1993 religious freedom act is at heart of contraception case

[cbayer]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-religion-20131125,0,2545589.story#axzz2lgu9Kve6

A 1993 religious freedom act at the heart of a possible Supreme Court contraception case may come back to haunt Democrats.


The Supreme Court is considering whether to hear an appeal of a ruling that employers cannot be made to provide contraception coverage under the new healthcare law if they have religious objections. (Karen Bleier / Getty Images / November 25, 2013)

By David G. Savage
November 25, 2013, 11:31 a.m.

WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court confronted the case of Native Americans who were fired for smoking an illegal drug during a religious ceremony, Justice Antonin Scalia called a halt to granting religious exemptions under the Constitution's protection for the "free exercise" of religion. It "would be courting anarchy" to permit "religious objectors" to ignore the law, he said.

But Democrats in Congress rose up to overturn his decision and to bolster religious freedom.

Backed by a broad coalition, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Christian Legal Society, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act became law 20 years ago this month. It declared that the government may not "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" unless it had a "compelling" reason to do so.

Now, that little-known law is at the center of a major "religious liberty" challenge to President Obama's health insurance overhaul and its requirement that employers pay for full contraceptive coverage for their female employees.

more at link

[EvilAL]

1. I don't know how that works,

is there something you have to do to claim religious objections in a case like this or can you just say that's your reason and it can't be questioned.

[cbayer]

2. From what I understand, it comes down to "substantial burden".

Maybe someone with more legal knowledge, like rug, will weigh in here.

[rug]

5. It's basically the Sherbert Test.

The Sherbert Test consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual's right to religious free exercise has been violated by the government. The test is as follows:

For the individual, the court must determine
whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.

If these two elements are established, then the government must prove
that it is acting in furtherance of a "compelling state interest," and
that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner#The_Sherbert_Test

It's ironic that Scalia's parochialism prompted the statute. The fact that it may now be used for employers' religious exemptions to the ACA demonstrates that religious beliefs are not easily translated into conventional political frameworks.

[cbayer]

7. This makes sense when it comes to individual beliefs but

seems to become much more complicated when it comes to groups and even more so when it comes to corporations.

With Hobby Lobby, I could buy that there is a sincere religious belief held by the owners regarding contraception.

But I'm not clear how providing it insurance coverage for their employees that includes contraception places a burden on them that prohibits them from acting on that belief.

[rug]

8. It was a dangerous precedent to assign free speech to corporations.

It's even more dangerous to assign them religious beliefs.

The private owners of Hobby Lobby are not personally subject to corporate laws. Their corporation should not have the protections humans are afforded for religious beliefs.

It will be interesting how the arguments are framed.

[cbayer]

9. I hope SCOTUS agrees to hear it.

Would be good to get this settled. I see the potential for mass abuse.

[rug]

10. It's Hobby Lobby!

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-health-law-dispute-165614035--finance.html

[cbayer]

11. Excellent. I would think that is the one most likely to be ruled in our favor.

[HockeyMom]

3. How do you KNOW the religion of your employer?

Other than they are a specific organized religion, as in a religious school, hospital, etc. How are you supposed to know that Joe Smith, widget manufacturers (or even a Hobby Lobby) is a "Christian, for profit, organization opposed to contraception". Unless there is a disclosure act, so you can choose not to work for them based on THEIR religion, there should not be any exemption for private, for profit, companies claiming they are "christian" companies. Very deceitful. Proclaim your faith to the public, so that the public, and future employees can avoid you.

Corporate "person's" religion is even worse.

[cbayer]

4. Really good point.

Disclosure would seem to be key if SCOTUS comes down on the side of the companies who are claiming they are entitled to this exception.

We shall see.

[rug]

6. This is one of the ludicrous consequences of Citizens United.

A Supreme Court that finds a corporation's freedom of speech in the First Amendment is not far from finding a private corporation's religious freedom in the same Amendment.

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. WTF is a "Christian Company" supposed to be anyway?

I doubt any of the companies claiming such titles could give a consistent response.

Plus, that whole "get rid of your money and possessions and become itinerant, indigent apocalyptic doomsayers" part of Christianity doesn't really jive with the capitalist ethic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Do corporations go to heaven?

If they think a corporation can have a religious belief, then I guess 'Christian companies' like Hobby Lobby expect to be reincorporated in the hereafter. Did Corporate Jesus go into bankruptcy for the sins of Exxon?