This week the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether or not the government can require private businesses to provide contraception coverage as part of the healthcare benefit package for employees. Ironically, the decision may expose the level of political corruption of the Court, rather than resolve a legal issue.

The issue before the court is simple. Religion is a mythology, not a constitutional right. An individual has the right to indulge in religious beliefs, providing they are legal, and don’t infringe on another individual’s right to believe in their own mythological dogma or not.

Because religion is, by its nature, manifested by humans, anyone can invent the restrictions of ‘their’ religion. Many of those restrictions are classified as sins by that religion.

However, a person, who is by law a voluntarily participant in any church, has the right to abide by those restrictions or not. Punishment for not abiding by those restrictions may result in banishment from the religion, but most violations are considered to be a matter between the individual and their mythological God.

What the owners of Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel argue is that their mythological beliefs trump their employee’s own mythological belief, along with the employee/doctor relationship. Not only do the employers want to force the individual into the restrictions of the employer’s mythological beliefs, they are also asking the Court for control their employee’s right of choice outside of the employment environment.

To be clear, the Affordable Care Act does not require anyone to use contraception methods; therefore an employer can’t argue that their mythological beliefs are being violated as they are not being required to use contraceptive methods. The law only allows the employee and their doctor to have access to contraception as an option as part of their health plan.

The Supreme Court has no choice under the Constitution but to deny business owner’s attempt to usurp employee’s right of Freedom of Religion. A quid pro quo relationship is not a license to inflict an employer’s religious beliefs on individuals, nor does it elevate the employer to be the ‘hand’ of their mythological God.

Despite the obvious legal determination, the Supreme Court may rule in favor of the employer and that ruling will drop the robes of the Justices to show the naked corruption of the highest court in the land. The Court has been stacked with conservatives who have abandoned good jurisprudence for ultra-conservative perversion of the law. 

Regardless of the outcome, the issue demonstrates that business woes in America are not due to government taxes or regulation, but simple stupidity of business management. Like many other conservative zealot business owners, Hobby Lobby and the other businesses in this suit will find that their religious and political issues have no place in a free-enterprise economy. Customers don’t like being forced into a business’ religious or political conflict, nor do employees want their employers to use them as pawns.