Nope. The Supremes have already found that taxes meet the compelling interest standard for burdens on religious expression.
Although I do think this is but the next step in the expansion of the powers of corporate personhood and, if the Supreme Court supports it, will lead to a huge legal and moral mess.
No more than a legal and moral mess we already have when dealing with individuals. That’s why the government often chooses to just exempt individuals entirely from many business regulation laws. Saves a lot of headaches. You will continue to be able to deny household help insurance coverage for contraception.
Do you see the contradiction in these two sentences?
The government has long made churches and religious organizations tax-exempt. By the logic of your second sentence (that creating an exception means there is no compelling interest), then taxes certainly wouldn’t pass the test. You’re contradicting yourself.
Unknowingly, because I forgot about the tax exempt thing, but yeah, you busted my logic wide open.
Can a business owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses deny employees insurance coverage for transfusions?
Since transfusions are lifesaving, no. Unless of course transfusions are already not required, which I believe they are not.
I tried really hard last time someone asked this question to find the essential benefits list to see if transfusions were on it. No luck. Maybe someone here can answer that question.
There are many opinions about when a pregnancy begins and thus what would be considered as terminating an existing pregnancy. However the drug manufacturer’s own testing showed that ella resulted in loss of already implanted and established pregnancies in animal models at a rate similar to RU-486.
The idea that ella likely terminates implanted pregnancies in humans is not wild speculation. The same EMA report I previously linked to identified off-label use as an abortifacient as a potential safety risk. Their recommendation - don’t tell people about that.
Essential health benefits (list here)
Blood transfusions are not specifically listed on that list, but many of the terms are very broad.
That I saw, but I know that those broad categories don’t include everything in those categories. That would cause costs to skyrocket because you’d be getting into things like Herceptin and proton beam therapy.
So, it turns out that Hobby Lobby’s moral objection to birth control doesn’t extend to investing its employees’ retirement money in it;
This has been gone over in this thread and in others: is there any evidence that Hobby Lobby knows what’s in the mutual funds that are available in the 401(k) plans? Do you know what’s in your 401(k) plan? Could it be that eeevill Haliburton is in there?
And as was pointed out, employees have little control over the funds their 401k is invested in, while employers like Hobby Lobby can do due diligence in the funds they invest in if they are sincere in their religious beliefs.
They can, but in order to prove hypocrisy you have to show that they knew they should.
They do now, don’t they?
If they read Straight Dope or whatever other sources are reporting, yes they do.
They knew they should with insurance; it is disingenuous to plead ignorance about investments. They are hypocrites, motivated not by religious belief, but by political and financial self-interest.
If Hobby Lobby were to learn that a company that makes RU-486 had a bank account at the same bank they use, would they need to close that bank account in order to maintain sincerity in their religious beliefs?
Who gets to decide how much entanglement is religiously acceptable for them? You?
From the point of view of the law, do you have an understanding of how “sincere religious belief” is analyzed?
If you do, can you offer an opinion about that analysis as applied to this case?
Do you actually think that the Green’s aren’t motivated by their religious beliefs? ISTM that their religious beliefs are influencing their political beliefs, not the other way around. As for financial self-interest, I strongly suspect that the money that they’ve spent in legal fees will far outweigh any increase in premiums that would have resulted in simply complying with the law.
Yes. Does that seem excessive to you? I guess it all depends on how sincere you are in your beliefs.
With regard to my opinion, and expressing that opinion to my representatives and the world at large, of course I get to decide. If enough people express their opinions, laws get changed. Ain’t America grand?
Sure.
But there exist plenty of examples of other expressions of sincere religious belief – ones in which I think a majority of observers would agree represent sincerity – that illustrate that something can be unacceptable if the nexus is close, and acceptable when it’s taken at greater remove.
For example, consider the Orthodox Jewish rules concerning chametz, leavened food that is forbidden to an observant Jew during Passover. The observant Jew must remove all chametz from his home by the eve of Passover. Not simply remove: he collects it and burns it. He also recites a statement that if any chametz is left in the house, he disclaims it; it is considered ownerless.
He may also sell it to a non-Jew and then buy it back after Passover ends.
Some have been heard to criticize this move as a legal fiction: the man in question simply seals the offending material up, and arranges with a non-Jew to buy it, with the expectation (although not the legal requirement) that he can buy it back.
Whatever your opinion of the tactic, there seems to be a reasonable consensus that the Jewish people consider this – sincerely – to be a way to conform to the mitzvah, the command from G-d, of not owning chametz during Passover, while not having to destroy and re-purchase at a loss their grains.
So when I ask, “Who gets to decide?” I am alluding to the arms-length of running a 401(K) program that buys mutual funds that in turn buy stocks of hundreds of companies, some of which make RU-486, is not objectively insincere. You may feel it is, of course, but from a legal standpoint, I don’t believe a court would find that Hobby Lobby’s stated beliefs were insincere based on this example.
And, indeed, in the courts below, Hobby Lobby’s sincerely belief was accepted. The sticking point for the current case is whether a for-profit corporation can claim a protection for their religious practice under the RFRA.
Absolutely. And in fact, that’s all it would take to eviscerate Hobby Lobby’s claims: change the RFRA law to exclude for-profit companies.