Now that you're briefed, let's think about the implications, something most ordinary folks don't do, and it's why the culture is going down the drain.
I'm taking the side of the Government in this case, even though Secretary Sebelius is on my Top Five list of people I would like to see removed from the employ of taxpayers.
This case is NOT about Obamacare, as much as the punditocracy would like you to believe that ("OMG, they're attacking the Law of the Land, these religious nuts are"). No, this case is about whether or not a CORPORATION may establish religion and require all it's employees to follow that religion.
If Hobby Lobby, a corporation employing 16,000 people, is able to deny it's employees ANY part of a Federal benefit, and do that in the name of the religion of the CEO (and Board of Directors, presumably), then Religion has been Established.
The First Amendment, and the "Establishment Clause" within it, says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Okay then, does Obamacare "establish" a religion? No, it doesn't (except for that pesky provision exempting Islam and followers of it from some of the law's restrictions).
Does Obamacare prohibit the "free exercise" of religion? Hobby Lobby says it does, and insofar as the provision of birth control is concerned, Obamacare seems to go against the corporate diktat of Hobby Lobby, the Corporation.
Okay, it would appear that the crux of this matter will revolve around who the Founders were protecting when they wrote the Establishment Clause. Were they protecting classes, or were they protecting individuals? I'm in over my head divining Constitutional law here, but I've been told that the freedoms of the Bill of Rights were and are meant to protect individuals, not groups or classes, except as those classes have been proven to be victims of discrimination per se, as in racial discrimination.
The CEO of Hobby Lobby is claiming, by the fact of his lawsuit, that he has the right to speak for all the people working for the corporation, and thereby control their religious choice which is permitted, nay mandated, under the First Amendment. Of course, if the SCOTUS agrees with that, they have just established corporate slavery as de jure law.
All the Government has to do to defend Obamacare in this case is find a couple of Hobby Lobby employees who don't want their birth control rights proscribed by the CEO, and the Government wins, IMHO. If I am the Chief Justice, I communicate with the US Counsel, and ask him to present an order to require Hobby Lobby to poll their employees, all of them, as to their choice, and when the Government presents that request for injunction, I grant it. In granting the injunction, I warn Hobby Lobby, the Corporation, that the polling carries the weight of a Federal Order, and any interference with it would be considered obstruction of justice.
Back to my readers.
Why, you ask, would a blogger such as myself, having taken on the Government as many times as I have, be siding with them and encouraging their case?
The answer is simple, if you look very far beyond our borders. What is the biggest threat to the culture? If you said Socialism, you are wrong, dead wrong. The biggest threat is the ascendancy of the culture of Islam. Islam is far, far more of a threat to our form of Western Civ than Socialism. No, I'm not downplaying the threat of Socialism to our Constitution, but just look at the European nations which fall all over themselves to accomodate Islam. In doing so, they have knuckled under to the establishment of Islam's claim of "right" to rule it's adherents by Sharia Law. In France, for example, the Government drew lines on maps around all the Islamic ghettoes, and told the Imams therein that they could run those ghettoes by Sharia Law as enclaves beyond French control, except in matters of public safety, but in reality, public safety issues also are left to the Islamic religious hierarchy.
In other words, the Frogs have given away significant parts of their big cities to the mullahs to run.
Readers, do we want that here? No, I'm not saying that the Hobby Lobby CEO is a screwy as a mullah, or that his Christianity compares inany way to the inhumanity of Islam, but if he wins his case, people, we have started down France's road. We need to be fair in our application of the Bill of Rights, and I have a dollar to your dime that says that the day Hobby Lobby wins this case, a new case to require allowing Sharia Law primacy over local and/or Federal Law gets filed in a Federal Court somewhere in this Nation.
Any takers on my bet?