The recent change in the legislation has put America on a slippery slope. While European countries are fighting for hard-line secularism in the social sphere, the US is giving religious freedom to corporate employers. Opinions have split harshly and new interpretations of the secularism has surfaced up post Hobby Lobby victory. The fight for religious freedom came face to face with women's rights. This is also the first time, when separation of church and state has come from the state level to federal.
In July the Supreme court ruled a close victory 5-4 in the case of Hobby Lobby's objection to emergency contraception as an abortifacients.
The battle lines are hot and sharp, each side naturally believes that their freedoms are being violated. And as it often happens anti-discriminatory laws end up being discriminatory themselves. The Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, find their religious rights being violated by being forced to pay for certain contraceptives under Affordable Care Act. But Hobby Lobby could be seen as discriminatory by refusing to provide the healthcare coverage that only women can use, imposing their religious rights onto a group that might not share the same views. On the other side liberals are questioning increase of corporate rights, and the right for corporations and businesses to practice religion. How far can they go?
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993 under the Clinton administration holds the federal government responsible for preventing laws burdening one's free exercise of religion. RFRA is unconstitutional. But it is practiced in the Federal Government, and gives a way to such cases as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialities v. Burwell.
In July of this year Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in her dissent that the "court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield." Justice Bader questions weather extended rights of corporations to practice religion could go as far as to deny their employees blood transfusions, antidepressants or other services and devices that they might find immoral under their religious ideology.
Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.”
The debate continues. Many argue that judges should not choose which religion to protect, calling for RFRA to be repealed. Hardline Catholic Justice Antonin Scalia has an answer for those opposing RFRA. He stresses that the government and the court can not favor religion over non-religion.
“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” said a Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in his recent speech at Colorado Christian University. Americans do honor God in the pledge of Allegiance to the United States. Scalia argues that Constitution protects the freedom of religion, thus RFRA is just an extension to protect this constitutional right.
The fuzzy lines of the separation of church and state have been even more blurred over the course of this year. Many questions remain unanswered. Ethical and practical. Whose shoulders will the female wellness be one? On the taxpayers? Are corporations acting at the expense of society? How far will financial powers tilt the game of lobbying? If corporations can choose to to work consistent with their religion, do the employees have to choose jobs according to their religious views.
The ultimate question is whether the freedoms that the US has granted its citizens are still in line with the deeply important tenet of American Democracy.
