by William Thornton » Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:52 am
Businesses, especially large corporations, are sensitive to public opinion. I doubt we will see a huge expansion of business claiming RL exemptions on this or other obama mandates. Those that are like Hobby Lobby et al, should have the right to do so under the same circumstances. Maybe the gummit could get out of mandating what business should do in regard to their employees health care.
Keith seems to think that if a majority of a closely held companies employees have no moral objection to contraceptions then the owners' religious views should be set aside. SCOTUS disagreed, properly, in my view, maintaining that it is not generally the gummit's prerogative to decide which religious views are worthy of protection and which are not. It seems inescapable to me that Keith believes that it is perfectly acceptable for gummit to make these decisions, but he can clarify that. In the case we are discussing (and I hate to say it again but it seems to slide past my old friend) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the government (Burwell, HHS Secretary) did not argue that employees have a FA right to contraception, although critics of the decision complained that it allows employers to force their religious beliefs on employees which is as close as the argumentation gets to what Keith keeps opining. The simple answer to that objection is that government can easily overcome what is lost in the mandate and that employees are not so aggrieved as to require gummit to substantially burden their employer's religious beliefs.
Need any of us have to declare that none of us are legal scholars? Not to despair there is surely more litigation to come on these religious liberty issues.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog,