Do you understand that Congress passed a law that says, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability…?”
Do you understand that the same law says (in case that line wasn’t clear):
So the RFRA prevents the federal government from burden the religious exercise of anyone.
It does not prevent Joe from burdening Sam’s religious exercise.
I could have sworn I’ve seen them answered, and said answers responded to by you, in this thread. So your response to the OP is…?
It’s not, and here’s why:
This is not a result of imposing any belief on others, it is a case of government cobbling together a massive, ill-conceived (pun intended) piece of far reaching legislation and (surprise!) not thinking through the effects. IMHO.
Neither you nor the OP answered those questions. jtgain did. Are you adopting his answers? I noted that his answer to #7 was potentially based on an error of fact.
But let’s go:
What’s the religious belief?
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).
Is it sincere? Yes.
Does the government burden that belief?
Yes, at least as much as Hobby Lobby’s were.
Is the burden substantial?
Yes, at least as much as Hobby Lobby’s were.
Is the government’s interest a compelling one?
Yes, providing health insurance to people is compelling.
Is the government’s scheme to promote that interest narrowly drawn to achieve that interest?
Probably.
Wait – if the government’s interest is in providing health insurance to people, then it’s not narrowly drawn in this case. You need to either re-state the government’s interest or acknowledge that a narrower method is possible than mandating employers cover health insurance.
Is the scheme the least restrictive one available?
No. Just like in Hobby Lobby, the government may provide health insurance through the existing Medicaid system.
That’s not what the Court pointed out. They pointed to the existing accommodation for religious employers and how it shifted responsibility to the TPA as an example of a less restrictive approach.
So these answers need a little modification. But going generally by what’s been said, a Christian Science employer could shift his health insurance to his TPA by advancing a similar claim as what’s discussed above.
This is the age old definition of how broadly do we define something. Do we define gay sex as homosexual sodomy, prohibited since ancient times or the private sweet mystery of life, private choices within the bedroom? Do we define employer health care as the sine qua non of the U.S. healthcare system, or is it simply a discardable means to an end?
Yes, I was in error above, but my point stands. The government is in the healthcare business. It could provide contraception or any other healthcare through the TPA or Medicaid. Both are less restrictive that forcing John Smith, private individual, or John Smith, LLC, or John Smith, Inc. from providing the same.
I grew up in Christian Science, and I was exempted from the public school requirement to get immunization shots. So if nothing else, I can tell you that the government (or at least my local government) does recognize medical care in general as against some people’s religious beliefs.
Also, just so you know, when Christian Scientists are sick, they normally work with a Christian Science practitioner, which, as MsRobyn mentioned, is often covered by insurance. So it is quite likely that a Christian Science business would argue that medical care is against their religion but health insurance is not.