It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”
This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.
The Roberts Court does nothing in small measures, so when Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, insists the decision granting closely held corporations religious objection rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is limited only to the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act, don’t believe him. It’s not.
Like the Court’s decision in McCullen v. Coakley and Town of Greece v. Galloway, which also greatly advanced conservative causes but under the guise of “limited” First Amendment opinions, the decision in Hobby Lobby is an exercise in radical incrementalism. The 5-4 majority decision did not strike altogether the birth control benefit, nor did the decision rule broadly that corporations have First Amendment religious rights independent of the RFRA—but it set the path for future courts to do so.
If the highest court in the country is favoring Christianity over other religions, what does that mean to you?
originally posted by: butcherguy
I don't believe that they are, in that a closely held company owned by a Muslim would be granted the same exemption as the Christian companies in the suit.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
For example, would a closely held company owned by a Christian Scientist be granted an exemption to pay for vaccinations of their employees and their babies? No. What makes the contraceptive objection weigh more than the vaccination objection?
For example, would a closely held company owned by a Christian Scientist be granted an exemption to pay for vaccinations of their employees and their babies? No. What makes the contraceptive objection weigh more than the vaccination objection?
Have you considered the precedent this sets for further court cases, based on religious grounds?
Do you feel that this trend toward theologically-based governance is a good idea, considering how well that works in countries who are further along this path than we currently are?
And finally, is it all right with you that a billion-dollar corporation is considered a "person"?
And one more: Did you support Citizen's United, which claims that corporations are people?
This is just conjecture, as the court ruled only on the four specific birth control methods.
The Supreme Court delivered a blow to universal birth control coverage on Monday, ruling that closely-held corporations can refuse to cover contraception in their health plans for religious reasons.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy
This is just conjecture, as the court ruled only on the four specific birth control methods.
That is patently untrue!
The Supreme Court delivered a blow to universal birth control coverage on Monday, ruling that closely-held corporations can refuse to cover contraception in their health plans for religious reasons.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
Any qualifying employers can deny any and all birth control to their employees based on their "sincerely held beliefs. Catholics have banned ALL BIRTH CONTROL, and Catholic closely held corporations are exempt, under this ruling, and can legally deny all contraception coverage to their employees.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
For example, would a closely held company owned by a Christian Scientist be granted an exemption to pay for vaccinations of their employees and their babies? No. What makes the contraceptive objection weigh more than the vaccination objection?
originally posted by: butcherguy
This is just conjecture, as the court ruled only on the four specific birth control methods.
originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
That's covered in the written decision. Something about greater societal good of vaccinations.
What Justice Alito doesn’t note is that protections have never before been used to burden the rights of employees to the benefit of corporate owners.
...where corporate interests are trying to hide behind constitutional protections to deprive their employees of their rights.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: butcherguy
This is just conjecture, as the court ruled only on the four specific birth control methods.
I believe that is incorrect. The court ruled on the entire contraceptive mandate, giving those with religious objections an exemption from the mandate. A company with religious objections to contraception does not have to provide any. Hobby Lobby just objected to four, but will be providing the others.
The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case doesn't currently affect the birth control methods that are most commonly used.
Again. SCOTUS did not hear and did not rule on the science of contraception.
Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49.
...
)
HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion. Pp. 31–38
...
The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga . . . would deny [their employees] access to contraceptive
coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure”)