To be more exact, it assumes company owner David Green's personal version of Christianity to be the one true religion. And I suppose I shouldn't say it assumes that, exactly. In truth, Hobby Lobby's legal challenge assumes one of two things: either David Green's personal interpretation of Christianity is the only recognized religion in the United States or the government of the United States has no authority to regulate businesses.

What am I talking about here? And why is it important? It's important because, if we are to allow Hobby Lobby's conclusions, we would open ourselves up to one of the conclusions listed above.

 

In its lawsuit, Hobby Lobby argues that the federal government's healthcare mandate requires David Green and his family to choose between following federal law or following religious conviction. Putting aside all of the other relevant arguments against Green -  including the absurdity of his claim that his incorporated business has a set of religious doctrines that it must follow - one can draw a clear logical progression.

If we accept Hobby Lobby's argument - that the government has no right to make businesses do things that are against the owners' religious convictions - then we must accept that the government has no ability to regulate in practice. To get there, we must dive into the various religions, and note how certain allowances would undermine parts of federal law.

I'd like to start with Christianity, because David Green's version of Christianity differs from my interpretation and, I'm sure, the interpretation of many others. What if I am a Christian who would rather adhere to the things the Bible actually said over the things I perceive it to have said?