And a federal judge extends the "religious faith trumps everything else" implications of the decision in yet another direction. Probably not egregious enough to nudge the SCOTUS justices from Hobby Lobby toward a reconsideration … yet … but I strongly suspect over time these will build up until Scalia encounters an application of religious freedom that irritates even him.
(Well, maybe we shouldn't wait for Scalia to be so irritated; that could take decades.)
As Ulysses Grant said, in a similar vein, "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution."
Originally shared by +Jim Feig:
Judge: Hobby Lobby Decision Means Polygamous Sect Member Can Refuse To Testify In Child Labor Case
The court concluded that a cult member’s religious interest in staying silent should trump the nation’s interest in ensuring that we leave no stone unturned when investigating allegations of mass exploitation of children.
I figure it will happen about the first time that somebody shields a murderer because their church recognizes a biblical justification for stoning people.
Well, child labor certainly isn't going to bug Scalia or Thomas. Murder might, but I think it more likely it will crop up regarding (individual, not business) taxes, or possibly around child sexual abuse. Depends on what zany tries to push it too far, and what judge decides to let them.
It's pretty clear that "religious freedom is not trumping everything else".
Well, so far it trumps an employer's requirement to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception. It's being challenged in court at the moment on the same basis for an individual's requirement to carry policies that include such coverage. And in this case it's trumping the ability to inquire into possible child labor crimes because someone believes their faith doesn't allow them to talk about church business. I expect to see any number of similar claims. That seems like a pretty "good" start.
“We did discriminate against woman employees, because the bible is quite clear on the subject…”
As far as I read, Hobby Lobby is still providing birth control (as they always did), just not the four types they considered 'abortion related' (or however they termed it).
From reading the court docs ( https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?213cv0281-121) it seemed to be more about RFRA than the Hobby Lobby decision….though it is cited, as the article says.
Thanks for the link to the decision.
As to what Hobby Lobby has decided offends its corporate sensibilities, that it gets to make such a decision as a corporation seems to me the crux of the matter.
Hobby Lobby was, as I recall, largely based on RFRA, expanded and enhanced by the majority in that case. As the article notes, the interpretation of RFRA provided by SCOTUS in Hobby Lobby impacts this case by how it defines "substantial burden" and "least restrictive means," thus its many citations within the decision here.
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2014/09/17/hobby-lobby-and-substantial-burdens provides some interesting analysis of the article; it disagrees with it (convincingly to my untrained eye) about Hobby Lobby 's effect on the "substantial burden" rule, but agrees with it regarding the judge's ruling about "least restrictive means."