nature of the ruling, however, leaves open the possibility that the administration or the pro-abortion wing of Congress may try another approach, so the battle is not over.  Vigilance is still the order of the day.

I have seen editorials in the local paper, and even posts by Facebook friends, claiming that this decision is a blow to freedom and even a step toward a creeping theocracy.  One even asked a rhetorical question about how we would feel if a Muslim started a business and then wanted to impose Muslim beliefs on "white Christians."  I'll just state my thoughts on that briefly.

Any decision about rights and freedom has to balance the rights of different parties.  Conferring a right on one party inevitably restricts the rights of someone else.  If I have the right to own property, someone else does not have the right to take it.  If I have the right to choose where I shop, then no shop owner has the right to compel me to buy from them.  If I believe that abortion is wrong and choose not to pay for someone's abortion, they cannot compel me to do so.

If I start a business, why do I give up that right?  The government was trying to force Hobby Lobby to pay for insurance that covered abortions, to which they had a religious objection.  The company was not telling its employees they could not use contraceptives or have an abortion.  They just objected to paying for it.  I see nothing wrong with that, and I'm glad that the Supreme Court agrees.  Furthermore, no one is being forced to work for Hobby Lobby.  If someone wants to work for a company that pays for abortions, they are free to find one.

So what about Muslim employers forcing their beliefs on "white Christians"?  I must at least call attention to the race card being played here, and point out that its use is spurious and irrelevant.  Would it be OK for a Muslim employer to force his beliefs on black Christians, or Chinese Christians?  What does race have to do with it?  At any rate, I will say that if a Muslim wants to run his business according to his beliefs, that is his right.  If he wants to insist that any woman working in his business wears a head covering, so be it.  Again, no woman has to work for him.  And I suspect that, in America at least, few women would.

It would seem that this is one of many instances of the left trying to shove their morality down our throats, the very thing they always accuse Christians of doing.

Addendum: OK, I just got in an argument with someone on Facebook who called me ignorant for not "knowing" that preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is not abortion, as "medical science" agrees.  Excuse me!  It is as clear as day that a fertilized egg will develop into a full human being if not interfered with, but an unfertilized egg will not.  So a drug that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg is not a contraceptive, but an abortifacient.  It is just killing the unborn human a bit earlier than usual in the abortion business.