One more step closer to The Handmaid's Tale.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Next stop:

Comments

[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!