The possible silver lining to the Hobby Lobby court ruling

While the ruling by the Supreme Court v Hobby Lobby may set back women’s contraceptive rights by allowing businesses to refuse to cover non-essential reproductive medicines, there is a silver lining in the ruling for LGBT rights, according to Slate‘s writer Mark Joseph Stern.

He explains that throughout the court process, there was an underlying open question that sought a possible way to discriminate against LGBT people citing religious preferences. Hobby Lobby’s argument was broad enough to include this discrimination even where laws were in place to prevent it. This has raised concern amongst for liberal lawmakers as well as LGBT rights advocates, and has been the topic of heated conversation for months.

Luckily, while the ruling did tip in Hobby Lobby’s favor over the main issue of contraception, LGBT rights were reinforced by the ruling, and were called out directly by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg asking whether religious liberty allowed anti-gay discrimination, thereby forcing the matter into discussion. Though the argument was weakened by answers like “such matters won’t hold up in smaller courts,” it forestalled any major litigation over LGBT workers’ rights, it did suggest that the Court refuses to pass any law that allow freedom to discriminate.

Read the full slate opinion piece here.