5 Major Takeaways From The Hobby Lobby Decision

The Federalist ^ | June 30, 2014 | Sean Davis

[RKBA Democrat]

Yep. So instead of discussing law, they’re now offering roadmaps to get around even their tepid decisions?

I found it particularly galling that they’re willing to pick religious winners and losers. So a company whose owners have a sincere belief that it shouldn’t provide abortifacients are protected, but a company that has a sincere belief that transfusions shouldn’t be provided (e.g. Jehovah’s witnesses) would not be.

To steal a phrase from Orwell; all religions are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[HiTech RedNeck]

My guess: JWs only apply the no transfusion rule to themselves. Everyone else is already a lost heathen to them, so they don’t care.

[DoodleDawg]

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

I find this kind of troubling. Is the court now saying that it decides what some religious beliefs are protected while others aren't? Some religious sects are opposed to vaccinations. Some are opposed to blood transfusions. If a member of those sects own a company are they forced to provide insurance services that violate their beliefs until they sue, take the case to the Supreme Court, and win?

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.