Let The Slippery Slope Begin: Government Contractors Using Hobby Lobby Ruling To Deny LGBT Rights

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Is reproductive health some special category of health care, inherently suspect, and therefore subject to restrictions that do not apply to blood pressure medication or vaccinations? And what “burden to religious practice” are we talking about? The dreadful burden of knowing that other people do not adhere to my religious opinions?

Well, the RFRA applies to all acts of Congress.

Reproductive health is certainly singled out as a special category by the Affordable Care Act.

The burden to religious practice arises from the requirement by the ACA that companies must pay for insurance coverage for twenty different contraceptives. Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs inform that that four of these contraceptives can act to prevent a fertilized eggs from implanting, which their faith regards as morally wrong.

The “substantial” calculation arises from the fines the ACA imposes upon companies that fail to comply with the regulation to cover all twenty contraceptives.

Ah! So we are going to submit all of these disagreements to trial by jury, then?

Sure. It will be a tiny fraction of the things are that are submitted to trial.

Though i was not aware that the “state of mind” of the accused had any bearing on a murder trial. The question is whether or not he actually committed the action he is accused of committing.

Not at all correct. Virtually every crime requires proof of both a guilty act, as you say (the actus reus) and proof of a guilty state of mind (mens rea). I mentioned first degree murder above; to convict on first degree murder we must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill.

True, he may be found not guilty by reason of insanity, but can he be found not guilty by reason of religious opinion?

Insanity is also an example: the court must find that the accused suffered from a mental disease or defect that either left him unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his act, or left him aware the act was wrong but unable to resist the impulse to commit the act anyway.

I could even craft a hypothetical in which religious opinion did make a difference in the criminal liability for an act, sure.

Perhaps we are better served by restricting ourselves to the actual matter at hand without drawing in inferences from entirely unrelated legal issues.

Well, you suggested that the concept of placing a mental state or belief at issue before a court was difficult or impossible. It seems very relevant to rebut that suggestion by reminding you, and others reading, that it is uncontroversially done every day in courtrooms across the land.