No, you disingenuously pretended you didn’t understand what I said. Very different.
I do understand their beliefs, Bricker. We already discussed this.
OK. Then without any snark, can you correctly and completely state their beliefs that are relevant to this suit?
I say you cannot.
Yes, you’re making my point quite nicely in these few sentences. You concede, I think, that they hold the belief that providing insurance that covers certain forms of birth control is against their religious beliefs, and that these beliefs are sincerely held. That should be a full stop (with regard only to this specific test, as Bricker pointed out), and your only question at this point is whether or not the government is applying substantial pressure for them to act contrary to those beliefs.
And even though it’s not relevant for this test, I honestly can’t see how anyone can argue that the belief that certain forms of birth control are egregious sins doesn’t logically mean that providing coverage would be sinful (from that person’s perspective). This is not an instance of being forced to provide something that someone could misuse in a sinful (from their perspective) manner. That’s exactly what those forms of birth control result in, period.
And again, they obviously believe this–right? Why isn’t it self-evident that they believe that providing this coverage is a sinful act, per their religious beliefs, since they are actively fighting in defense of this belief? Whatever you or I think of those religious beliefs is irrelevant. You seem to think that a counter argument is, “your sincerely held religious beliefs are illogical from my perspective.” It’s not.
They don’t take issue with the thousands of other services covered. Providing insurance that covers those forms of birth control means they are benefactors for the results of that coverage. This isn’t hard. You don’t need to agree with their beliefs. Hell, their beliefs don’t even need to be logical. You’re twisting yourself in knots trying to argue something that is a non-starter, including from the government’s perspective. Hell, if they sincerely believed they were religiously prohibited from providing you with a sausage, for whatever reason, then a government law compelling them to provide one would fail the same test.
These are self-evidently sincerely held religious beliefs, and government force applies a substantial penalty if they don’t act contrary to those beliefs. If the case fails, it won’t be on those grounds. You can say that you think this standard is a poor one, but it’s the standard.
Ok, no snark. And please, in return, try to accept any minor errors in phrasing or nuance that you might find. <3
They believe that life begins at conception. And as such, they don’t want to be involved with the elimination of that life. They feel like this requirement is forcing them to fund these things.
But where they go wrong, is paying a dollar to Kaiser is paying a dollar to Kaiser. You may give a plan that says no abortion or implantation drugs or procedures. But money is fungible. Your dollar contributes if you like it or no.
And more importantly, they aren’t paying for Abortion Co. They’re paying for healthcare that is usable for fetus elimination among a million other things. It’s not like they’re providing only fetus removal coverage. They’re providing a tool. And that tool’s uses don’t morally reflect on them. Especially since they buy crap from China. Why is it fine for them to support state enforced abortion (until recently) but not okay to pay Kaiser for a panoply of health care that another person can decide to use in a way they don’t like?
Not exactly correct.
Yes: they believe life starts at conception, and deliberately ending that life by drugs that stop implantation of the fertilized egg is murder.
But they also have a belief similar to the Catholic Church, although they are of course not Catholic. They believe that it’s morally wrong to procure an abortion. This goes beyond choosing to get an abortion, and beyond performing an abortion. In Catholic thinking, a person is culpable for providing any sort of support for an abortion – financial or otherwise. A Catholic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication if he drives the patient to the clinic, or lends the patient the money.
The Greens are not Catholic.
But they believe that paying for insurance that is used to commit murder is morally wrong.
This is the belief that you are not addressing – you simply say that the belief is asinine. And in your opinion, it is. But under the law, that’s not relevant. Under the law, the questions are:
(1) Is their belief at issue that paying for insurance that is used to purchase abortifacient drugs is morally wrong? (Yes).
(2) Is that belief sincere? (Yes.)
(3) Is the government imposing substantial pressure upon them to violate that belief? (Yes).
That’s the end of the substantial burden inquiry.
There are plenty of other, strong, arguments against the position the Greens have taken. Does the RFRA apply to Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation?
But this hill you’ve chosen to defend isn’t defensible. The government hasn’t contested the point you’re contesting. They are substantially burdened, as the RFRA and caselaw defines the term. The questions about their success lie in other areas.
But where they go wrong, is paying a dollar to Kaiser is paying a dollar to Kaiser. You may give a plan that says no abortion or implantation drugs or procedures. But money is fungible. Your dollar contributes if you like it or no.
And more importantly, they aren’t paying for Abortion Co. They’re paying for healthcare that is usable for fetus elimination among a million other things. It’s not like they’re providing only fetus removal coverage. They’re providing a tool. And that tool’s uses don’t morally reflect on them. Especially since they buy crap from China. Why is it fine for them to support state enforced abortion (until recently) but not okay to pay Kaiser for a panoply of health care that another person can decide to use in a way they don’t like?
[/QUOTE]
(bolding mine)
I know they are Christian, but which branch? (Is that the right term? Offshoot? Spinoff? Flavor??)
And is their belief a commonly held belief of that particular religion, or is it just their sincerely held belief? Does the RFRA apply to all sincerely held beliefs, or just ones of a religious nature?
I suppose offshoot might be used to describe a minor variant of Christianity. I don’t think either “spinoff,” or “flavor,” is properly used in this context.
Beyond “evangelical Christian,” I don’t think they identify with any more defined branch.
Their belief is held by many Christians, and, as I suggested, by many Catholics as well. The advantage of Catholicism, of course, is that it has a leader, an authority that can promulgate both definitive teachings and rulings on matters of faith and morals. So far as I know there is no similar source of absolute authority for evangelical Christianity (apart from Holy Scripture, of course) but there is plenty of persuasive writing from other evangelicals on the subject.
The RFRA applies to religion only, and not sincerely held beliefs that arise from other sources.
Thanks Bricker.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Two problems:
(1) Who cares what you say? The question is what their belief is, not what your belief is.
[/QUOTE]
You do realize you said this, right?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
That’s not exactly a violation of core Christian principles.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Either way, Congress can cure any defect.
[/QUOTE]
Or they can deem it unconstitutional. Making any panacea moot.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
They weren’t already providing it.
[/QUOTE]
I have heard this claimed before but have not seen a cite supporting it.
Actually:
[Religious views
Green is the son of an Assemblies of God preacher and comes from a family of preachers. Green claims to have built his business squarely on biblical principles and attributes his success to his faith in God. He has taken a public stance against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because of its inclusion of a provision mandating that companies provide access to the morning-after pill.](David Green (entrepreneur) - Wikipedia)
And
Yes. And?
I can’t quite figure out if this is supposed to illustrate some contradiction. It doesn’t – in this case, you’re not a party, and your beliefs are irrelevant; their beliefs are central to their RFRA claim. So to resolve their RFRA claim, their beliefs are evaluated. Whether you think an ever-lasting “sale price” constitutes a lie is collateral to the beliefs at issue and totally irrelevant in any event. The Court does not evaluate the beliefs concerning abortifacients by inquiring into the minutiae of how they view the Eighth Commandment. (Although, since they’re Protestant, they probably think it’s the Ninth Commandment). No matter, either way.
Not sure who “they” is. If Congress ‘deems’ any statute unconstitutional, they can of course re-write it to cure any defect…which is exactly what I said. If ‘they’ means the Supreme Court, they’ve already tackled the issue in 2006, with a unanimous decision that the RFRA was constitutional as against the federal government. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418. Of course they could reverse themselves, but since the 2006 decision was unanimous, I think that outcome is the three-legged goat at the horse race.
You want a cite that they weren’t providing something?
Generally, the burden is on the person asserting a positive claim – that is, it’s usually much more difficult to show they aren’t doing something. If you think they were providing it, then it should fall to you to show it.
But in this case, the question has come up already, and so I do have a cite.
Got it. So I’m not much of an expert on Assemblies of God, but a brief read suggests that they don’t really have a single central person to declare doctrine, although they do have a General Council that credentials ministers and a General Presbyter that acts as a sort of board of directors.
But as I understand being a Protestant, even if you attend a particular Protestant denomination church, you aren’t bound to obey each and every policy or doctrinal statement it issues. There are obviously core beliefs: baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, the confidence that Christ will return to establish His Kingdom, and perhaps others.
Anyway, I’m not sure where this is going: are you suggesting the stance the Greens have taken is incompatible with the teachings of the Assemblies of God? 'Cause…i doubt that, but am willing to be convinced.
SCOTUS
Don’t be a dick. Because, and here are your words, you said they weren’t:
[QUOTE=Bricker]
They weren’t already providing it.
[/QUOTE]
That was your claim.
Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them-
They object to providing four of the twenty approved contraceptive methods. They now, and have in the past, cheerfully provided the other sixteen.
Unknown to them, their provider added Ella and Plan B to their list, so there was a time in which they – unknowingly – funded Ella and Plan B. When they became aware of this, they removed them. Cite. So there was a time when they provided eighteen of the twenty approved contraceptive methods.
Can you explain specifically how that’s fatal to their claim?
Question: How is something suddenly a substantial burden to provide after providing it for years prior?
Answer: It’s not.
That’s where Hobby Lobby fails. This isn’t a Cheek v. United States type of ignorance here. They were engaging willingly in the practice of providing these “abortifacients” before the law was even enacted. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite of ignorantia juris non excusat .
So if you don’t know you are being watched, then it’s not unconstitutional to watch you becuase it wasn’t a burden on you?
That’s the logic of your statement. Hobby Lobby unknowingly provided access to abortifacients. That mistake does not cause them to surrender all future objections.
That’s not a very good analogy. Being watched in secret implies active concealment. HL’s insurance carriers were not actively misrepresenting the drugs they covered.
All right, good point. Let’s try another tack. If an employee needs a day off for religious purposes, despite the fact that the employee the previous year failed to take the day off due to an oversight, has that employee negated his religious claim?
Try and argue without an analogy as that doesn’t work either.
Warning issued. Don’t call other posters names and never insult them, even in a backhanded way.
Follow the substantial burden analysis steps and answer your own question. During the time they were providing it, (a) they didn’t realize they were, and (b) there was no threat of a fine if they stopped.
Under their religious faith, they are not morally culpable for a mistake. They only become morally culpable if they knowingly provide these services.
So:
(1) Is their belief at issue that paying for insurance that is used to purchase abortifacient drugs is morally wrong? (Yes, and when they discovered they were accidentally doing it, they immediately stopped).
(2) Is that belief sincere? (Yes, and this was not disputed at trial on on appeal to the Tenth Circuit.)
(3) Is the government imposing substantial pressure upon them to violate that belief? (Yes, to the tune of millions of dollars in fines).
All these factors are laid out in Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2010).
What caselaw are you relying upon to reach the opposite conclusion?
I still think this issue of whether their beliefs are sincere is a sideshow. It doesn’t resolve the underlying issue, which is whether any closely held corporation can do this.