Matt 21:12.
Fucking hippies! So intolerant!
It was there because it was part of the text I quoted, nothing more. I don’t know why THEY inclkuded it. — so, I wasn’t swiping at you over that one.
So then, just to be a jerk (yes I admit it but it’s fun)… do any of the Hobby Lobby wimmenfolk use any sort of birth control? It’s all about “preventing”. If so, they’re all horriblke sinners and heretics … and uhhh … stuff. Because by extension, all birth control prevents the fertilization. and other truthy sciencey stuff.
Every sperm is sacred … and stuff.
I’m an asshole. You don’t have to say it 
That would allow for some REALLY crazy shit.
Well, yeah. Of course, the government usually has a compelling interest in ensuring that women are not treated like dinosaurs, and somewhat rarely has a less restrictive option.
But that view isn’t shared by Hobby Lobby. They don’t object in the least to preventing fertilization.
Does the SCOTUS decision mean that the ACA administration now should regularly monitor Hobby Lobby for changes in the ownership or religious beliefs of the owners, in case the corporation converts to a new religion as a result, and can now pay for contraception without religious objection?
The exemption must be renewed annually.
If I may presume to attempt to summarize:
Religion is dumb.
and so is trying to impose one’s own dumbness on others.
Bad science and hoodoo superstition and a bit of “control freak” tossed in for good measure.
The “imposition” came from the government ordering Hobby Lobby to buy contraception insurance for their employees. They objected to that order because it violated federal law.
And they were right: turns out the law does not require them to buy those kinds of contraception insurance for their employees.
You apparently want some other result, one that DOES involve the law forcing the employer to buy these kinds of insurance.
Too bad.
But they can, however, be forced to offer insurance that covers transfusions, vaccinations, psychiatric medicines, and Viagra?
They can be forced to offer insurance that covers those things, yes…unless providing insurance to cover those things burdens their exercise of religion.
If it does, then they can’t be forced, unless the method of forcing them is narrowly tailored to achieve the legitimate government goal involved.
In the case of Hobby Lobby specifically, none of those things burdens their exercise of religion, so they can be forced.
More’s the pity.
And just to be perfectly clear, it is the company that gets to decide what is or is not a burden, yes?
No.
Their claim that a particular requirement is a substantial burden presents a mixed question of fact and law. (Are you clear on the distinction between “a question of fact” and “a question of law?” I can explain this further if needed).
It’s a question of fact for the trial court to determine what sincere religious belief exists that creates the claimed burden, and what facts exist that make the burden “substantial.” It’s a question of law whether those facts actually create a substantial burden.
So a company seeking the protections of the RFRA must prove that they have a sincere religious belief, and prove that the burden imposed on them for choosing to follow that belief instead of complying with the government’s requirement is a substantial one.
If they can prove those claims, then the government gets a turn at bat. It must prove that it’s requirement arises from a compelling government interest and that its method of achieving that compelling interest is narrowly drawn to achieve only that interest.
Personally, I want (or at least recommend) moving to a model where health insurance decisions are not controlled by employers, who are then free to be as dumbly religious as they like, at least on this issue.
Don’t you have it, already?
Nah, I’m good there, thanks.
This, I think, is my fundamental problem. I realize that trials determine such subjectivity all the time. Hell, that’s the essential core of determining mens rea. But it sits very uncomfortably with me.
Yes, I’m Canadian and am discussing what I think Americans should do. Do you think I need to specify that every time I comment on the issue, or can you manage to retain the information?