“this merely underscores the radicalism of the Administration’s position”

The Wall Street Journal slices and dices the Obama administration’s argument that government power should trump the religious liberty of private businesses. Consider this exchange between Justice Kennedy and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who argued on behalf of the Obama administration.

Justice Samuel Alito pointed to a statute in Denmark that was a de facto prohibition of kosher and Halal butchering in the name of animal rights. If corporations lack religious rights, who could sue to overturn such a ban? Justice Kennedy carried the point further and suggested, what’s to stop Congress from mandating that businesses must pay for abortions?

Mr. Verrilli agreed that “if such a law like that were enacted, then you’re right, under our theory the for-profit corporation wouldn’t have an ability to sue.” He waved off that possibility by saying Congress wouldn’t pass an abortion mandate, but this merely underscores the radicalism of the Administration’s position. If RFRA doesn’t protect Hobby Lobby, then the law is as meaningless as Justice Sotomayor and Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg seem to think it should be.

Radicalism, indeed. The HHS mandate amounts to the radicalism of using government power to crush religious liberty for private businesses.