Perhaps Weigand could explain how Hobby
Lobby’s claim to religious freedom entails that its owners’ religious
freedom is more important than that of their employees. How is the
religious freedom of employees an issue here? Is taking emergency birth
control a religious act or obligation? If it is, how does refusing to
finance an employee’s religious activities violate or disparage her
On the other hand, if taking
emergency birth control is not a religious act or obligation, how does
refusing to finance this non-religious activity violate or disparage an
employee’s religious freedom?
Let us put Weigand’s
question on the other foot: Is David Green’s ownership of Hobby Lobby
conditional on agreement with the religious views of employees? Where is
the religious freedom in being forced to run your business according to
the religious views of others? When an employer is forced to do what
his religion forbids because of what an employee’s religion permits —
not requires, merely permits — whose religious freedom is more important according to Weigand: the employer’s or the employees’?
owning a business conditional on agreement with the religious views of
the government? Unless you are injuring someone, why should running your
business according to your religious beliefs require a by-your-leave
from government? Our nation’s founding document declares that
governments are instituted to secure rights endowed by our creator, so
how can government rightly compel citizens to disobey the creator?
correct application of religious freedom is simple: Employers are free
not to pay for what is incompatible with their religious beliefs while
employees are free to buy and use what is compatible with theirs.
— K.A. Straughn, Norman