i know what you're wondering. you're wondering, what does that asshole crispy think about hobby lobby? as you may know, i am highly in favor of conscience or religion-based opt-outs on various government mandates, a position i defended here and there. this is not as clear a case, and the conscientious conduct of both owners and workers is affected. but still i am going at it this way again. you should ask yourself how you would respond if by law you were required to implicate yourself in something you yourself regarded as terribly wrong.
and trying to go from anarchist to legal "mind", i would say this: imposing this requirement across the board obviously comes with social costs, for example it really does place a burden on the religious freedom of people like the owners of hobby lobby. it is a matter on which coercion by the state must be justified by a substantial social or state interest. that is, the costs of allowing such exemptions must be significant even for the matter to be legally controversial. now in weighing these costs i do not want to hear about hypothetical scenarios in which general motors or apple is refusing on religious grounds to offer various benefits. much less do i want to hear various more catastrophic scenarios. i want a relaistic assessment of the real costs. in this case, some women will not be covered by their employer for four drugs. so if they are unable to obtain those drugs, or have to pay exhborbitantly for them, that is a cost, and then the question would be, what are the various ways of ameliorating that? and the actual precedent as it might actually be taken up in an actually capitalist economy is relevant if realistic. i just don't think the sky is falling if the administration starts granting such waivers.
