Hobby Lobby: Christians Get Two Bites at the Apple

I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record on this blog.  I swear I'm not anti-Christian.  I have many good friends who are Christian (yikes, what a cliche defense).  Many, even the majority of, Christians are decent people who don't attempt to beat their neighbors over the head with their faith.

What I have a problem with is the idea, propagated by the talking heads, that there is some vast movement in U.S., apparently with President Obama (also a Christian) at the helm, to marginalize and degrade Christians. In reality, Christians have always enjoyed a privileged status in this country, from a near monopoly on political power to being allowed to proselytize during official legislative proceedings.  As you can see, I've said my piece on the issue, and I was ready to move on to some of the other (purported) topics on this blog.

Alas, then this happened: 

A party line 5-4 decision from the Supreme Court held that a closely-held corporation cannot be forced to pay for coverage of certain contraceptives if it conflicts with their sincerely-held religious beliefs.  For now, at least, the majority claims the ruling is limited in scope to "closely-held corporations" (a kind of nebulous term in its own right) and to contraceptives (i.e., you can't claim that vaccinations are against your religion so you don't have to pay for them). It is also NOT based on the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, but rather on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

RFRA was passed by Congress in response to concerns by paranoid religious organizations in response to the decision in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, which stood for the proposition that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause just because they arguably tread on a person's religious beliefs.  That opinion was penned by the most liberal, godless commie to ever stink up the chambers of the Supreme Court: Justice Scalia [wait, what?].  Like many of us, Scalia seemingly has come to regret his youthful folly and joined Alito's majority opinion in this case.

So these women are on their own because their bosses think that God thinks that contraception is murder? (OK, that's a bit heavy-handed -- some of the drugs at issue straddle the "birth control or abortion?" line). Well, no, it seems.  The decision seems to volley the ball back to the legislative or executive branch to either amend the law or its application, or to provide government funding for these products, which insurers are required to cover even if employers don't pay for such coverage.

I agree.  So pass a version that explicitly excludes the application of RFRA!

So, wait, the end result is Hobby Lobby gets a discount on its insurance mandate because it doesn't have to pay for these contraceptives -- and the government has to foot the bill?  Should you really be celebrating this, Conservative Christians?  Not a single "abortion" will be prevented and the federal government will have to spend more (of your tax dollars) to subsidize the insurance shortfall of these deadbeat companies.  It sounds like the opposite of what you claim to want ... unless ... unless, what you really want is what the Hobby Lobby opinion gives you: more precedence of privilege.  Not only do you get to participate in a democratic process that you dominate, but when that process fails to give you what you want, you can object on religious grounds.  And that's something those damn atheists will never have.