Hobby Lobby is all over the web these days getting everything from praise from folk who believe in the personhood of corporations to vilification by those who see a war on women coming from the right.
As I watch the complaints from the left, I think most are missing the point. Yes, I agree there is a war on women being waged by the far right and that the right wing of SCOTUS is clearly leading the charge. I do not see that as the primary question in the Hobby Lobby case. While the presenting issue is coverage of contraceptives (and yes, Hobby Lobby did cover most contraceptives and planned to continue doing so), that is not the real issue on the table. The real question is whether or not a corporation has the right to exercise freedom of religion. In its continuing expansion of the concept of personhood to corporations, SCOTUS has ruled that yes indeed, corporations, at least "closely held" ones, enjoy freedom of religion.
I can't say how ludicrous that sounds to me. Corporations do not make religious commitments. Period. As conservative Christians, I would expect the owners of Hobby Lobby to laugh at the idea of the company making "a personal commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savoir and being baptized to show repentance from sin." Companies simply do not have religion. So how can they exercise freedom of religion? Yes, corporations are comprised of people, but under normal circumstances, a religious test is illegal when hiring so we can't assume any particular religious commitments among employees. It is also true that owners, especially in "closely held" corporations may have some consensus around religious belief, but the entire reason to form a corporation is to move the individuals a step away from the business and limit their liability. They are not completely identified with the corporation. Imagine if the owners of Hobby Lobby all died in a plane crash tomorrow. Would the company die as well? No, because it is not those owners and it does not even depend on their survival.
Here is the piece that really worries me. When you take a concept as central to our identity in the US as Freedom of Religion and apply it in such a stupid and inappropriate way, it damages the concept and will only give fuel to those who already think freedom of religion should be freedom from religion. This case will come back to bite those of us who take freedom of religion seriously and will hurt those for whom it really is an important issue.