Disappointing. Embarrassing. Regressing. The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling has incited an outcry of dissent. Many have attacked it as sexist and feminist. Others rightly claim it extends more undue rights to businesses. But if there’s one dissent that stands taller than the rest, it’s that of Justice Ginsburg. And out of the thirty pages of her scathing tome, there was one line that struck me. One line that got to the heart of the debate.
“Accommodations to religious beliefs or observances, the Court has clarified, must not significantly impinge on the interests of third parties.”
It sounds straight out of a U.S. Politics 101 textbook. But it works. And it hasn’t been stated enough. I sat down and seriously considered Hobby Lobby’s perspective in this case. Can the state mandate an action that comes before my deeply held religious beliefs? Does the government have the right to force me to act against my belief system? The answer is yes. If my beliefs significantly impinge on the interests of third parties, of course it does.
And the worst part? Ginsburg is referring to a precedent made in a previous court case. Not only do Hobby Lobby’s beliefs against contraception impinge on the interests of everyone of their female employees, but the Court has acknowledged this type of wrong in the past and has failed to recognize it now. Talk about regression. But then there’s always embarrassment and disappointment.
Vandelay Industry 