Obviously, this refers to the Hobby Lobby decision.
The five Catholics on the Supreme Court seem more tolerant of “Catholic issues” for some reason.
Really?
In Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 US 418 (2006) the Supreme Court unanimously (8-0) upheld the RFRA claim of a religious sect with origins in the Amazon Rainforest, who practiced “communion,” by drinking a sacramental tea that contained a hallucinogen regulated under the Controlled Substances Act. This was (obviously) not a Catholic issue.
Can you explain what cases support your claim?
- What’s the religious belief?
- Is it sincere?
- Does the government burden that belief?
- Is the burden substantial?
- Is the government’s interest a compelling one?
- Is the government’s scheme to promote that interest narrowly drawn to achieve that interest?
- Is the scheme the least restrictive one available?
Those are the questions RFRA analysis asks. And nothing in the Hobby Lobby decision changes them.
The only potential change from the Hobby Lobby decision is: is the company protected by the RFRA?
This is worse than usual, even for you.
Since “This was (obviously) not a Catholic issue,” how is it relevant to this thread and to Procrustus’ statement? You might as well have noted that the recent Cell-Phone decision, also not a Catholic Issue, undermines his point.
The fact that the Supreme Court occasionally rules on issues that aren’t Catholic-related doesn’t weaken the claim that, in this case, their bias was along religious lines.
Your “smokescreen” tactics need improvement.
-
The belief is that God heals and we don’t need modern medicine. Using modern medicine is sinful (I think that’s how it goes).
-
Yes.
-
Yes, at least as much as Hobby Lobby’s were.
-
Yes, at least as much as Hobby Lobby’s were.
-
Yes, providing health insurance to people is compelling.
-
Probably.
-
No. Just like in Hobby Lobby, the government may provide health insurance through the existing Medicaid system.
I think that the majority’s “limiting principle” is simply a bald, unreasoned disclaimer when it comes to anything related to employer provided health insurance. Not that I necessarily think that is a bad thing, but the majority is disingenuous in pretending that Hobby Lobby doesn’t put a knife through the heart of the employer mandate.
I think you’re mistaken.
The OP asked what would happen if a Christian Science RFRA claim was made.
Procustus responded:
That’s an answer to the OP. Procustus is answering a question about a non-Catholic issue (Christian Science) by suggesting that the Court favors Catholic religious claims over non-Catholic ones.
How can that claim be tested, except by pointing out other instances in which the. Court has addressed non-Catholic RFRA claims?
Hobby Lobby didn’t invoke Medicaid. It pointed out the TPA would have to pay.
And I don’t know about a knife. It certainly allows closely-held companies to challenge based on their sincere beliefs. But it’s not clear to me how a for-profit company that isn’t closely held would have a unanimity of religious purpose.
And since the owners of Hobby Lobby aren’t Catholic (they’re Evangelical Protestants) and neither are the co-plaintiff owners of Conestoga Wood (Mennonites), shouldn’t that pro-Catholic bias have compelled them to rule *against *Hobby Lobby?
The fact that Catholics oppose birth control could put them in alliance with others in this instance.
This isn’t how you argue that Catholicism was not involved in the outcome of the case!
Then let us ask why Sonia Sotomayor was not compelled by her Catholic bias to rule against birth control.
FWIW, most commercial health insurance plans do cover Christian Science practitioners, and most Christian Scientists aren’t so keen on foisting their religion on other people.
Anything can happen in a lawless country.
The claim was: The five Catholics on the Supreme Court seem more tolerant of “Catholic issues” for some reason.
There are two ways to argue against that: show religious freedom cases in which Catholic issues were in play but the outcome of the case did not favor them, and show religious freedom cases in which other religious beliefs were in play and the outcome of the case favored them.
Amazing how quickly this thread went off the rails. Of the 15 responses only 3 or 4 addressed the OP. I infer that the answer is yes. A closely held corporation whose owners were sincerely Christian Scientists could refuse to participate.
IMHO, this isn’t freedom of religion, it is freedom to impose your religious beliefs on others.
The original question was "Could a Christian-Science business refuse to offer health insurance? "
What do you think?
I would really like to hear an opinion on the original question as well from Bricker. I would think that the answer would be yes, they could refuse, because any business can refuse to offer health insurance - they just have to pay a penalty/tax instead. Hobby Lobby just wanted it both ways- to offer health insurance, but not cover specific types of birth control. I guess the legal question then is whether the penalty/tax is legal in that case.
I think it depends on the answers to the question I listed in Post #4.
Correct – and because the penalty tax represented a “substantial burden,” it is not permitted under the RFRA.