The Hobby Lobby case was not ultimately about abortion or contraception. It was about religious liberty more broadly, and, as far as my untrained legal eyes can tell, about three disputed matters in particular.
Here is a good summary of the issues as presented in the Amicus brief filed by Michigan, Ohio and eighteen other states in support of Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel:
So what does all that mean? There are three crucial points:
1. Individuals do not relinquish their First Amendment rights when they associate together in a for-profit business.
2. The healthcare Mandate imposed a “substantial burden” on the businesses in question.
3. Any compelling interest the government may have in providing contraceptives was not “advanced through the least restrictive means.”
That last point is especially important. When religious persons wax eloquent about the inviolable liberty of conscience, the quick rejoinder is “Yeah, but what if your conscience doesn’t allow you to cover blood transfusions or your religious conscience tells you it’s okay to discriminate against ethnic minorities?” Point taken. The appeal to conscience is not a right to unchecked liberty at any cost. Religious freedom does not mean we are free to do whatever we want. The government will sometimes burden the free exercise of religion, but, according to RFRA, only if it has a compelling interest to do so and advances this interest through the least restrictive means.
In the end, the Court decided in favor of Hobby Lobby on the three crucial points listed above:
The free exercise of religion and liberty of conscience are God-given rights. We would surely miss them more than we know if they were done away with. We can give thanks that today, when they could have easily been undermined, they were instead upheld.
