but now that you mention it, D'Oh.

The parents agree to circumcise any newborn males.

Jews aren't interested in what non-Jews do. In America, they don't even care what other Jews do. And besides, circumcision is a covenant that applies only to Jewish babies.

Silly gentiles.

Fundamental Christians and Orthodox Jews also do not use birth control. I am sure there are others.

They just call themselves that.

...I'm appalled by this post.

But I guess that's different.

Personally, I think that employer-based insurance is a big part of the problem.

The ACA only applies to those who are uninsured, or whose existing coverage is not up to snuff, or not affordable.

My reaction is "so what"? I think we'd all be better off if healthcare was a government function and not an employer function.

Most will have untreated illnesses. Some will die.

That, sir, is "so what".

When we finally get to national health care, I'll be dancing. Until then, we have to protect each other from the motherfucking health insurers and employers.

People who are uninsured, and lack access to coverage through work are eligible to shop for subsidized coverage on the exchange.

If the Christian Scientist Church offers employees "nothing" then it seems to me that this qualifies as "uninsured and lack access..."

Did you mean to say that the CS church would stop providing insurance or that they would only provide coverage for witch doctors and faith healers?

But hobby lobby is not cutting their employes loose from coverage, the better to enforce their insane religious ideas on others. So, the analogy would logically conform to your second option.

As the OP said, "You’d get nothing. Except, perhaps, for a bunch of nimrods praying by your bedside as you died of appendicitis."

Thus making them ineligible for the exchanges and the subsidies.

If the SCOTUS rules that corporations can have religion, I will be founding a religion that forbids the paying of taxes. For only a small fee, any corporation can convert to my new and exciting faith.

As well as the Southern Baptists and others….

I wonder how they will identify "employer" in this case. Is it just the CEO of the company?

Individuals who attend these churches may not act for the business itself in making church dogma part of a business charter or plan. So until these businesses are proven to be members of these churches, they probably don't have any legal right to deny any established legal rights of their customers.

If the corporation is going to be the melding site of church and state, we're doomed, and not just women.

They want to deny coverage to all of their workers, whether or not they are of the same faith as the employer.

proof and with church proof on paper of its membership, with tithing done in the business' name, etc. I bet that doesn't exist. Except in the minds of its board members.

They're arguing that no employer, be it an organized religion or otherwise, should be compelled to provide coverage for things to which they can demonstrate a religious objection.

church/corporate policy. But then, even with that argument, they shouldn't win over the legal rights that their employees have as citizens. I'm just trying to figure how they could argue their case if the employees didn't sign on to work for a church but just for a business. And I doubt a court will let Hobby Lobby have it both ways -- enjoy all the profits of a business while imposing the beliefs of a church. We're agreeing.

Here's hoping the supremes do, too.

Health care benefits are earned; they are not a gift. Part of workers compensation package is a health care policy and employers should have no roll in determining what it is to be used for.

even then, is subject to rejection by a court, one would think.

and it has a hell of a lot more of them than Christian Science does.

Any religious business owner , could then at any time they wanted, object to any law or regulation or mandate on whatever 'religious grounds' they want to claim. There would be no limitations, think about how many whacko religious types there are out there that would seek to expand on this case if SCOTUS approves it. (my bet is they wont, yeah im optimistic about it =)). Every type of religious extremist you can imagine would cite this case in their defense that they should be allowed to force their beliefs on those they employ. This is not the American way, nor is it by any means constitutional, it must be voted down. The national media has been making this an issue of "The right to Religious freedom and expression." , when it it is actually an issue of asking the government to give 'religion' a preferred status, which it by definition can not constitutionally do.

The "religious freedoms" being requested are not for individual Americans: they are for large businesses. Those businesses would use those "freedoms" to oppress their workers.

will pass out medical Ganja.

"Ey, mon. Here is your paycheck, and here is de sacrament."

it's not just that the owners of Hobby Lobby are fundies-- the point is that the church is the owner of the business.

Then, as a business open to the public and with employees not being members of the church, does the 1st Amendment apply?

Just like Hobby Lobby-that is not owned by a church. To be church-owned and thus protected would oblige them to be non-profits.

don't get protection no matter what their owners believe.

First amendment currently only applies to individual humans in this area of speech, not corporations, in the matter of being able to express themselves religiously 'as a whole ' ( regardless of any differing beliefs of whom they employ) as a single entity it's a hopeless argument, because they are NOT a single entity , they are comprised of a 'collective' of the many differing beliefs of their employees...can you see how this is not going to work out like they hope it might ?

But in the current environment, I'm nervous.

...but i got a good feeling about this one. Kennedy has already expressed it might be going too far. LoL, imagine the outrage if HE votes it down.

The owners are not using the insurance, their employees are. Therefore, the owners are trying to force their personal beliefs on their employees.

They can't do that, legally or morally.

But we are dealing with the Roberts court, so we can't count on legality or morality from them.