Not a matter of sin, matter of mutual tolerance, the single most important benefit of a secular society. “Whatsittoya” Principle. Let gay people get married, whatsitoya. Let people use contraceptives, whatsitoya. Let people use the poetics of ceremonial deism, whatsitoya. Go along, get along.
The Hobby Lobby case is religious crankery writ large and writ law. Few things have as wide an acceptance as the use of contraceptives for whatever reason one might want to. The Hobby Lobby’s “sin” is offending that principle of leaving people the fuck alone.
(Fun fact: “Live and let live” was originally one of the Commandments, Moses talked Him down from fifteen to ten, and it got left out. God wouldn’t budge on adultery…)
As far as the “Caesar” quote, there is no quote from Jesus in the NT that is universally and unanimously interpreted. The list of repulsive and repugnant human actions that have been offered as Scripturally justified is very, very long. That particular quote has been revisited, reinterpreted, turned inside out, and warped beyond any possible recognition.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! You are stretching my thread of permissive tolerance just far enough so you can tie a knot in it.
Broad inclusiveness is central to an egalitarian society. We accept others, we put up with them, we reasonably expect the same. Our poetic motto is Don’t Be A Dick About Your Shit. It would be totally stupid to try and adjust a broad based health insurance to fit each individual religious outlook.
I’m not going to worry that my money is likely to be spent more on women’s health than men’s, I know a few of the curvy guys, and I like 'em. I’ve come around lately to a position of disapproval of circumcision for newborn infants, if that’s covered under health insurance, I’m not gonna sue anybody. Whatsitoya?
The most extreme example of this sort of social misbehavior is probably the Phelps, Hobby Lobby compares to them like poison ivy compares to smallpox. The Supremes decision will negatively affect the lives and well being of women, and that is wrong, and all the case law on all the books won’t make it right. All because somebody had to be a Dick About Their Shit.
And that’s why I’m looking forward to a slew of increasingly-absurd corporate-religion claims, to demonstrate the consequences of this kind of legislation and judicial ruling.
Then we will have to change the law we passed that allows individual religious outlook to adjust broad national laws’ application.
But you know what else is central to our society?
You Can’t Just Ignore Laws You Don’t Like.
(A close second: You Can’t Unilaterally Declare A National Poetic Motto.)
I don’t agree it’s wrong. But even if I did, I’d say the correct party to fix the situation is the party that passed a law saying, “All laws that burden religion can be attacked by the following methods,” not the party that said, “Hmm, looks like a law that burdens religion is being successfully attacked just as Congress provided in their law.”
What’s worse is no indication why it doesn’t apply to natural persons who are compelled by the PPACA to pay for health insurance–health insurance that is required by law to provide birth control coverage.
Yet another problem with textualism is that there is no check for unintended consequences. At least originalism has that: what did they mean by the law?
Sure, they say you should be able to pass a law to deal with it–but we all well know that this is not a practical solution. This is actually one way where conservatives are the idealists and liberals are the ones being practical.
No shit? Been on the progressive side of things for a while, and, thinking back, yeah, that’s pretty much how we did it. Changing laws, and stuff.
But thanks for the tip.
Wait, what? You don’t agree that negatively affecting women’s health is wrong? Da fuq? Shit, I’m not gonna ask why, I’m afraid you’ll tell me! Mental hygiene, you understand…
Which is to say, alternatively, Hobby Lobby can witness to their employees as they do for everyone else. And if they are convinced, then they might not use the option provided. However, most women do. You make a lot of hay out of the popularity of voter id, does the same principle apply to contraception?
The RFRA is a law. The AHCA is also a law. I am not seeing how one supersedes the other.
The underlying issue is that the AHCA is based on the concept of insurance, which means collecting a vig from a really broad pool and using the cumulative funds where they are most needed. For example, I absolutely deplore H2s and H3s, should I be able to get a car insurance policy that carries a provision that no part of my premium will ever be allocated to pay a claim to someone who was driving one of those? I fail to see any measurable difference in that vs. Hobby Lobby wanting a provision exempting them from women’s health issues.
Because one, by its terms, explicitly mandates how the other is to be applied.
That’s pretty easy. The RFRA explicitly says what government cannot do with all its laws. The ACA is such a law.
You “fail to see?”
Ok, let’s review: 42 USC § 2000bb says:
With me so far? No dispute that the law says what I have quoted?
Do you believe any part of that law applies to how you deplore H2s and H3s? Is there any law that you know of that would supply you relief based on your despising H2s and H3s?
Now do you see?
The answer is: no law allows your despising H2s and H3s to affect the requirements concerning how your payments are allocated.
But there is a law, 42 USC § 2000bb, that allows Hobby Lobby that relief.