Timothy Sandefur's Sac Bee op-ed on Hobby Lobby case
[Hobby Lobby] is hardly an extreme decision. It did not block the availability of contraception, or force workers to get their bosses’ approval. It simply said that the government can find ways to provide it without forcing Hobby Lobby’s owners to sacrifice their beliefs.
Imagine if the government forced business owners to buy their employees’ lunches. Should a vegan employer who believes deeply in animal rights be forced to provide hamburgers? Could government provide people with transportation by forcing environmentalists to buy gas-guzzling cars for their workers?
We often express our values by choosing what to buy and what not to buy – and it’s ironic that many of the same people who boycotted Chick-fil-A restaurants over its owners’ views on same-sex marriage now insist that Hobby Lobby’s owners have no right to express their values in the same way.
What to read next
Yesterday, PLF filed comments on Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposed amendments to the Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plans in Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada and Northeastern Californian, Utah, and Wyoming. … ›
Washington State boasts one of the most protective constitutions in the nation. Among its unique provisions, the Uniformity Clause protects individuals from discriminatory taxation by requiring that any taxes be … ›