All the RFRA is is a reiteration that laws that infringe on religious liberty are subject to strict scrutiny, am I wrong?
That should have been the courts’ position to begin with, given that it’s a core liberty interest.
Actually, RFRA was passed in response to that decision, wasn’t it?
Uh, how is That abortion is kiwwing wittle babies! inconsistent with thinking life begins at conception? Isn’t that pretty obviously what I meant? I think they’re fools, so I dismissively described their position. I even mentioned meds that stop implantation above.
This is why I let you state what you wanted, because of disingenuous jibba-jabba like this.
As a very broad overview, yes. But there are particulars that this broad outline blurs. Prior to the RFRA, the rule was that a “generally applicable” law would stand even if it “incidentally” burdened religious exercise.
Not exactly. See Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association and the aforementioned Employment Division v. Smith.
Ahhhh. So that’s why the 1st amendment doesn’t work here.
It was not clear that “abortion,” as you used the term, referred to prevention of implantation as well as the removal of an implanted embryo.
But the bigger and more critical items you missed were:
Your summary did not include this aspect of their religious belief.
Correct.
The whole reason the federal RFRA was passed was Congress’ reaction to Employment Division.
That’s what I thought, but I always saw RFRA as Congress telling the courts how to apply the 1st amendment.
The thing is, if Bricker’s interpretation is correct, it completely destroys a law that was previously found to be constitutional. If any corporation can claim any religious belief, then there can be no mandate. Form a religion where providing health insurance of any kind is immoral, adhere to that religion, and then no more mandate.
Clearly it is not possible for any organization to claim any religion. That would fly in the face of everything the law stands for. Clearly there are limitations to the RFRA, and clearly those will be determined.
And, again, I ask, why couldn’t the court say that Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to pay for emergency contraception coverage, but they must allow their employees to choose to have said coverage? Why can’t the money come directly from the employees so that Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to touch it?
And, note, I said coverage. Coverage for contraception is not the same thing as the ability to purchase contraception. The whole point of coverage is to spread the cost and decrease the burden of having to buy it directly. Paying a $1 a month for contraceptive coverage is not the same thing as paying $100 the one time you need it.
I’m trying my best to bring up other ideas here, so the discussion can actually get out of the gridlock it is currently in.
I also previously brought up the idea why a for-profit company can’t have a religion, as it can’t compel its workers to practice their religion, as religion is a protected class for employment, which I thought was directly addressing why the RFRA might be decided not to apply to for-profit companies.
I know I’m not remotely an expert on any of this. Maybe I’m looking at this incorrectly. But if I can come up with this, surely others can too, so why not explain why I’m wrong?
Well, one of the prongs I discuss above is the sincerity of the belief. The Hobby Lobby claim is limited to objecting to prove certain types of coverage — they don’t even object to all birth control, just to anything that causes the death of a fertilized embryo. That is a difference from objecting to all insurance. And the basis of their belief is a long-standing and very famous religious belief about when human life begins. It’s easy to understand how their belief can be sincere, and yet still imagine a principled line against a new religion that holds health insurance immoral.
Sure. The particular line that Lobohan is arguing is not going to be it, of course. The government at trial and on appeal focused on the idea that the RFRA does not permit a corporation, especially a for-profit corporation, to assert religious belief period. While the plain text of the RFRA as understood by the Dictionary Act obviously does, there’s something to the argument that Hamlet made here: Congress never intended that result. Obviously I disagree, but that’s a very possible line to draw.
I don’t know that Hobby Lobby could possibly prevent such a thing. There’s no legal barrier to that right now.
I’m stating that if they’re claiming the (already struck down as unconstitutional once) RFRA as their defense against providing Health Care, that they as a “Religious corporation” need to act as such and not violate one of the 10 basic tenets of their said religion. It’s more snark than anything.
What it really comes down to is that the RFRA, which is the only thing buttressing Hobby Lobby’s claim, is just pure bullshittingly unconstitutional.
Look at Adams v Commissioner:
The Supreme Court has already confirmed that ACA is considered a tax.
Here’s the relevant part of theRFRA
As Scalia himself said before:
So if
1)the ACA has already proven to be a tax and
2) exemption from taxes based on “religious burden” has been dismissed,
where does Hobby Lobby have solid ground to stand on?
Two problems with that claim: one is that according to your link, they don’t admit to doing anything wrong, and are settling to avoid the costs and risks of portracted litigation. Secondly, the conduct that they’re alleged to have done is not “false witness against a neighbor” in the same sense that claiming a woman is unchaste when she is not. They are alleged to have advertised “sale” prices but never ending the sales. Most states, New York included, forbid that practice because a sale that never ends amounts to the real price, as opposed to a special deal.
That’s not exactly a violation of core Christian principles. And from a legal perspective, it would be irrelevant information in this case.
The Supreme Court agrees with you insofar as the RFRA’s application to the states, but disagrees with you concerning the application to the federal government.
(1) is correct in the sense Congress has the power to impose it under the taxation power
(2) is not. It’s true that exemption from general income taxes has been dismissed. But that case, and no other case, says that ANY tax is therefore permissible. The portion of the ACA that Hobby Lobby complains of is not a generally applicable tax, and thus is easily distinguishable from US v Lee, upon which the Adams case you cite rests.
So, yes, it’s a tax, but it’s not a “generally applicable,” tax.
Yes, Lobohan is conflating the 3 prongs (if he’s considering them at all). He seems to think that if he finds a sincerely held religious belief absurd, he gets to dismiss it. He doesn’t seem to realize that the “sincerely held belief” prongs, having been established (I think he concedes that they have been), leave him only with arguing whether or not the government is applying substantial pressure for the plaintiff to act contrary to these beliefs. Period. $26M does the trick by any reasonable standard. But it’s at this point that Lobohan applies the “absurd test,” somehow thinking the “substantial” aspect applies to the plaintiff’s burden within the first two prongs. The principal non sequitur in his logic is the one that asserts that there is no belief at all being violated, while simultaneously ignoring the implication of a plaintiff actually going to the trouble and effort of defending a belief they apparently don’t really hold.
Re: the first 2 prongs, the plaintiff need only have a religious belief, sincerely held, that would be violated in complying with the legislation in question–whatever anyone else’s opinion is on those beliefs (Lobohan included). And then around and around we go again.
Lying in the Bible is more than just the Ten Commandments™ though.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
Proverbs 13:5 A righteous man hates lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and comes to shame.
Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
Proverbs 17:7 Excellent speech becomes not a fool: much less do lying lips a prince.
Colossians 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his deeds;
I’d say that claiming something on sale when it’s the regular price would fit.
If you’re talking about Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal and its application there, is towards a church and not a for profit business (or the for profit persons of a business). SCOTUS has yet to decide either way on that matter, thus this case.
I think the burden of proof that it’s not a generally applicable tax would then be on Hobby Lobby. Frankly, Hobby Lobby has yet to show how that the goverment is imposing a substantial burden for them to provide the health care that they were already providing.
ACA isn’t a tax, the individual mandate is a tax. The coverage requirements under ACA are part of Congress’ interstate commerce regulatory powers.
True, although one shouldn’t read your post to suggest that Hobby Lobby must succeed in their suit…just that Hobby Lobby must (and has) succeed on the question of substantial burden. There remain the question of whether the RFRA even reaches a for-profit corporation, and whether the government’s approach is narrowly tailored.
It’s amusing that even though those are the questions argued at trial and on appeal, Lobohan’s attempt at analysis lands squarely on a point the government has essentially conceded, and for which there is no dispute beyond, it seems, Lobohan himself.
Two problems:
(1) Who cares what you say? The question is what their belief is, not what your belief is.
(2) At what point do you contend it becomes a lie? That is, the item was priced at $10, then placed on sale for $8.50. Next week it’s on back-to-school special for $8.50. The next week it’s a Manager’s special for $8.75, then a month of October Madness for $8.50, then November it’s $10 each but you can buy two for $17, then December’s Christmas Special of $8.25, marked down from $10.
When did they break the commandment, according to you?
Absolutely correct. The plain text of the Dictionary Act makes no distinction between for-profit and non-profit entities, but the argument is that Congress simply never intended to extend RFRA protection to for-profit retail outlets, so notwithstanding the plain language, the RFRA doesn’t protect Hobby Lobby.
As you say, that’s the crux of this case. And that’s what the Court will settle.
Either way, Congress can cure any defect. If the Court rules Hobby Lobby is protected, Congress can amend the RFRA to remove for-profit corporations from its reach; if the Court finds Hobby Lobby is not shielded, Congress can amend the RFRA to say, in effect, yes, we meant non-profits also.
They weren’t already providing it.
Health plans covered by ERISA must include coverage for FDA-approved contraceptive methods. There are twenty. Hobby Lobby only objects to covering four of the 20: two types of IUDs, Plan B, and Ella. They are indeed already providing the other sixteen and plan to continue. They are not providing the four that cause a fertilized embryo to die, and don’t plan to.
So their objection is not to participating in the generally applicable ACA requirements as a whole.
You almost have it. But you’re a little mixed up. I accept that they have these beliefs. I’ll even grant that they’re likely sincere, although, as I said upthread, they used to allow Plan B, but that was probably because they simply didn’t have any idea.
But once the government says they gotta, it’s tyranny, by gum!
Anywho, what you miss is that the government isn’t meaningfully asking them to act against their beliefs. Paying a check out to Joe’s Abortion and Crablegs™ would reasonably, I think be shaky. But they aren’t paying for abortions, or abortifacients, or baby murder. They’re paying for health insurance.
Can you understand the distinction? Think hard about it, it’ll come to you, maybe.
The 26 million isn’t really an issue. Because paying for insurance isn’t against their beliefs by any sane measure. They are okay with paying for insurance, which can be used for thousands or millions of services. But they don’t want that insurance to pay for things they don’t like, that’s where they go off the rails.
As I said above, you give me a sausage, I might sexually defile it. But if I do, that’s not on you. You’re paying for a sausage, that’s all. I’m the one using it for reasons you dislike.
Someone using something you give them in a way you don’t like doesn’t mean you are being oppressed.
You can’t even correctly enunciate their beliefs, Lobohan.
Why in the world would you expect to be able to tell whether the government is meaningfully asking them to act against their beliefs if you don’t understand what their beliefs are?
I would argue that the SCOTUS, and government in general, is overly deferential to religion. For instance ceremonial deism is utter nonsense, but it’s an attempt to bend over backwards to be nice to the religious.
By no sane measure is paying for a service that might be used in a way you don’t like is an impediment on your beliefs.