One more step closer to The Handmaid's Tale.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Next stop:

Comments

[stout-john.livejournal.com]

Does this mean they won't cover viagra and those things?

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

Of course they will cover Viagra. Cause Viagra doesn't cause abortions. Neither does the birth control they want to exclude, but having a factually wrong belief that it does, if held for religious reasons, is still a reason to deny people medical services.

[catlin.livejournal.com]

Men being able to have sex is a right. Women doing so is a privilege.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If Viagra caused abortions, or were believed to cause abortions, it would be treated the same way.

That's why Hobby Lobby still offers some contraceptives, just not a select few that they successfully sued over.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

They sued over "abortifacients". None of the selected contraceptives are abortifacients.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I know that. Their religious beliefs claim otherwise based on the belief on when life starts, which is a key point.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Beliefs trump facts in this case, yet it doesn't create precedent for other beliefs which trump facts, because the ruling said so.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Beliefs trump facts because religious belief trumps government mandates in this case.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Government mandates coverage of Treatment X. Treatment X is against the religious beliefs of Organization Y.

Let's plug contraceptives into Treatment X, Hobby Lobby into Organization Y. Why is this an infringement? Why doesn't it create precedent?

Let's plug blood transfusions into Treatment X, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York (the first Jehovah's Witness company I saw in a Google search) into Organization Y. They claim coverage of blood transfusions is an infringement on their religious beliefs. Why is the government mandate to cover blood transfusions an infringement of their beliefs? Why can't they use the Hobby Lobby decision as precedent?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Government mandates coverage of Treatment X. Treatment X is against the religious beliefs of Organization Y.

Let's plug contraceptives into Treatment X, Hobby Lobby into Organization Y. Why is this an infringement? Why doesn't it create precedent?

I think it should create precedent, but I also think this ruling is too narrow.

Why is it an infringement? Hobby Lobby has religious beliefs that need to be respected by law. It's pretty simple.

Why is the government mandate to cover blood transfusions an infringement of their beliefs? Why can't they use the Hobby Lobby decision as precedent?

Truly, because Alito said so. If blood transfusions being provided/funded/accommodated is against the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses (and I don't know if it is, but for the sake of this argument we'll say it is), I see the government mandate for blood transfusions as an infringement similar to, if not basically the same as, the Hobby Lobby case.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Truly, because Alito said so.

Why is that a good reason?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's not.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Just checking.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

It's probably the only way Alito got Kennedy to join the majority in full. Tough cookies!

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

Basically, because the SCOTUS said so:

"Our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs."
(Source (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/hobby-lobby-excerpts-ruling-dissent/11790835/))

Of course, there's nothing to stop suits from being brought regarding other kinds of religious beliefs. And I'm sure they will be!

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

on the belief on when life starts

A definition not existing in law anywhere.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Right, but the religious belief part does exist in law. That's the important part.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Does this ever make you uncomfortable as an atheist?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yes and no. At the same time, protecting the right to believe pushes the government in the direction of also protecting the right not to believe, so I see rulings like this as a good step for atheism.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I see rulings like this as a good step for atheism

I'm not sure I see it working like that. Maybe I need an example.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The government that can tell someone how to worship can also tell someone how not to. If the government can mandate to someone to violate their religious beliefs, what if it goes in the opposite direction? Should someone who sees religion as a cancer have to accommodate prayer nooks in their store? An extreme example, yes, but as an example off the top of my head...

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

The government that can tell someone how to worship can also tell someone how not to.

Well, they do that already - Satanists can't perform human sacrifices, etc. But to your larger point, you seem to be speaking about people, individuals. This is about corporations.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I would think atheism better protected if the Supreme Court refused to sanction any supernaturalism, period. This way, it opens the door, or opens it further, to more sectarian demands. It makes religion stronger, and hence further marginalizing atheism.

[catlin.livejournal.com]

Viagra causes pregnancies. Unplanned pregnancies cause abortions.

Thus Viagra does in fact, contribute to abortions.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, goodness, we'd better get the teetotalers out before it's too late.