First of all, I don't shop at Hobby Lobby, I understand they sell nicknacks.
Apparently, it's a large corporation owned by a family that did not want to offer a handful of contraceptives they found objectionable on religious grounds.
The Supreme Court ruled that was fine.
The Supreme Court did not rely on the First Amendment. And yet, the internet is full of memes about the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court relied on a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This law was passed by a unanimous majority democrat house and nearly unanimously by a democrat senate, and signed into law by Clinton. It was written in part by the ACLU, who are currently decrying Hobby Lobby.
The RFRA is a pretty simple law. The Supreme Court had held for centuries that the government can pass laws that apply to everyone and there are no religious exemptions. Period. You don't get to claim your religion says it's cool to marry children or kill people. Or use peyote. Liberals and Conservatives flipped the fuck out and passed the RFRA, forcing the Court to look at federal laws with the strictest scrutiny any time someone has a religious objection.
How fucking stupid is this? How fucking unconstitutional? We can spend all day talking about it, but other folks already have. I just really want to address Jost on Justice and some other commentators who are attacking Justice Ginsburg for her dissent.
So the Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby thanks to the RFRA. Every female on the Court and Breyer say this is a terrible idea. Justice Ginsburg writes a long dissent. It gives various reasons why this is a terrible idea.
She does not, however, try to strike down the RFRA. She simply claims it is more limited.
Well, it fucking isn't. But that's not the issue.
The issue is that fucking idiot liberal after fucking idiot liberal, apparently aware of the fact that Justice Scalia's dissents have helped their various causes (a dubious claim- a dissent, as my own Court of Appeals will tell you, is just that), are attacking Ginsburg for pointing out the obvious extension of the ruling and the law to other issues.
Look, you fucking morons. Neither litigators nor judges need a dissent to figure out where to go next when a decision is handed down. Unlike you, we're quite capable of thinking. And we expect judges and justices to speak their conscience on issues and be intellectually honest. It's when they aren't that we're concerned. The public just got to find out what the consequences were of passing the RFRA. If it has half a brain, it will get rid of that law. Going on and on about how Justice Ginsburg would have better served you by lying and claiming that the decision was really limited would hardly have stopped anyone from using the case for all the issues she talks about. The law is based in part on experience, but there's quite a bit of it, particularly when litigating, that comes from logic. So if the reasoning fits, the arguments are made, and those arguments will win.
If we do it any other way, then you have a judiciary that is dishonest and unpredictable.
And fuck you Jost and the rest of the pack of chicken little, scapegoating, intellectually dishonest, utterly ignorant as to how the law operates bitches.