No, the real problem is that the State is trying to assert the authority to define just what is (and what is not) the “real” ministry and mission of the Church.
The assertion is that only those narrowly defined activities pertaining to and supporting worship and explicit religious teaching are worthy of exemption.
What part of “free exercise thereof” do they fail to understand?
At the risk of being accused of "derailing" the subject of this thread, I must make a correction (ommission) in that definition.
If the premium is not risk based, it is NOT insurance.
Doesn't matter how the total risk cost is paid. That could (should?) be the subject of a separate thread.
The label "insurance" is fraudulent in this and many other "health care" program discussions.
the problem is with employer buying health care packages for their employees.
everyone should get to buy their own health care.
If a “waiver” is granted (and where’s the authority for that?) it will be a clear violation of equal protection under the law.