The Supreme Court's opinions in the Hobby Lobby case, announced yesterday, are lengthy and bear some  very-close study-- which I admit to not-yet having time to do.  But let me propose two initial take-aways:

1.  Justice Alito's opinion finding that the Affordable Care Act regulations violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act reaffirms the idea that religious belief is at the core of who we are, and therefore must form the basis for our decisionmaking in all contexts of our life, public and private.  Put another way, Justice Alito's decision should be understood as a ringing denunciation of the idea that religion is a purely-private activity that can play no role in the commercial square.

In an opinion joined by Justices Thomas, Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts, and with which Justice Kennedy concurred, Justice Alito systematically demolished the arguments of Justice Kagan's dissent which sought to suggest that "for-profit" corporations could have no protection under RFRA.  It is true, Justice Aliot wrote, that corporations are legal fictions that do not themselves have religious beliefs "separate and apart from" those of their owners and employees, but "separate and apart from" their owners and employees, corporations can do nothing at all.  So government can interfere with the religious liberty of individuals when it imposes rules on corporations (run by individuals who have to comply with those rules) just as much as when it imposes rules directly on individuals. 

Nor does the idea that a corporation is "for profit" mean that it can have no "religious" or moral values, a second line of attack made by those who sought to enforce the government regulations.  As Justice Alito pointed out, we see (and applaud) corporations all the time taking actions which are not purely profit-driven because the corporations believe those actions are the right thing to do.  Justice Alito cited examples of corporations who install polution-abatement technology beyond what the government requires, or who pay foreign workers more than what is legally-required out of a sense of justice.  If such actions are appropriate-- even noble and praiseworthy-- for a "for profit" corporation when motivated by "moral" considerations, can it plausibly be argued that a "for profit" corporation can only think about the bottom line, and cannot consider the "moral" or "religious" implications of its actions?

Sadly, in some quarters,  it seems that corporations can and should consider motives other than bottom-line profits only is certain politically-approved contexts.  In those quarters, protecting unborn human life is not such a context, although "saving the whales" (metaphorically speaking) probably is.  Justice Alito properly concludes that deciding just what activities can be determined to interfere with genuinely-held religious beliefs is exactly that sort of thing government must not do.

All in, a real victory for the role of faith in the commercial square;

2.  Point two-- you will see everywhere the notion that this case was about the "contraceptive mandate."  Today's New York Times has that in its headline.  Most commentators characterize the case that way.  In a real sense, that is just wrong.  While the case does involve the requirement to pay for "contraception," the Hobby Lobby plaintiffs did not object to what most people would consider normal contraceptive methods-- most kinds of pills, barriers, sterilization, etc.  The only thing the Hobby Lobby folks opposed-- the only thing the case was really about-- was 4 drugs which interfered with the development of a human person after conception (commonly known as "Plan B" and such).  In a very real sense, the plaintiffs regarded these drugs as abortifacients-- and opposed them for that reason. Hobby Lobby was not opposed to birth control-- it was opposed to abortion-- and the ACA rules mandate was the first step in a process that would lead to payment for abortion, and worse.

I suppose there are those who do not want to make clear that this fight was all about government-mandated payments for abortions because that would put the dispute in a much-different context.  Most people continue to have well-founded objections to abortions, but many fewer problems with birth control.  So presenting the Supreme Court's decision as a case about "contraception" without more context makes the result especially out of step with common modes of thinking.  

But make no mistake, there was more at stake here than "birth control."  As Justice Alito wrote, in the government's view the law would "permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question-- for instance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide." (Slip opinion at 46).  This is a case about stopping the creeping assault of the government on the dignity of human life in its tracks-- and it worked.  Keep that in mind when you see the references to "contraception."

Makes you realize what good things can happen when we take the risks to stand up for our beliefs, even in the business world.