Skip to main content

View Diary: Hobby Lobby: Does RFRA violate the Establishment Clause? (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Beards and moustaches . . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HeyMikey, milkbone, Armando

    Even as a civilian contractor to the US Army I was subject to a no facial hair requirement. It is not possible to produce a proper sealing effect with a gas mask that sits on whiskers. A moustache, for civilians, was acceptable if the ends did not extend beyond the corners of the mouth--where the lips converge.

    We're all just working for Pharoah.

    by whl on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:28:21 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not bad questions (0+ / 0-)
      Questions for the Hobby Lobby case:

      * Jehovah's Witnesses think it is sinful to receive a blood transfusion. If a large company is run by Jehovah's Witnesses, can their employee health plan refuse to pay for transfusions?

      * Every once in awhile the news reports some child has died because his or her parents believe in using only prayer to heal diseases. These parents generally face criminal charges--they are not protected by the First Amendment. If people with this religious belief run a large company, can its employee health plan cover only prayer?

      * Is the Hobby Lobby situation different from those two examples? How?

      Presumably, the government is more likely to have a compelling interest in keeping people alive than in providing them with contraceptives.

      That said, if the law mandating insurance makes exceptions for large numbers of people (ie. everyone working for a company with less than 50 employees) then the government is going to have a hard time convincing a judge that it has a compelling interest since, if it did, it would not have made exceptions for small businesses.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site