“Religious freedom” is a big phrase being thrown around a lot lately, especially in the contraception debate. Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores recently was brought before the Supreme Court to argue that the chain store should be able to deny its employees access to insurance that provides contraception. This is because it has the “religious freedom” to operate its business based on the principles taught to them through scripture, as Hobby Lobby president David Green has said publicly.

For-profit employers should be allowed to make these decisions, but should not use religious freedom as the argument behind it, since it is not a strong reason.

If we assumed this popular definition of “religious freedom” is true, then other Christian, for-profit businesses could do plenty of other things in its name. These would include denying services to unmarried couples who’ve had sex (First Corinthians 7:2), a non-virgin woman that got married (Deut. 22:13-21), anyone with tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), people with round haircuts (Leviticus 19:27), and even men who pull out during sex (Genesis 38:9-10).

As you can see, “religious freedom” isn’t the way conservatives should frame this argument. This little phrase distorts what it actually means. It’s the freedom to have any beliefs you chose to — not to enforce your beliefs on other people. Does this mean you’ll have to accept things you disagree with, like homosexuality and abortion? Yes. Did anyone ever say freedom is easy? No, and it takes a little sacrifice from everyone. Framing the argument this way is both wrong and ridiculous.

This doesn’t mean Hobby Lobby can’t make a strong case for its right to deny these kinds of insurance to its employers with other conservative arguments. These arguments not based in religion, and this actually winds up working to their advantage.

First off, corporations like Hobby Lobby are privately-run companies competing in the free market, so they should be able to provide whatever they want to their employees. Yes, you would have businesses that provide lousy wages and nothing else, but then few skilled workers would bother applying and they’d go out of business. The businesses that then provide good benefits like well-paying salaries, pensions and health care have more people willing to work there and support their business, which will also help them stay profitable and competitive. If you don’t believe me, go ask Costco — it’s worked great for them. So Hobby Lobby can deny contraception access, but the consequences for its business are on the owners.

If that argument doesn’t work for conservatives, the next one would be finding a way to separate health care from one’s job. People would then be free to make their own health care decisions without worrying about their employer’s religious beliefs. If someone had a moral issue with contraception, it’d affect their health care and no one else’s. Plus it would actually connect one’s health care premiums to their health, not their employment — it might encourage people to stay healthy so they’d pay less. I’m certain a solution that includes individual responsibility — while encouraging good health and fiscal responsibility — will work pretty well.

Sadly, I doubt the conservative conversation will seriously shift towards either of these two arguments. The “religious freedom” argument, as flawed as it is, is still too powerful of a buzzword that quickly hits the hearts of whoever hears it. Until they can somehow move away from this, it’s unlikely anyone outside the echo chamber will seriously listen and Hobby Lobby will be on the losing side of the Supreme Court’s gavel.

Max Antonucci is a junior newspaper and online journalism major. His column appears weekly. You can find him on Twitter @DigitalMaxToday or email him at meantonu@syr.edu.

Published on April 1, 2014 at 1:00 am