The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the for-profit corporation Hobby Lobby did not have to provide employee insurance coverage for contraception that violates its religious beliefs.
The ruling covered "for-profit" corporations that are "closely-held," which means owned by a family.
Conservative Christian activists were overjoyed by the ruling, and are now hoping that it can be used to legally justify discrimination against gay people, notes RightWingWatch.org.
Matt Barber of the Christian-based Liberty Counsel tweeted:
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true.
#HobbyLobby may help protect businesses from those pushing counter-biblical #LGBT lifestyle & anti-Christian agenda
Peter LaBarbera, from the anti-gay group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, tweeted:
LGBT Left has been winning in the courts, but now we have hope that SCOTUS will honor small biz conscience exemptions on homosexuality #tcot
Focus on the Family's political arm CitizenLink was happy about the ruling because it granted religious rights to corporations (video below).
Popular VideoThis young teenage singer was shocked when Keith Urban invited her on stage at his concert. A few moments later, he made her wildest dreams come true:
CitizenLink's Kim Trobee asked Bruce Hausknecht if the Hobby Lobby case would help photographers and bakers who want to discriminate against gay people.
"It ought to," stated Hausknecht, but he noted that the Hobby Lobby case was based on federal law, while anti-gay discrimination is based on state laws.
Hausknecht added that he hoped some states would be influenced by the ruling.
"If so, yes, there could be some help on the horizon for Christian vendors who do business in the wedding industry," stated Hausknecht.
However, Talking Points Memo notes that the court's ruling was very specific per Judge Samuel Alito's opinion for the majority: "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."