From the editor: Once a decision is made

Moments after the Supreme Court published its Hobby Lobby decision, a friend of mine posted a telling criticism on Facebook.

“Thank you SCOTUS,” he wrote. “As a Hindu, I will now opt out of any Health Department requirement to exterminate.”

My friend is not, so far as I know, a religious person. He does, however, own a couple of restaurants in Dallas. Across town, there is—or at least was, it’s been awhile since I’ve paid any notice to that city’s dining trends—a popular venue run out of a Hare Krishna temple.

OK, it may have been a Buddhist temple. I’m not really well suited to discuss the belief systems at length. What matters is the peculiar notion of the soul’s journey. Although variations exist within Buddhism and Hinduism, both, on the propriety of eating meat and the killing of living things, this was a vegetarian restaurant. And most of us are aware of the belief in the soul’s permanence and its transition through different planes, or at least through different forms—hence the fear of ending the life of people, animals or roaches. The soul wrapped inside may be on the way to something better.

Now, the aforementioned Facebook post did not intend to suggest with any seriousness that the court’s decision would open the way for restaurants operated by owners of such faiths might soon opt out of wise government laws regarding health and sanitation. It alluded instead to the well-known “law” of unintended consequences.

Hobby Lobby’s lawyers argued that the company’s controlling shareholders adhere to religious principles and run the company accordingly. They complained that the Affordable Care Act’s provision requiring businesses to cover certain contraceptive devices for their employees violates their deeply held beliefs.

The justices ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby in the 5-4 decision agreed that narrow aspects of the ACA violated the personal rights of the corporation.

On the surface, the court’s ruling seems unlikely to cause any dire threats to democracy. Indeed, the favorable opinion applies to a few aspects of one portion of one law. The five justices insist the decision affects only closely held entities with long held and publicly expressed religious values.

But there’s a cautionary tale deep in the pages of history. During ancient Rome’s Catiline Conspiracy, young senator Julius Caesar rose to argue against the imposition of a death penalty, then something forbidden against Roman citizens. “Take care how your decision my affect posterity,” he warned, pointing out that while the current legislative body was acting with the best interest of the Republic in mind and tying their judgment to a specific crime, future leaders may expand upon the precedent.

In analyzing the 5-4 ruling, some have pointed out that—depending on interpretation—close to 90 percent of American businesses may count as “closely held” operations, including restaurants. Others question the balance of corporate rights and individual rights, other the legal protection offered to artificial people (corporations) and natural people (me and you). When the values of an owner can be so easily transferred, the business begins to take on more power than the living, breathing Americans. In fact, former Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis wrote in the 1930s of his concerns on the matter. Already, the court’s infamous Citizens United decision has weakened the influence of the American voter over political campaigns—the “corporations are people, too” line from 2012 still resonates.

Hobby Lobby is a decision hailed by many for its apparent protection of religious liberty. But it is also fraught with a number of potential problems. So many discussions of the ruling’s impact on our future begin with “may” or “could” or such, signaling a lack of comfort with the court’s wisdom on the matter. There will be challengers in the near future, hoping to either contract or expand the decision. How far will the court and the federal government be forced to intrude on the rights of individuals, companies and religious beliefs because of this?

Perhaps—and one must hedge—this puts the court and the federal government in a position where they may be forced to weigh one corporation as more of a “person” than another, one individual’s rights more deserving than another’s, one set of firmly held religious beliefs as holding more sway than another.

My friend’s tongue in cheek Facebook comment contained in a few brief words a huge measure of worry.