If the sincere religious beliefs of the owners of a closely held corporation require them not to extend birth control coverage to their employees, then it is only fair that they be required to disclose to the public, on an annual basis, all their prescriptions, medications and over-the-counter purchases, so that the public can satisfy itself that said beliefs are indeed sincerely held.
If the Supreme Court is going to allow corporations to dodge public policy based on religious belief, then periodic public disclosures sufficient to verify and audit the sincerity of that religious belief is also necessary.
I think the US Senate and Congress should take up a bill making this necessary. I don't see how the Republicans can object without offending the electorate.
This is a short diary. I hope it has a point.
4:53 AM PT: PS: Maybe my note is better posed as questions, as follows:
The Supreme Court gave an exemption to closely held for-profit corporations from having to follow public policy when the policy offends the owners' religious beliefs.
I'm curious as to what happens to a corporation's exemptions based on religious belief, when:
1. The corporation changes ownership, or
2. The owners convert to a different religious belief.
Also, suppose some of the owners of the corporation that have claimed an exemption from providing contraception coverage, are discovered to be using birth control. Are they merely sinning against their religious beliefs, and are accountable only to their God for their hypocrisy, or have they committed a public fraud?
I don't see, following the Supreme Court decision, how we can avoid having a periodic audit of corporate owners' religious beliefs by the government. And what is more offensive to the First Amendment - such audits, or everyone uniformly having to follow public policy?