About this iReport
  • Approved for CNN

  • Click to view k3vsDad's profile
    Posted June 30, 2014 by
    Farmersburg, Indiana
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    Sound off

    More from k3vsDad

    Splitting Hairs Gets Right Decision


    CNN PRODUCER NOTE     Either way Mark Ivy sees it, the Supreme Court was going to have to split hairs when it came to Monday’s Hobby Lobby case ruling. The Court sided with Hobby Lobby and other Christian-owned companies that don't want to pay for some types of contraceptives for workers.

    “As a former business owner and a Christian, who grew up in the parsonage, I believe we must allow for all views and perspectives,” said Ivy, who lives in Farmersburg, Indiana. “But at the same time, as a nation, we cannot allow undue government intrusion and barriers to the ‘free exercise thereof’ of our religious freedoms when there is no overt government reason for that intrusion. Such is the case in regard to Hobby Lobby.”
    - zdan, CNN iReport producer

    This  morning the US Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby did not have to pay  for certain contraceptives which the corporation believed was in  conflict with its religious belief that abortion is wrong. The 5-4  ruling was narrow in scope and limited to "closely held" corporations.

    The  debate now is what "closely held" means and whether a strict Internal  Revenue Service definition or whether more specific. Hobby Lobby is not  publicly traded and is owned by one family.

    I  believe the Supremes ruled appropriately by limiting its ruling. The  Court did not confer additional "people" status to Hobby Lobby or any  other corporation. What the Court did was look at the structure of Hobby  Lobby's ownership and determined that the owners' religious rights were  being violated.

    The Court did not open a floodgate for all businesses to rebel against the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

    The  Court insured that only those businesses, such as Hobby Lobby, which  are explicitly privately owned by those with religious belief could not  be forced to pay for objectionable contraceptive insurance. Those  corporations and businesses publicly traded cannot make the same claims.

    Family  businesses cannot suddenly "get religion" and object. I believe it must  be a clear case that religious principals are evident and have been  evident from the inception of the business and corporation as is the  case with Hobby Lobby.

    From the Cornfield, I applaud the Supreme Court for splitting hairs to get to the right decision.

    Add your Story Add your Story