Reach of Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby?

What standard does the court use for determining what beliefs are sincerely held, and which are not?

How could they if it’s the First Amendment itself that protects a secular, for-profit corporation’s right to free expression of it’s religion?

Not in the states and municipalities that have statutory protection for discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Wouldn’t those have to be useless against a corporation’s free exercise rights to discriminate against homosexuals?

Personally, I think it is as compelling as blood transfusions or vaccinations, but I’m very skeptical of the men on the Supreme Court would agree.

I’m not advocating that Hobby Lobby should lose their argument simply because of slippery slope, I’ve given numerous reasons other in this very thread. But what I am pointing out is that absurdity of a belief that the First Amendment protects a secular, for profit corporation’s exercise of its religion.

Two-thirds of Congress, and three-fourths of the states.
And since the current case involves the RFRA, all they have to do is change it and they get some breathing room. Half of Congress, plus one in each house, plus the President and they remove for-profit companies from the RFRA.

Same standard as any factual issue in any civil trial: preponderance of the evidence.

So if I present evidence that I have consistently opposed foreign wars because they violate my sincerely held religious beliefs, can I legally withhold income taxes?

Funny you didn’t mention that first time around. And I’d put the odds of a Constitutional Amendment taking away your for-profit corporation’s right to free exercise up there with one to make Obama King for Life and mandatory flag burning.

I asked before, did Hobby Lobby raise your First Amendment Free Exercise claim? If they didn’t, why do you suppose that is?

Or they could actually get beyond simplistic textualism, look to the context, and conclude the RFRA was never intended, and doesn’t, extend free exercise protections to for-profit corporations.

I’m a little surprised you chose to go there. ISTM that any religious person would be outraged by a judicial inquiry into the sincerity of their beliefs. Hell, I would be outraged by such an inquiry and I’m not even religious.

“Mr. Bricker, is it your sincere belief that bread and wine become flesh and blood after the words of consecration?”
“Yes.”
“Have you ever observed a physical change in the bread or wine?”
“No.”
“Would it be fair to say that you do not literally believe that transubstantiation takes place?”

Please point out where I said they could not. Thanks.

Hey hey hey! I’m not exactly primitive! I’ve got one of these here computer things, after all!

Which means any old horseshit will pass the test. Which means something packaged a little more reverently than Snowboarder’s Relapse Cult could be a legal religion, right?

No, I mean pisses off. They aren’t violating their beliefs. Someone else is doing something that violates their (Hobby Lobby’s) beliefs.

Again, they are just angry that their wages are being used for something they disagree with. They are in no way being forced to act, any more than if the money they pay their employees with pays for abortive drugs.

They are okay with giving dollars that can cause abortions, but not with giving health-care that can be used for it. It’s just silly.

Don’t get me wrong, even your ancient and august faith is as goofy as Scientology. If one gets a pass they all should.

I’m saying that Scientologist employers shouldn’t get to tell you that you can’t get mental health coverage, when the law says you can.

Wanna go down to the quarry and throw some holy books in?

The justices implicitly acknowledged that the owners’ religious beliefs were burdened though, so that’s no longer even an issue. The issue is whether it’s sufficient that they can opt out of providing insurance at all.

Eh? Things aren’t not at issue just because justices “implicitly acknowledge” them at oral argument. They are speaking hypothetically.

No. But you would certainly pass the sincere belief prong.

We won’t know for sure until they write the decisions. But it sure sounds like the liberal justices are seeking to uphold the mandate based on the fact that it’s not really a mandate.

They did not.

I suspect they did not because the First Amendment approach allows for whatever balancing tests or compromises the Hamlet-school judges might devise, unbound by any reference to text. The RFRA, in contrast, is straightforward and clear, and ignoring its text is at least difficult.

I have no idea. I expect your outright antipathy to religion makes your premises a bit difficult for me to understand.

Why in the world should your opinion about the substance of their beliefs be of interest?

A vegan may be a vegan because he objects to eating meat. Or he may object, on a religious basis, to killing any living creature. That makes a difference if he has to pay a butcher. Your opinion might be that he’s not doing any killing, but his religious objection might extend to subsidizing the killing that anyone else does.

In simpler words, Hobby Lobby’s belief is that paying an insurance company to provide abortions violates their beliefs. Although they are not Catholic, that belief is completely consistent with Catholic belief.

On what legal basis can you say the government should find that this is not a sincerely held religious belief?

I’ll go back and check, but I think that even in the circuits that ruled against Hobby Lobby, there was no court that found this was not a sincere religious belief.

Let me ask. As an attorney, did you ever not use a supposedly clear Constitutional argument and instead rely solely on a statutory one? Because, I have never really heard of a team of high priced, very well respected attorneys, passing on a Constitutional argument simply because a statutory one is available. In fact, I would be willing to bet that would be close to ineffective assistance, to specifically avoid a Constitutional argument (especially before the Supreme Court) in favor of a weaker statutory one.

But I think you know why I asked, and I know you know why you’re trying so desperately to pretend those attorneys would just throw away a Constitutional argument.

Because your premise that the First Amendment protects for-profit corporations right to religious expression is bullshit.

Hamlet? Bricker? Any other Doper legal beagles? I’d really like to get your opinions.