A great divide exists in this country about free expression and the practice of religious principles. The question is whether there’s any constructive commonality that can provide bridges of understanding and acceptance. In recent days, the answer has been no.

The Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby case recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court is a good exemplar of the issues, asking whether the federal government is violating a private, for-profit corporation’s religious rights by requiring that it provide contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The court will issue its decision later this spring.

The Hobby Lobby owners assert that their status as a money-making company shouldn’t limit their worldview; if their religious beliefs are in opposition to certain health-care practices, then they ought have the right to not offer or fund them for their employees.

Some who support the company’s position include those in the observant Jewish community, who indicate that, for instance, slaughter practices by Jewish businesses in accordance with kashrut could arguably be affected if religious observances were not protected by the court in this case.

Those on the other side generally assert that for-profits ought not have the same protections as those nonprofit organizations created for a religious purpose. They also claim that allowing a company to exercise these rights in the for-profit sector could open the floodgates to companies asserting religion-based attacks on regulation or government fair-business practices. 

A good example might be Chick-fil-A, whose owners were recently in the news as strongly opposing nontraditional marriage. If they have a religious objection to serving sandwiches to same-sex married couples, should they have the right to deny that service even though they are a business open to the public?

Even if Hobby Lobby is permitted to use its owners’ religious beliefs to avoid government mandates, there are several practical issues to be considered. The first, as alluded to above, is where do the lines get drawn? Are the religious assertions permitted with respect to any and all business practices, or only those that have a specific religious component? Offering kosher meat to observant Jews can be defended as a religious practice, even if done by a for-profit; selling chicken or hobby supplies to the public is not intrinsically religious.

Where the lines are drawn is not only important for guidance, but because if there are no lines, the issue may well come down to one of intent and good faith. Is it a real religious practice or belief, or a contrived one? Is it being used to avoid regulation or to promote belief?

The other problem with intent is judging its sincerity. For instance, it was revealed in the press that Hobby Lobby’s retirement plans include investments in companies that make contraceptives. If this fact had been inserted into the record of the court case, would it have been evidence that the company’s assertion regarding Obamacare was insincere?

One other area of objection creates issues with which to wrestle. That is: Whose religious practices are we talking about? Those of the owners, who are exercising their views through the corporation, an artificial entity? Or the employees, individuals who may or may not share the views of the owners? A ruling in favor of the company in Hobby Lobby could create the rather perverse result that people’s religious beliefs are subservient to those of the corporation, which exists only at the pleasure of the state.

Congress has recognized the need to balance the federal government’s laws and exercise of religious freedom. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), adopted in 1993, says that a rule burdening religious exercise must be supported by a compelling governmental interest and use the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest. Hobby Lobby and others in its camp are now trying to create a broader interpretation of RFRA that narrows the government’s assertion of the compelling-interest standard.

We accept and support the free expression of religion, but we also support the need for the government to create programs that promote the common good. ACA was enacted to make health care more accessible and affordable to Americans. Unlike Hobby Lobby, we believe that women’s health represents a compelling interest.

Moreover, in the case of nonprofit religious organizations, allowances have been made under the ACA for objecting entities to allow third-party insurers to provide the necessary coverage so that the company and its primary health insurer need not. The court could certainly reach this result as a compromise.

There are ways to balance the needed interests of free religious expression with the government’s interest in effective and needed legislation. Creating a gaping hole that would allow any business serving the public to drive through with its religious assertions, allowing discrimination or mistreatment of the public, is a bad idea.