I suppose they have a case, considering the language they are using to couch the argument. I'd be surprised if the current court would here it, though, if a decision or appeal made it that far.

Fantastic. I hope they win.

Well, it isn't like the Supreme Court didn't see this coming. But, (I don't know if they have the power to do this) they did say that this didn't translate to much.

From the Majority Opinion:

As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can "opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs." Post, at 1 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.). Nor do we hold, as the dissent implies, that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose "disadvantages . . . on others" or that require "the general public [to] pick up the tab." Post, at 1-2. And we certainly do not hold or suggest that "RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation's religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on . . . thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby." Post, at 2. 1 The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under [*7] that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing.

That's a violation of the establishment clause if they're just favoring certain religious "grievances" and not others.

I think the argument is only for tax laws, and since the Affordable Care Act is technically a tax, this applies. The case of the Satanists saying they should be exempted from a non-tax law does not fall in the same realm.

Except only Roberts viewed it as a tax. And some of the same people who voted against it being a tax are now claiming this special treatment for religious groups on the basis of an opinion they did not hold.

I thought it passed only under being a tax? And frankly, if one dissenter thinks the sky is green, it doesn't really matter. Except possibly if we should be able to excuse Justices for insanity....

And you're misinterpreting what the majority is saying, they are quoting verbatim from Ginsburg. Ginsburg said that the majority holds that corporations can opt out of anything but tax laws if they conflict with "sincerely held religious beliefs".

So it's the opposite of what you say.

Whoops, my bad.

Is the satanist church a corporation?

No but the point is if corporations can get a religious exception based on the absurd notion that contraception is an abortifacent, then surely the Satanist church with its religious commitment to accurate medical information, can be exempted from state laws mandating disinformation-based abortion "counseling".

Of course, the corporations are only getting an exemption from providing contraception. But, their employees are still covered by the federal government. A comparative solution would be that the satanic church would not provide the information. No? The exemption was to make sure a company did not have to DO something. The Satanist church is not being forced to provide its members with information, whether true or false.

So, there's not really a direct analogy with the other case, as this is a case about private individuals, and even before Hobby Lobby, everybody agreed RFRA applied to them. Moreover, Hobby Lobby was about coerced behavior, whereas this is about proscribed behavior.

Those are just disanalogies, though. As with any RFRA case, this one will be analyzed on its merits and the balancing test applied. A problem with their case is that it's not clear what individual behavior they are being subjected to that is against their belief. That is, they seem to be saying that the *existence* of the law is against their religious beliefs, but that's not legally relevant. The legally relevant question is whether it is against their religious beliefs to actually read the pamphlet in question.

That is, they are saying that it is against their beliefs to REQUIRE somebody to read the stuff. But they're not being asked to require anybody to do anything; they're just being asked to read the stuff. Is reading something with this point of view a violation of their religious beliefs? If so, then there is at least a case to analyze (balancing their religious scruples against the state's interest in enforcing the test in every case). But as their case is currently constituted*, they don't really have one.

*Or rather, as their case is currently constituted, asd described by an internet news outlet. The two aren't always the same.

Actually, the proscription/coercion distinction doesn't really exist here after all, come to think of it. Not that it matters either way.

(My other remarks about their case still apply, though).

"That is, they are saying that it is against their beliefs to REQUIRE somebody to read the stuff. But they're not being asked to require anybody to do anything; they're just being asked to read the stuff."

Well Hobby Lobby wasn't being forced to buy contraceptives directly either, let alone use them, so I really don't see your point.

Hobby Lobby was saying that the act of paying for contraceptives for somebody else was against its religious beliefs. That happened to be the action that the law in question required, and thus that was the (successful) challenge.

The action that the law in this case requires is that somebody read certain materials. The relevant objection is therefore that reading materials is against their religious beliefs.

The case brought by the satanists, on the other hand, would be as if Hobby Lobby had said "It's against our religious beliefs to require somebody to pay for somebody else's contraceptives." Who cares? Nobody asked them to.

"A problem with their case is that it's not clear what individual behavior they are being subjected to that is against their belief."

Being subjected to politically based information when getting medical treatment is a violation of their religious beliefs. It's religious indoctrination and it's a clear cut violation of the first amendment. But you've argued elsewhere that you think coerced religious indoctrination is permissible under the first amendment, so I don't see how we're going to get anywhere.

Correction. I said, "The relevant objection is therefore that reading materials is against their religious beliefs."

Of course, I meant "that reading THOSE materials...."

Putin,

The satanists seem to be saying that they're advancing a Hobby Lobby-like theory of the case, which would be under RFRA, not the first amendment. You appear to me to be advancing a completely different argument than the Satanists.

"Hobby Lobby was saying that the act of paying for contraceptives for somebody else was against its religious beliefs"

Hobby Lobby wanted to prevent doctors from even talking to women about contraceptives.

"8. The administrative rule at issue in this case ("the Mandate") runs roughshod
over the Green family' s religious beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other Americans,
by forcing them to provide health insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and
devices, as well as related education and counseling."

"93. No religious groups or other groups that oppose government-mandated
coverage of contraception, sterilization, abortion, and related education and counseling were among the invited presenters.

103. The Mandáte requires that Plaintiffs provide coverage or access to coverage for
abortion-causing drugs and related education and counseling against their consciences in a manner that is contrary to law.

119. Providing thts counseling and education is incompatible and irreconcilable
with Plaintiffs' express messages and speech."

Notice their objections to counseling and education.

If they do go for an establishment-clause theory, their case will certainly fail. (My legal analysis, not my personal opinion of what should happen, though the two do align in this particular case). The laws in question are pretty far outside the lines of what the Supreme Court has ever been willing to recognize as an establishment.

The SC's decision in the Hobby Lobby case is way outside what they have ever decided in the past. I fail to see why precedent is remotely relevant anymore in today's Supreme Court.

Putin,

Fine, but you're getting bogged down in the specifics. The point is that what their religious objection was was that THEY should have to pay for such things, and *since that is what the law required,* they properly presented a RFRA claim.

(Note the prominent use of the verb "provide" throughout your quoted passage).

You have to have an actual religious scruple to doing the thing actually required of you. The thing required in the instant case is reading certain literature. The religious objection will have to be to reading that literature.

Actually, putin, it was a fairly vanilla RFRA case. The only new thing was applying it to a corporation, which was a question of first impression, and therefore neither followed nor violated any precedents. There was never much of a question (if any) that there would be a valid claim if the Green business were not a corporation.

Please note, by the way, that I'm not actually saying that the case, if properly formulated, should not succeed. That is, IF satanists do actually have a religious scruple to reading that material at all, then I think it could be a claim of some strength, depending exactly how it was formulated.

As currently formulated, however, it seems not to be a valid claim at all.

So the 'only' thing the Hobby Lobby decision was given corporations unprecedented status as legal persons capable of having religious beliefs, far expanding the scope of a law that was intended for organizations with an explicitly religious purpose.

The case was anything but vanilla and went way beyond what the law intended to do.

"That is, IF satanists do actually have a religious scruple to reading that material at all"

They do and they've said as much. It's a religious tenet of Satanists to have access to scientifically correct medical information.

It defies common sense that Chuck Schumer intended for the RFRA to apply to corporations, he intended for it to apply to religious minorities. Hobby Lobby was judicial activism at its worst, and if so-called advocates of restraint were honest about it they'd admit it.

Three things:

1. Hobby Lobby's case depended heavily on "sincere belief." Specifically the sincere belief that the contraceptives in question were abortifacients. The court held that regardless of the medical facts regarding these contraceptives and their potential to be used as abortifacients or whether they are abortifacients since Hobby Lobby sincerely believed that they were, mandating Hobby Lobby to pay for (in essence condone) their use violated their religious freedoms.

2. Some of the pre-abortion requirements that the Satanists are objecting to also include involuntary medical procedures such as ultrasounds and counseling from certain types of physicians. These procedures and counseling are not always paid for by the state, and in some cases must be paid for by the patients.

3. Hobby Lobby was only able to make use of RFRA because the court had previously ruled that corporations are people. And in this case further held that corporations as people can practice religion.

Given those three things, it seems that the Satanists have a fairly strong case (if well presented) to strike down some of the more burdensome requirements, especially any that require payment on the part of the patient, or unreasonable travel times (which carry a significant burden in the form of both cost and time).

From what I've seen of the Satanists position, they appear to be relying on a number of existing legal precedents regarding the assertion of religious privilege and freedom, as well as a general concept that the court appears to be in the process of forming.

That being said, I highly doubt any court will side with them, and if any does, I am fairly confident it would be overturned in appeal. The U.S. courts have had a demonstrable bias of late when it comes to suits by corporations on individuals and the government. I do not believe that the courts would extend similar religious exemptions to individuals, especially those who assert a religion that is Christian.

"far expanding the scope of a law that was intended for organizations with an explicitly religious purpose. "

Putin, you're talking through your hat and obviously know nothing about RFRA. RFRA was intended for individuals and groups of individuals, not specifically religious organizations. It was passed after a Supreme Court ruling that failed to recognize an individual American Indian's right to use peyote for religious purposes. There was evidence on the record that it was, in fact, intended to extend to corporations as well, but either way, it certainly wasn't about religious organizations.

"Hobby Lobby was judicial activism at its worst, and if so-called advocates of restraint were honest about it they'd admit it. "

My honest opinion is that it was an exceptionally easy case that the Court almost muffed, thanks to the extremely hard work by appellants, the press, and four of the court's justices to paint it as something that it never was. Fortunately, they did manage to get it right.

"They do [have a religious scruple to reading that material] and they've said as much. It's a religious tenet of Satanists to have access to scientifically correct medical information."

If they do, they should say it very clearly, which they do not. For example, the letter they provide states, "I do not regard Political Information to be scientifically true or accurate or even relevant to my medical decisions. The communication of Political Information to me imposes an unwanted and substantial burden on my religious beliefs." But they never state what religious belief it violates or how. What they need to say is something along these lines:

"It would be a violation of my religious beliefs for me to read this information."

"Undue burden" is legalese, the kind of thing a court can conclude from information once it actually knows something about the religious belief that is being violated. But nothing is said about what belief is being violated by the specific act in question. By contrast, here are the second and third sentences of Hobby Lobby's brief to the Supreme Court:

"Respondents’ religious beliefs prohibit them from
providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and
devices that end human life after conception. Yet, the
government mandate at issue here compels them to do
just that, or face crippling fines, private lawsuits, and
government enforcement."

See the simple logical structure there? Religion says you can't do X. Government says you must do X. I just do not see that in any of the satanists' materials so far.

On to puddle's three points.

1. You're correct. What matters is the religious belief of the person.

2. The Satanists are likely to be on extremely thin ground on the points you mention here. I highly doubt they are willing to go on record saying it is against their religious beliefs to have an ultrasound, for example. The counseling may be a better candidate.

3. That's essentially wrong, although it's a common belief. This case had nothing at all to do with the corporate free speech cases, legally speaking. Corporations have always been treated as people in the law in various ways -- that's what a corporation is, a fictitious person who's treated as real by the law. This case had to do with whether a particular federal statute that explicitly used the word "person" in a way that included corporations should be interpreted to do what it said. (The federal code defines person to include corporations if not otherwise stated). That was a radically different question from whether the free speech clause of the first amendment extended to corporations.

Once again, what the satanists are trying to do doesn't really depend in any way on Hobby Lobby, because their case will move forward with *individual* RFRA claims, and those have always been recognized -- a pregnant woman is typically pregnant as a woman, not as a corporation.

Incidentally, another really important point that I should have brought up much earlier, as it's hugely relevant to this case: RFRA doesn't work on state laws (unless the state has a RFRA). It originally did, but the Supreme Court struck this down in City of Boerne v. Flores. As most of the laws in question are state laws, RFRA will be off the table for the satanists (unless -- once again -- there is a state RFRA).

There is no precedent whatsoever for extending a for-profit corporation religious exemption to a rule of general applicability. If there is, show it to me. If there isn't, you cannot claim with a straight face that is a vanilla case and an act of restraint. The majority opinion invented for-profit corporations ability to practice religion out of their rearend.

The purpose of the RFRA, as is made plain by *any honest reading of the legislative record*, is that they sought to restore the compelling interest test made in Sherbert v. Verner after the Smith decision ruled that discriminating against native American religious practices is ok because the intention of the state legislation was not to discriminate, but simply an incidental effect. The RFRA sought to guarantee the compelling interest test of Sherbert v. Verner to all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened, and thus revert back to pre-Smith practice. The idea that it sought to grant new special rights to for-profit corporations is absurd and invented out of thin air. The RFRA passed the Congress without any partisan controversy. The people who claim RFRA sought to give for-profit corporations religious exemption status indicates that they think the American public is totally stupid.

The RFRA applied to persons exercising religion. Corporations cannot exercise religion and have never been recognized as practicing religion by the court. The only corporate persons that could exercise religion are *religious non-profits*.

"Once again, what the satanists are trying to do doesn't really depend in any way on Hobby Lobby, because their case will move forward with *individual* RFRA claims, and those have always been recognized -- a pregnant woman is typically pregnant as a woman, not as a corporation."

The Satanist case will hinge much less on the class of people who can make cases and much more on what constitutes a substantial burden, since the Hobby Lobby case drastically reduced the threshold it takes to meet the undue burden requirement.

"RFRA will be off the table for the satanists (unless -- once again -- there is a state RFRA)."

20 states have RFRAs, including many of the backward states that compel women to sit through religious indoctrination counseling. So this doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling point.

"But nothing is said about what belief is being violated by the specific act in question."

Satanists believe their body is inviolable and subject to their will alone. That's a central tenet of their faith. Forced indoctrination via "abortion counseling" is a violation of that tenet.

http://thesatanictemple.com/satanists-leverage-hobby-lobby-ruling-in-support-of-pro-choice-initiative/

That's clear as day from their letter. Perhaps National Review and other spin doctors are trying to muddy the waters by claiming they didn't make this clear, but they did.

Putin,

"There is no precedent whatsoever for extending a for-profit corporation religious exemption to a rule of general applicability. If there is, show it to me. If there isn't, you cannot claim with a straight face that is a vanilla case and an act of restraint."

I said very explicitly earlier in the thread that this was an issue of first impression, which means it has never been heard before. Why all the aggression? As I pointed out when I first used the term "vanilla," that was the novel feature of the case.

That said, just because it didn't rely on an explicit precedent (as it couldn't since the issue had never come up before) does not make the decision unreasonable. It is supported by a host of considerations which Alito discussed well enough that I don't have to. Among them is that "person" includes corporations when it appears in US code, by the dictionary act; whereas "natural persons" does not, and Congress removed the latter from an early version of the bill to insert the former. That is, of course, only one consideration among many.

Apart from this error, your little summary of RFRA is reasonably accurate, and completely in conflict with your earlier assertion that it was only supposed to apply to religious organizations. I presume you've been reading up on your error.

I say reasonably accurate, because it does contain a further implied error. You rightly say that RFRA was passed in order to return to cases like Verner. You would be wrong, however, in suggesting that the Supreme Court had ever held that those did not apply to corporations.

"The RFRA applied to persons exercising religion. Corporations cannot exercise religion and have never been recognized as practicing religion by the court. The only corporate persons that could exercise religion are *religious non-profits*. "

*shrug*. I get that that's what you and Justice Ginsberg believe. SCOTUS decided otherwise. It was a reasonable decision. Also, remind me why we're debating Hobby Lobby again? The interesting part of this thread, to me, was whether the satanists' move is actually analogous to the Hobby Lobby case. I've given several ways in which it is not. Some of them can be corrected, though the state-law issue will be fatal in most cases.

"The Satanist case will hinge much less on the class of people who can make cases and much more on what constitutes a substantial burden, since the Hobby Lobby case drastically reduced the threshold it takes to meet the undue burden requirement. "

Not really. That's always been very low. The balancing test part is where the action happens, and here the government was badly hurt by the fact that there was already an easy workaround in place.

"20 states have RFRAs, including many of the backward states that compel women to sit through religious indoctrination counseling. So this doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling point. "

But those are state law, and Hobby Lobby will not be controlling on their interpretation. I'll grant, though, that given that the reasoning was generally sound, they may reproduce it, so the satanists could win under it potentially, if they reformed their case to actually present a claim.

"Satanists believe their body is inviolable and subject to their will alone. That's a central tenet of their faith. Forced indoctrination via "abortion counseling" is a violation of that tenet. "

So you're saying that it's not the action that they're objecting to, but the fact that it's forced? That's likely to fail as well, as hopelessly overbroad: if the government accepted that reasoning, they would have to exempt satanists from every law (since all entail forced behavior that might otherwise not be objectionable). Nothing would single out this particular law.

As to their letter, I read it earlier and disagree that it established a relevant religious objection. Since we obviously disagree on this, I think a good next step would be for you to quote actual language from their letter that you think establishes such.

And please, National Review? You'll never get such great legal analysis there as you're getting here.

"As I pointed out when I first used the term "vanilla," that was the novel feature of the case."

You're portraying this as a conservative, rather than a radical departure from the case law. The description of 'vanilla' is bogus. The novel feature is a massive one, which is already made clear by the repercussions of the decision.

"Among them is that "person" includes corporations when it appears in US code, by the dictionary act; whereas "natural persons" does not, and Congress removed the latter from an early version of the bill to insert the former. That is, of course, only one consideration among many."

The context of persons exercising religion negates this nonsense. Corporations do not exercise religion.

"Apart from this error, your little summary of RFRA is reasonably accurate, and completely in conflict with your earlier assertion that it was only supposed to apply to religious organizations. I presume you've been reading up on your error."

The only corporate persons it applies to are religious organizations. The point, as you well know, is that the law was never intended to expand the classes of people covered by a religious exemption. You can get your pedantic giggles on though, be my guest.

"You would be wrong, however, in suggesting that the Supreme Court had ever held that those did not apply to corporations."

You admitted that the court never held that for-profit corporations had religious exemptions to laws of general applicability, so who cares?

" It was a reasonable decision."

It's not a reasonable decision just because you say it is. Expanding religious exemptions to for-profit corporations is not a reasonable decision and will have a deleterious impact on the judicial system and people's rights, just like the decisions this ridiculous court have made elsewhere have, and we're already seeing evidence of this.

"Also, remind me why we're debating Hobby Lobby again?"

Because it's relevant to whether the Satanists have a case. That should be obvious.

"The interesting part of this thread, to me, was whether the satanists' move is actually analogous to the Hobby Lobby case"

The interesting part is how the reasoning made in the Hobby Lobby case will enable the Satanists to carve out a religious exemption to forced indoctrination laws at the state level.

"Some of them can be corrected, though the state-law issue will be fatal in most cases."

Not really.

"Not really. That's always been very low. "

What do you base this claim on?

It wasn't low with Bowen v. Roy; it wasn't low with the peyote case. I guess Native Americans just continually get this raised bar that Christians never seem to get. And the word "substantial" was explicitly added to burden in the RFRA. Nobody's forcing anybody to buy contraceptives themselves but instead put money in funds for comprehensive healthcare benefits, and erroneous beliefs about contraceptives being abortion are allowed to suffice to warrant a religious objection, this is a drastic change from previous practice.

"the government was badly hurt by the fact that there was already an easy workaround in place."

Easy work around according to whom? It's quite ironic that the conservatives who made such hay out of the fiasco that was the signing up for Obamacare is now an "easy workaround". Furthermore forcing government to pay for contraceptive coverage would financially burden already cash strapped programs, and that's well known by conservatives as well.

"You're portraying this as a conservative, rather than a radical departure from the case law."

It's not a departure from the case law at all. It was (for what, the third? fourth? time) an issue of first impression.

Moreover, your initial point (to which the "vanilla" remark was in response) was that precedent was no longer relevant to SCOTUS. However wrong they may have gotten an issue of first impression as a matter of textual interpretation, you could not conclude anything about a lack of concern for precedent.

"The context of persons exercising religion negates this nonsense. Corporations do not exercise religion."
"The only corporate persons it applies to are religious organizations."

Why? Can religious organizations practice religion even though their corporations? Please explain this apparent conflict.

"The point, as you well know, is that the law was never intended to expand the classes of people covered by a religious exemption."

I know no such thing. Excellent arguments were adduced for why they should be covered, and Congress changed the language in the original bill.

"'You would be wrong, however, in suggesting that the Supreme Court had ever held that those did not apply to corporations.'

"You admitted that the court never held that for-profit corporations had religious exemptions to laws of general applicability, so who cares?"

You should -- you're arguing that they contradicted earlier case law and/or the intent of the statute, when all you're demonstrating is that they addressed a question that had not been addressed before.

"Because [the merits of Hobby Lobby are] relevant to whether the Satanists have a case. That should be obvious."

No they're not. What's relevant to that is just the holding of Hobby Lobby, not whether it was a rightly decided case. That should be obvious.

"What do you base this claim [that the religious burden claim has always been low] on?

"It wasn't low with Bowen v. Roy; it wasn't low with the peyote case."

You know, I'm really starting to enjoy your insistence on bombastically demonstrating again and again your complete ignorance of the legal matters you opine on. Employment Division v. Smith -- the peyote case -- did not hold that the respondent's religious practice was not burdened. Rather, it declined to apply the whole Verner standard completely. The concurring justice who did apply it, O'Connor, wrote, "There is no dispute that Oregon's criminal prohibition of peyote places a severe burden on the ability of respondents to freely exercise their religion." She then went on to say that under the *balancing* part of the test -- which, as I pointed out, is the harder one -- she would have found for the government, thus concurring in the judgment.

As for sources -- just look at the citations in Hobby Lobby, for example, supporting the contention that the Court generally does not question religious claims.

"Easy work around according to whom? It's quite ironic that the conservatives who made such hay out of the fiasco that was the signing up for Obamacare is now an "easy workaround". "

The Supreme Court and many neutral observers. I don't remember the Court making hay out of Obamacare being difficult to sign up for. Moreover, at least in many cases, it appears insurance companies, not the government, will be paying for the contraceptives.

*their = they're. *sigh*