Sorry for posting this almost a week late. Personally, I think professors conspire to maximize a student's workload, but that's not the issue I am examining today. This is the second and final post in the Hobby Lobby series. If you are unfamiliar with the Hobby Lobby controversy, feel free to review my previous post. Last week, I presented arguments both supporting and against Hobby Lobby owner, David Green. This week I intend to evaluate the strength of each argument and decide if Hobby Lobby should be granted an exception.
The first argument supporting Green, is that Hobby Lobby is not publicly traded. Because Green is the sole owner of Hobby Lobby, he is much more responsible for the companies actions, and the Affordable Care Act (AFA) would force him to provide contraceptives he find morally objectionable. If the company were controlled by an amorphous body of stock holders, the matter would be different, and Green would have no ability to say that mandating Hobby Lobby to provide certain contraceptive coverage is against his religious beliefs. But let's look at this argument another way. How can it be defeated? It relies on Green being owner of Hobby Lobby as opposed to stock owners, but that does not diminish the fact that it is Hobby Lobby being required to provide insurance, not David Green. Hobby Lobby and David Green are two separable legal entities, so the AFA restricting Green's religious freedom does does not follow from the AFA requiring Hobby Lobby to provide insurance. But it does for the simple reason that Green is the sole owner of Hobby Lobby. Let's use an example to simplify the situation: Say you run a bakery. The government passes a regulation that all cookies sold must be peanut butter cookies. Now, you just happen to be deathly allergic to peanuts and request an exception from the law. Common sense dictates that the government will grant the exception. Now say you own a bakery and are still allergic to peanuts, but you only own the bakery. You don't bake the cookies. The government doesn't need to grant the exception in this case. Hobby Lobby is the first case. David Green is sole owner of Hobby Lobby, so he is responsible for "baking" his policies. A publicly traded company like General Motors is owned by stockholders, so they hire a "cook" to decide policy or vote on company decisions. Either way, each stockholder is no longer solely responsible for the company policies.
The second argument in favor of Hobby Lobby is that courts have already awarded corporations freedom of speech. As freedom of speech is granted in the same amendment as freedom of religion, it would not be surprising if the courts ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby based on this alone. I feel that this is Hobby Lobby's strongest argument. To deny Hobby Lobby Freedom of Religion would split the First Amendment in two pieces that each apply to different entities, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Surely legal rights granted in the same place of the Constitution would apply to the same entities.
The first argument against Hobby Lobby is the slippery slope argument. This is perhaps the most easily addressed even if it does seem convincing. Simply asking "If we grant Hobby Lobby an exception this time, what will happen if someone asks for _____?" Does not constitute a true argument because the answer is "We will evaluate their case and make a decision at an appropriate time." A slippery slope argument by its very nature does not address the question at hand; it brings up a question in the future. Because we are debating Hobby Lobby today, not some future company, this argument must be discounted.
The final argument against Hobby Lobby is that they are restricting employee access to healthcare or infringing upon the rights of their employees. The answer to this argument is two-fold. First, Hobby Lobby is is not eliminating all contraceptive coverage, only the IUDs and morning-after pill, so they are restricting employee rights the same way that assault-rifle bans restrict gun rights. In other words they aren't. The second part of the answer stems from the type of right provided by the AFA. The right to health insurance provided by the AFA is a legal right because it is provided by rule of law. Because of this, the government may legitimately grant Hobby Lobby an exception. What the government gives, it may take away.
In conclusion, Hobby Lobby is perfectly able to ask for an exception and should be granted one. Requiring David Green to provided a service he finds morally wrong is unacceptable and does not infringe upon the rights of his employees. As always, feel free to comment. Constructive criticism is always welcome.
