\n\tJudicial decisions too frequently get bogged down in precedent and rationalization and then miss the major, common sense and what should be controlling
\n\tfacts and reasoning. Some decisions remind me of a line from an old rock \u2019n\u2019 roll song (\u201cYou talk too much, you worry me to death\u201d). It is not always
\n\tpossible, but to the extent it is, we need \u201cbright line\u201d or \u201cblack letter law\u201d decisions, particularly involving constitutional rights. We will have a much
\n\tmore cohesive, cooperative, and viable society if the great majority understands what those rights are and where the boundaries lie. We have far too many
\n\tpeople running around yelling about \u201ctheir\u201d First Amendment rights or infringement of \u201ctheir\u201d freedoms when they in fact have little understanding of the
\n\torigins and history of such rights, much less the subsequent case law.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tIf there is to be a \u201cwall of separation\u201d between church and state it must be respected equally, and stringently, by all sides. For example, I may support
\n\tstronger gun control requirements, but I also recognize that such requirements do not and cannot extend as far as I might like. There is not, and if the
\n\tConstitution can survive, will never be, a requirement that any church will be required to sanctify a particular marriage. Not only is that an interference
\n\twith the freedom of religion—it is an interference with freedom of contract and freedom of association.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tThe basis of the First Amendment was the Founders\u2019 knowledge (and they were virtually all educated, \u201cenlightened\u201d individuals) of the religious history of
\n\tthe sixteenth to late eighteenth centuries in both Europe and in America, which was marked by two principal things: (1) the broadening of religious and
\n\tphilosophical beliefs among Eurocentric peoples, and (2) the persecutions and travesties committed by some of one religious persuasion against others with
\n\ta different persuasion. These ranged from discrimination and denial of certain rights and privileges against some to burnings at the stake and \u201cwitch
\n\ttrials.\u201d\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tThe Founders intended there be complete individual<\/em> freedom of conscience. They expected to achieve it by providing that \u201cCongress shall make no law \n\tThus, there is nothing that allows the Congress to outlaw what most people would consider bigoted beliefs, so long as they are not imposed or forced on \n\tThe defect in Hobby Lobby<\/em> is that it permits individuals or an organization of one belief to impose their beliefs on others who happen to be their \n\tThe notion that an employer may have a religious belief that it is a sin to indirectly enable an employee to make that decision is utter nonsense. I do not \n\tThis issue has been visited many times before. For example, Quakers and the many others who oppose war as a religious or moral principle are not exempt \n\tThe government has prescribed broadly what constitutes legitimate medical care and what is to be made available under insurance policies provided by \n\tThere is also the matter of disparate wages. While the costs involved may not be great, the exclusion of certain benefits generally available in such \n\tSo Hobby Lobby<\/em>, at bottom, is poorly reasoned, violates the constitutional and legislative rights of employees, and leaves far more questions than answers.\n\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Judicial decisions too frequently get bogged down in precedent and rationalization and then miss the major, common sense and what should be controlling facts and reasoning. Some decisions remind me of a line from an old rock \u2019n\u2019 roll song (\u201cYou talk too much, you worry me to death\u201d). It is not always possible, but<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[304],"tags":[136],"class_list":["post-6294","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-january-february-2015","tag-january-february-2015"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6294","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6294"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6294\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n\trespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….\u201d In other words, Congress (and the
\n\tstates, by subsequent Court decision) cannot do anything to favor or disfavor one religion or another. One hopes most people understand that much.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tothers. Individuals are free to harbor hate and animus against others—as long as it is kept to themselves. It does, however, allow a government to outlaw
\n\tattempts by one group or person to infringe on another\u2019s beliefs, and its free exercise, or attempt to impose their beliefs on others, such as burning
\n\tcrosses on a lawn or, in this case, denying individuals their right to use birth control or seek an abortion.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\temployees. Corporate status is an irrelevant \u201cred herring.\u201d Corporations, for profit or otherwise, and associations do not have consciences. Rather, they
\n\t\u201cthink\u201d and \u201cact\u201d as their officers, shareholders or members direct. Thus, Hobby Lobby has no more right to impose what are the beliefs of its shareholders
\n\tupon its employees than does a sole proprietor employer. It is perfectly fine for those owners to refrain from using certain forms of birth control. It is
\n\timpermissible for any \u201cemployer\u201d of any form to interfere with an employee\u2019s right to use any means of medical care. It is solely for the employee\u2019s
\n\tconscience and something they may have to square in the hereafter.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tquestion that some may hold that belief, but I do question the good faith. But that isn\u2019t the issue here.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tfrom paying income tax, or that portion that would go to support the Department of Defense (and related agencies). Similarly, a Christian Scientist (and
\n\tmany others) may refuse medical treatment and rely on prayer. That is an exercise of their freedom of conscience (although perhaps not in the wisest way).
\n\tHowever, they are not allowed to withhold needed treatment from their children no matter how strongly they may hold their belief. In the first instance,
\n\tthe principle is that there are limits on how far one may refuse to participate in social or governmental obligations, notwithstanding religious belief. In
\n\tthe second, there are limits on the imposition of one\u2019s beliefs on another. Both principles apply in Hobby Lobby<\/em>.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\temployers with a certain number of employees. The obligation of Hobby Lobby<\/em> is to provide that insurance coverage, and not something it would choose to
\n\tdesign. There is no requirement that an owner personally use such medical services. It is for each employee to determine which services and benefits to
\n\tuse. This is no different than deciding to visit (or not) a park that one\u2019s taxes may support, to place their children in a publicly financed school or
\n\tnot. Indeed, it is not the business of the employer to know, and is an invasion of medical privacy if it seeks to find out. For that reason I see no
\n\tjustification for religious organization exemptions—if a nun wants birth control pills, whether for hormonal balance or because of \u201csecret conduct,\u201d that
\n\tis her business and for her conscience to bring the matter up in the confessional. Birth control may be a sin in the eyes of Catholic officialdom—it
\n\tclearly is not in the eyes of the large majority of professed Catholics. It is up to each, as an individual, to reconcile conscience with church doctrine.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tpolicies is a de facto wage cut. The fact that the employee is free to purchase such products individually is no answer. It is money to be spent on
\n\tsomething to which the employee is otherwise entitled required by the employer\u2019s religious belief or whim. Even paying additional salary is no answer,
\n\tbecause the employees lose the benefit of insurance purchasing power. There is no logical difference here than claiming one need not pay one\u2019s employees
\n\tbecause they might spend the money on something that offends the employer\u2019s religious beliefs.\n\t<\/p>\n