The Marxist/Progressives properly defined religious freedom when the said this: ”Religious liberty is woven into the very fabric of our nation. It defines the boundaries of our government and serves as a measuring stick for freedom. We are a nation of diverse religious beliefs and of no religious belief. From our nation’s earliest days, our Constitution has ensured both the freedom to worship and believe according to one’s conscience, as well as freedom from the government imposing religion upon its people or coercing them to follow beliefs that are not their own. This is the very essence of religious liberty.”
This is where the Marxist/Progressives were twisted. “The Court’s 5-4 ruling provides clear evidence of how the conservative Roberts Court has misinterpreted the free exercise of religion to the point of absurdity by allowing the religious beliefs of the owners of for-profit, secular corporations to be used as justification to deny their employees the contraceptive-health coverage that they are entitled to under federal law.”
There are two severe fallacies in their statement. The government cannot impose a state religion which they in fact have done.. The Marxist/Progressives claim the government has the right to state that people, regardless of their beliefs, must provide drugs designed to specifically end the life a baby. The owners who would provide those drugs would be forced to violate a core belief of their religion in favor of the state sponsored religion. The second fallacy is that what the owners said they would not provide has nothing to do with health coverage. Birth control in almost all situations is not health related but is a life style and social choice. In this the owners said they would not provide drugs that caused abortions and were not even talking about contraception. The constitution has no provision for the government to be involved in the health care or coverage of the citizen and certainly does not provide for the government to be able to dictate life style and social choices of the citizen.
This case should never have been in the courts because the health coverage an employer is going to provide should be only between the employer and employee. The employee has the choice to work for that employer or not work for him. It is not the business of the government under the constitution.