- Posted June 30, 2014 by
Team iReport featured this story
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Splitting Hairs Gets Right Decision
“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.