The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow certain companies to opt out of certain requirements of Obamacare. Justice Ginsberg took issue with the ruling:
But in a blistering dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, lambasted the majority opinion—delivered by five male justices—as "a decision of startling breadth" that would allow corporations to "opt out of any law … they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."
The majority view "demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation's religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners' religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ" wrote Ginsburg, a stalwart member of the Court's liberal wing.
Didn't President Obama allow certain segments of the population to "opt out" of the law? Didn't his decisions to allow those groups to opt out have "impact" on "third parties"? Hasn't the President also applied his decisions on who must follow, and who is exempt with "startling breadth"?
Isn't Obama "guilty" of doing the exact same thing that Ginsberg is mad at Hobby Lobby for doing? And if so, shouldn't he be held to the same level of disgust she is leveling at Hobby Lobby?
Hobby Lobby is merely following the example that the President of the United States has set (multiple times, in fact). In this instance, Hobby Lobby even has a better reason than Mr. Obama.