Kotheimer's letter to the editor, he suggests the Hobby Lobby decision "looks an awful lot like 'respecting an establishment of religion,'" that "[s]tatutes of this kind in other countries may be called Sharia law" and that "we will experience de facto rule of the American Taliban." How funny! However, liberal democrats decided the Hobby Lobby case.
In deciding the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court relied on a federal law known as "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993" (RFRA). This act was introduced by liberal Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993, and was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. Thus, "religious establishments" and "other right wing elements who assert the primacy of Christian religion" did not decide this case. Liberal democrats did.
Critics of the Hobby Lobby decision fail to understand the meaning of the Constitutional religious protection phrase of not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The decision does not claim that a woman cannot have "choice" over her own body, even if we disagree with her decision. What the Supreme Court's decision made abundantly clear is that if you wish to purchase an abortion-inducing drug, your employer does not have to pay for that choice when paying for such drugs is against the employer's religious beliefs. Is there some religious belief that women "must" purchase abortion-inducing drugs? I don't know of any such religious belief. An employer should be able to exercise his/her religious belief that buying such abortion-inducing drugs for someone else violates his/her religious tenets. The not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" provision means that your freedom to buy such drugs does not require me to buy them for you.
Kenneth M. Haneline, Hudson