can a closely-held jewish firm refuse to cover colonoscopies and radiation treatment?

[unblock]

these procedures may involve giving tattoos. tiny dots to make where a polyp was removed or to line up the equipment for a series of radiation appointments.

judaism objects to permanently marking the body.

of course, judaism doesn't really care what non-jews do, and it places health first (insulin from or heart valves from pigs are fine, for instance). but i'm sure we can find a nutjob sect somewhere with extremist beliefs, especially if it means their corporation can save money.

obviously letting corporations restrict health coverage based on "sincerely-held beliefs" opens up pandora's box. their use of the term "sincerely-held" indicates that they are aware of this problem and want to power to pick and choose which beliefs count and which don't.

[quinnox]

1. Really? How weird.

"judaism objects to permanently marking the body"

[Coventina]

2. True. And many Christians are anti-tattoo for the same reason.

Leviticus 19:28

on edit: my dad had a fit when he found out I had a tattoo.

[quinnox]

10. I'm anti-tattoo also, but not for religious reasons

I just think they look stupid, although one or two small and discreet ones are much better than the ones that are all over the arms.

[Hekate]

3. I think the OP exaggerates for effect. Medical dots would be okay...

... but a "sleeve" like my son is having created would not be. My son is having a dragon design wrapped from in back across one shoulder and down his arm -- it's actually quite beautiful if you like that kind of thing.

But for Conservative or Orthodox Jews? No.

[unblock]

5. i had that disclaimer in there, health comes first.

i know a diabetic who, as a kid, abruptly refused to take her insulin when she found it was from pigs.
the parents had to get the rabbi to come and lecture her for hours to reassure her that judaism says health comes first.

but yes, the conflict only exists in this case if the jewish sect is extreme about not having tattoos.

[Hekate]

4. How about strict Saudi Muslims requiring a husband's permission slip for a wife to work?

[unblock]

6. and on and on the list goes....

[Hekate]

7. Let's make a list!

[el_bryanto]

8. Not by this decision

They made it clear that this decision only applied to birth-control and only to birth control predominantly used by woman.

Bryant

[jeff47]

9. Precedent doesn't work that way.

Yes, Alito tried to do some damage control by listing some situations where the SCOTUS might rule against a company in a future case. Unfortunately, that doesn't actually limit the precedent.

If you'd like an example, Bush v. Gore has been cited successfully many times, despite the ruling claiming it only applied to that case.

The precedent that was set was that companies can ignore any law that "violates their religious beliefs". Lower courts will now have to rule based on that precedent. Theoretically, a future SCOTUS case could follow Alito's limitations and set a new precedent that limits yesterday's. Or not. The SCOTUS is free to rule however it wants.

[el_bryanto]

12. That's true too - it's hard to say where this decision could lead

But it's a single step - this particular decision doesn't go that far, but you are right it does start in the wrong direction.

Bryant

[unblock]

11. ginberg said that it was a decision of startling breadth

yes, the majority opinion claimed that the decision was narrow, but they gave no basis for reasoning that the constitutional logic that they claim supports their decision does not also support other religious objections to medical treatments and such.

[IronLionZion]

13. That would be great for Goldman Sachs

and many investment banks. And the arab/muslim companies can have all sorts of draconian restrictions as well. Hindu IT firms can't give any treatments to meat eaters. Ooh yeah...