“We have thoroughly accepted the separation of markets from social, moral, and religious structures—indeed, the only way that we generally speak of “morality” in economics is that which is provided after the fact [ex post facto] not by communities and the people within them, but only by the now-distant State through regulation and redistribution.”
Today’s Supreme Court oral argument, in the case of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v Sebelius, is correctly understood to pit defenders of “religious liberty” against those who believe that the government has a compelling interest in requiring employers to provide so-called “contraception” [much of which is abortifacient], abortifacients, and sterilization services through their healthcare policies.
To ESH, therein lies the loss of the issue as well as its potential to be a “win” for a side that has been losing to the rigged game of chance in “justice” under the Regime of the Kenyan kommie and his #1 henchman in DOJ. Eric Holder.
Aligning and conceding to the protestant “religious freedom” clarion call is a forceful and weighty argument in “freedom loving” Amerikka. But it is a false “religious freedom” much like the one described in the non-binding, non-doctrinal Nostrae aetate from Vatican II. That document, and the freemasonic and Jacobian thought from which it springs, another 1789 revolution if you will, carries the seeds of its own destruction and contradictions.
One can only be “free” to practice the One, true religion of Catholicism; all other sects and heresies to the Faith, are born of error, and error has no rights. Relying on the “religious liberty” argument may get Hobby Lobby and Conestoga a small SCOTUS reprieve, but it will be short lived.