How should the courts test whether a person really has a religiously based objection to vaccines or birth control coverage?

[flacaltenn]

Thread re-opened. Not seeing a reason for the 13 post reports that hit the mod room. In general -- this is a better discussion than MOST on USMB. Did delete a couple posts that got too personal.

 

[flacaltenn]

There's a LOT of latitude to "what's on topic" in a thread. We dont want to cast the lines too narrowly and discourage randy discussion. If folks have a problem with the topical boundaries set in the OPost -- it's up to the Oposter to clarify.

 

[flacaltenn]

How high should the bar be set? When is it okay to tell a business that their alleged religiously based objection or imperative is bullshit?

If you mean birth control or vaccines MANDATED by a Federal law -- The SCOTUS DID rule on the birth control part of the ACA. Link is below and answers your question. As far as ANY 5 to 4 SCOTUS ruling can. The fact that is was 5 to 4 shows that the SCOTUS WISDOM on this matter is pretty fluid and NOT absolute.

In the case of VACCINE mandates -- I dont believe there WAS A LAW mandating anything BUT Federal workers -- BUT -- the Biden Admin stretched that to INCLUDE businesses on the Federal Contracting listings. And those cases are STILL percolating up to late in the game to get any reading.

At the LEAST -- the Federal courts at ANY LEVEL -- should NOT be "making law" on cases that impact religious opinions and liberty. Or at the least RECOGNIZE that this exists and DEFINE exemptions.

Supreme Court Undercuts Access To Birth Control Under Obamacare

The opinion upheld a Trump administration rule that significantly cut back on the Affordable Care Act requirement that insurers provide free birth control coverage under almost all health care plans.

www.npr.org

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it more difficult for women to get access to birth control as part of their health plans if their employer has religious or moral objections to contraceptives.

The opinion upheld a Trump administration rule that significantly cut back on the Affordable Care Act requirement that insurers provide free birth control coverage as part of almost all health care plans.

"We hold that the [Trump administration] had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

The case now goes back to a lower court, which the Supreme Court ordered to lift an injunction that had prevented the implementation of the exception.

Under the ACA, churches and synagogues were automatically exempted from the birth control insurance mandate. Not automatically exempt, however, were nonprofits like religiously affiliated universities, charities and hospitals, which employ millions of people who want their health insurance plans to cover birth control for themselves and their family members.

For these nonprofits, the Obama administration enacted an opt-out provision for employers with religious objections. They were required to notify the government or their insurance company, or their plan administrator so that the insurance company could provide free birth control options to individual employees but separate from the employer's plan.

That did not satisfy some religious objectors, however. They contended that signing an opt-out form or notifying their plan administrator was the same as authorizing the use of their plan for birth control.

The Supreme Court previously punted on the issue. And when President Trump came into office, his administration issued new rules that would give broad exemptions from the birth control mandate to nonprofits and some for-profit companies that object to birth control on religious or moral grounds.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Well, if the person is the one who is injecting their religious beliefs into the court case, then they've made it the court's business. So, how should a court go about testing the sincerity of the alleged religiously based objection to a law to complying with an otherwise valid law?

"The exercise thereof" is not free if we have to ask permission or explain ourselves to justify our beliefs to a court or any other gov't official.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We didn't put into prison or execute anyone for mandating vaccinations in a deadly pandemic after the war.

Those were genuine vaccines, that had been properly vetted and tested, and well-established as both safe and effective.

This dangerous, experimental mRNA shit is none of the above; and emerging empirical data seem to be clearly, increasingly showing that it is neither safe nor effective.

Those who are receiving these harmful drugs are being used as human test subjects in a dangerous medical experiment. In many cases, with “consent” only having been obtained through force, coercion, or fraud. This is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable; and those who have had any willing part in it are guilty of exactly the same crimes for which we put German and Japanese war criminals to death, and deserving of the same fate.

 

[struth]

Listen to the judge? The judges are the ones making the decision.

sorry…the judge listens to the person…then makes the decision

 

[struth]

Well, if the person is the one who is injecting their religious beliefs into the court case, then they've made it the court's business. So, how should a court go about testing the sincerity of the alleged religiously based objection to a law to complying with an otherwise valid law?

they aren’t the ones injecting the beliefs in a court case

 

[Stormy Daniels]

If you mean birth control or vaccines MANDATED by a Federal law -- The SCOTUS DID rule on the birth control part of the ACA. Link is below and answers your question. As far as ANY 5 to 4 SCOTUS ruling can. The fact that is was 5 to 4 shows that the SCOTUS WISDOM on this matter is pretty fluid and NOT absolute.

In the case of VACCINE mandates -- I dont believe there WAS A LAW mandating anything BUT Federal workers -- BUT -- the Biden Admin stretched that to INCLUDE businesses on the Federal Contracting listings. And those cases are STILL percolating up to late in the game to get any reading.

At the LEAST -- the Federal courts at ANY LEVEL -- should NOT be "making law" on cases that impact religious opinions and liberty. Or at the least RECOGNIZE that this exists and DEFINE exemptions.

Supreme Court Undercuts Access To Birth Control Under Obamacare

The opinion upheld a Trump administration rule that significantly cut back on the Affordable Care Act requirement that insurers provide free birth control coverage under almost all health care plans.

www.npr.org

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it more difficult for women to get access to birth control as part of their health plans if their employer has religious or moral objections to contraceptives.

The opinion upheld a Trump administration rule that significantly cut back on the Affordable Care Act requirement that insurers provide free birth control coverage as part of almost all health care plans.

"We hold that the [Trump administration] had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

The case now goes back to a lower court, which the Supreme Court ordered to lift an injunction that had prevented the implementation of the exception.

Under the ACA, churches and synagogues were automatically exempted from the birth control insurance mandate. Not automatically exempt, however, were nonprofits like religiously affiliated universities, charities and hospitals, which employ millions of people who want their health insurance plans to cover birth control for themselves and their family members.

For these nonprofits, the Obama administration enacted an opt-out provision for employers with religious objections. They were required to notify the government or their insurance company, or their plan administrator so that the insurance company could provide free birth control options to individual employees but separate from the employer's plan.

That did not satisfy some religious objectors, however. They contended that signing an opt-out form or notifying their plan administrator was the same as authorizing the use of their plan for birth control.

The Supreme Court previously punted on the issue. And when President Trump came into office, his administration issued new rules that would give broad exemptions from the birth control mandate to nonprofits and some for-profit companies that object to birth control on religious or moral grounds.

That fluidity is exactly the problem, in my opinion. Religious freedom is no trivial matter for the government to deal with, and fluid attitudes to protecting those freedoms is tantamount to subjectivity.

 

[Godboy]

According to the rules, you are not allowed to hijack or derail a thread. If that's what you want to talk about, go start a thread on the subject.

You are intentionally off topic. Even the OP has to follow the rules.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

How high should the bar be set? When is it okay to tell a business that their alleged religiously based objection or imperative is bullshit?

A business isnt obligated to pay for your irresponsibility. That's on you.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

You are intentionally off topic. Even the OP has to follow the rules.

The opening post to a thread cannot be off topic, genius.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Those were genuine vaccines, that had been properly vetted and tested, and well-established as both safe and effective.

This dangerous, experimental mRNA shit is none of the above; and emerging empirical data seem to be clearly, increasingly showing that it is neither safe nor effective.

Those who are receiving these harmful drugs are being used as human test subjects in a dangerous medical experiment. In many cases, with “consent” only having been obtained through force, coercion, or fraud. This is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable; and those who have had any willing part in it are guilty of exactly the same crimes for which we put German and Japanese war criminals to death, and deserving of the same fate.

No, not by anything like the standards we have today.

You have taken a dive into the deep end here off of the 30m tower into an empty pool.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

That fluidity is exactly the problem, in my opinion. Religious freedom is no trivial matter for the government to deal with, and fluid attitudes to protecting those freedoms is tantamount to subjectivity.

There's nothing subjective in the least about , "or the Free Exercise Thereof".

 

[Orangecat]

Yes, I know. But on what basis do they decide if it's a deeply held and sincere belief? What do you think the basis should be?

Stormy, you've gotten your ass kicked all over this thread. Ponder this: innocent until proven guilty. Since you can't read minds, you can't prove or disprove anyone's religious beliefs. You fucking authoritarian nitwits just can't think right.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Ponder this: innocent until proven guilty.

What the hell does that have to do with this thread?

 

[Orangecat]

What the hell does that have to do with this thread?

The two people who thanked me understood. But perhaps they're more intelligent than you.
I thought I spelled it out simply enough, but apparently not. I'll try again:
Unless you can read someone's mind, there's no way to prove or disprove their religious beliefs.
Do you disagree with that statement?
Since we have freedom of religion here, a person can join a new one at any time, so looking into one's past actions isn't valid.
Now, since we operate under the legal principal of innocent until proven guilty, the court would have to assume innocence from lying about one's religion.. After all, it can't read minds.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The two people who thanked me understood. But perhaps they're more intelligent than you.
I thought I spelled it out simply enough, but apparently not. I'll try again:
Unless you can read someone's mind, there's no way to prove or disprove their religious beliefs.
Do you disagree with that statement?
Since we have freedom of religion here, a person can join a new one at any time, so looking into one's past actions isn't valid.
Now, since we operate under the legal principal of innocent until proven guilty, the court would have to assume innocence from lying about one's religion.. After all, it can't read minds.

Oh dear god, this drivel is so stupid it makes my eyes want to bleed just reading it.

According to your bullshit, anyone who ever testifies in court has to be taken exactly at face value and their credibility must be assumed to be perfect. It's absolute nonsense. The credibility of a witness is always for the trier of fact to determine. Always. Potential credibility lapses are sufficient enough to demonstrate that some kind of challenge or "test" for a person's claim will always be present. But it's also possible to have more procedurally based factors as well.

Now, my question is how should the courts test whether a person really has a religiously based objection to such and such laws. If your opinion is that courts should not test it at all and should take an individual's assertion at face value (basically to say the process should be 100% about credibility and that credibility should be assumed), then that's your opinion, and it's exactly what I am looking for. Thank you for that.

But you could have spit it out from the beginning instead of acting like there's some kind of great travesty happening because someone is asking for opinions.

 

[Orangecat]

Oh dear god, this drivel is so stupid it makes my eyes want to bleed just reading it.

IOW, you lack the intellect to understand it.
People thank my posts and laugh at yours. Telling, that.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

IOW, you lack the intellect to understand it.
People thank my posts and laugh at yours. Telling, that.

If a thumbs up emoji from random interwebs people is the metric you use for intellect, how can I possibly hope to argue with you?

 

[Orangecat]

If a thumbs up emoji from random interwebs people is the metric you use for intellect, how can I possibly hope to argue with you?

No, it's just an indicator of who makes more sense. TBH, you aren't intelligent enough to keep me interested in conversing with you. Have a nice evening, stormy.