Trying to Impress Imaginary Conservatives Once Again

One common tactic on the left is the attempt to appeal to conservatives … except that they're appealing to the conservatives inside their minds. (I have discussed this here and there.)

The most recent example of this bulshytt can be found here:

He referred to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s blistering 35-page dissent to the decision, saying, “Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).”

“(O)ne wonders,” he said, “whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”

Of course, it would turn out the same. Of course, Scientologists have the right to not pay for antidepressants. Of course, Hindus have the right to not pay for medications derived from cows. Of course, Jews have the right to not serve milk and meat together. Why is this even controversial?

It looks like the Left has decided conservatives think this is a matter of Christians vs. everybody else and are pointing out that it's not. We actually agree with them on that and don't regard it as a disadvantage.

This decision was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The RFRA was passed because of a court case that held that standard drug laws applied to Native Americans who use peyote in religious ceremonies. (In other words, the third and fourth items here are not unforeseen consequences.) The RFRA was passed with bipartisan support. In other words, we wingnuts were willing to defend the rights of religious minorities.