Are Laws that Favor One Religion over Another a Violation of the First Amendment?

I think all nations should write a clause that makes those that consider themselves the righteous heirs to the world and any actions in attempts at becoming so, illegal.

a reply to: xuenchen

Dear xuenchen,

The neatest summary I've seen yet. RFRA requires the least restrictive course of action, HHS had that least restrictive course in place but refused to use it, thus ends the case.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

To be fair, the ruling was only published on Monday, and SCOTUS, in it's opinionated ruling, stated that Title X (Planned Parenthood) "could" technically absorb the fall out of all the disenfranchised women. As I said somewhere here, Big wheels (government) move slow.

It's interesting to note the shift of responsibility, that SCOTUS designated, from private insurance to public Planned Parenthood, at same time ruling that women who use Planned Parenthood are less protected from harassment and violence by removing a 35 foot buffer zone, and changing it to 8 feet.

a reply to: windword

That's not the point. The ruling violates the 14th Amendment, specifically, the part about equal protection, no pun intended.

Here's the actual 14th...

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

PPACA is not a State law. But there are possibilities for your case. Keep in mind however, it was the Federal Government that originally infringed. Very conflicting indeed.

14th Amendment

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: xuenchen

Dear xuenchen,

The neatest summary I've seen yet. RFRA requires the least restrictive course of action, HHS had that least restrictive course in place but refused to use it, thus ends the case.

With respect,
Charles1952

Yup.

That's it indeed.

a reply to: charles1952

It would certainly be a scary situation if the Supremes ruled that an employer could prohibit a legal act while away from the job. Of course it happens all the time anyway. Brandan Eich (sp?) was fired for donating $1000 bucks to a Proposition 8 group, not to mention the untold hundreds who have been fired for saying something goofy on Facebook or Twitter.

I'm pretty sure that falls under contract law. If not, and even so, SCOTUS would only get involved if state or federal Unemployment Insurance authorities were to make a determination based on the employer's right to deny civil rights.

a reply to: xuenchen

PPACA is not a State law.

So what? Women are still entitled to equal protection.

First of all, too many factual errors and obvious attempts at deception to address every one without cutting, pasting and making a durned mess ... so, here's some facts that dispute some of the most egregious stacks of BS plopped out so far:

1. Of course the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) apply to the States. It's called the Fourteenth Amendment. May I recommend a good online Civics 101 class to anyone who believes differently?

2. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is a STATUTORY case. That means SCOTUS's decision is based on a subordinate Statute, in this case, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, 1993 and 2003 as amended) which is (or was) subordinate to the US Constitution which is, as we say, the "highest law in the land" meaning that there is no stronger recourse to determine the legality of issues in the US than the Constitution itself.

3. SCOTUS ruled that RFRA was UNCONSTITUTIONAL in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) at least in as far as the attempted application of a mere statute (subordinate law) against the Constitution (superior law).

Yes, provisions of the same RFRA that is cited in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby as fundamental principle were declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a previous SCOTUS.

Here's the substantive part of Flores:

Congress' power under § 5, however, extends only to "enforc[ing]" the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has described this power as "remedial." The design of the Amendment and the text of § 5 are inconsistent with the suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Fourteenth Amendment's restrictions on the States. Legislation which alters the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is. It has been given the power "to enforce," not the power to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation. Were it not so, what Congress would be enforcing would no longer be, in any meaningful sense, the "provisions of [the Fourteenth Amendment]."

None of you that speak in support of this travesty of American justice, i.e. the so-called Hobby Lobby decision want to face that reality.

None of you want to admit that the Roberts Court has sequentially made "narrow rulings" which they then UTILIZED LATER AS PRECEDENT to make BROADER SWEEPING rulings later in other cases.

In short, these five Conservative Justices have made a politically-based, ideologically founded ruling that will, as Justice Bader-Ginsburg summarized ... "create a mine-field."

We all know at heart that this is not about the corporation Hobby Lobby's "beliefs" about abortions and abortifacients. It buys from China. It invests in the same pharmaceutical companies that make the products that are now excluded from coverage.

It's about further codifying a framework of precedent that will transform US CORPORATIONS into entities that are empowered light-years beyond the convenient "legal fictions as persons" that they have always been.

A CORPORATION doesn't have a mind or a soul; how can it have religious beliefs? It can't, it doesn't.

But now, as a matter of legal PRECEDENT ... they do. And not only that, these new "Corporate Citizens" of the Republic are superior to any of you lowly natural human citizens ... so get used to it.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

You won't find any constitutional reference in the syllabus. The ruling wasn't based on the constitution. It was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

That's the document we need to change.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, WELL DONE!

Change RFRA, and the whole battle has to be fought on other grounds. It's not going to be changed in an election year, and considering that 21 years ago it passed both houses unanimously (except for three Senators) I'm not sure it will be changed in the near future.

With respect,
Charles1952

I saw an "Hillary" interview where she addressed just that, amending the RFRA to protect humans, not corporations. The Dems are definitely going to use this issue in election campaigns. They'd be stupid if they didn't.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Then the Justice Department has a new case to pursue?

We'll see how that works out later maybe.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

PPACA is not a State law.

So what? Women are still entitled to equal protection.

ACA is not a protection law.

a reply to: xuenchen

In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: windword

In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

The possibilities are endless.

They might argue that the religious circumstances are not similar enough.

This is getting tricky.

The "Individual" could be an employee or the company?

Very tricky.

a reply to: xuenchen

Whatever, the fact is, women employed by religious nutz are being treated different than women who work for a non-religious nut, under this ruling. That violates the 14th Amendment. You okay with that?

What I find so fascinating about this ruling as a non affected, non US citizen is that it appears to me that the SC just gave a certain sector of corporations the right to hold religious beliefs. For me, that's the most intriguing thing that has occured.

They may have also set a legal precedent for the future for when an employee says...

"you can't do that."

When a decision gets made based around those beliefs.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Whatever, the fact is, women employed by religious nutz are being treated different than women who work for a non-religious nut, under this ruling. That violates the 14th Amendment. You okay with that?

No.

Not until somebody proves otherwise.

I still hold to the fact that the Government threw the first stone with religious infringements.

And the fact that HHS and IRS have "classified" religious organizations into two separate tax categories. Those being "tax exempt" and those not.

I think the SCOTUS mentioned that also somewhere.

Maybe we should take the ruling and start from square one?

[page 1 and 2(partial)]

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).

At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,”42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Ibid. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate. HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries.

Case Syllabus

originally posted by: GAOTU789
What I find so fascinating about this ruling as a non affected, non US citizen is that it appears to me that the SC just gave a certain sector of corporations the right to hold religious beliefs. For me, that's the most intriguing thing that has occured.

They may have also set a legal precedent for the future for when an employee says...

"you can't do that."

When a decision gets made based around those beliefs.

The IRS and HHS gave a certain sector of corporations the right to hold religious beliefs through tax exemptions and insurance mandate exemptions. The IRS regulations were there before ACA.

It's very complicated as you can see from the threads.

a reply to: xuenchen

The IRS and HHS gave a certain sector of corporations the right to hold religious beliefs through tax exemptions and insurance mandate exemptions. The IRS regulations were there before ACA.

Right. Those were corporations that were established to implement religious objectives and goals. These are businesses that are purely for profit.

Corporations are not people. Some of the people who authored the RFRA, that have been interviewed since the ruling, have said they are flabbergasted that SCOTUS applied the act to corporations. It wasn't authored with that intent, they say.

a reply to: windword

Right. Those were corporations that were established to implement religious objectives and goals. These are businesses that are purely for profit.

Corporations are not people. Some of the people who authored the RFRA, that have been interviewed since the ruling, have said they are flabbergasted that SCOTUS applied the act to corporations. It wasn't authored with that intent, they say.

Yes but those "exempt" corporations have employees that may not be religious.

How did the IRS and HHS decide the "difference".

Profit has nothing to do with it.

a reply to: xuenchen

Profit has nothing to do with it.

Tax the churches, I say