Hobby Lobby confuses two different, distinct principles

July 15, 2014 

Like many others, I am unsettled by last week’s Supreme Court’s decision in the Holly Lobby / Conestoga Furniture case. The phrase that was frequently used is “religious freedom.”

With all due respect to the justices and my fellow citizens, I think we are confusing two different, distinct principles: the freedom of an individual to worship in his/her religious faith of choice, versus the imposition of a religious faith on others.

If we look at the historic context of when our founding fathers created the principle of religious freedom, it was exactly against the long history of religious wars in Europe, wars of religious imposition, where people were forced to convert to a different faith or die. Many of the original 13 colonies, and ultimately our constitution, came into being as reactions against that history of religious imposition.

Do the individuals who own Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Furniture, as individuals, have the freedom to worship in their religious faith of choice? Absolutely. Do they have the freedom, and the right, to impose their religious faith on me? Absolutely not.

Margi Mann


The Olympian is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service