To all these people demanding religious exclusions ...

[madamesilverspurs]

To all these people demanding religious exclusions in health insurance and employment laws, especially those who insist that we be a Christian nation (because you have yet to give equal volume to the opinion that religion includes other faith traditions) -- could you please be a bit more specific?

Seriously. Just open your local phone book’s yellow pages, go to the Cs and look up ‘churches’. Even in small communities there are pages and pages. Which one, exactly, do you want to be in charge? There are so many precisely because they are NOT the same. So, again, which one should be in charge? Baptist-which kind? Lutheran-which kind? Presbyterian-which kind? Methodist? Church of Christ? Nazarene? Assembly of God? Mormon? Seventh-Day Adventist? Quaker? Messianic? Episcopalian? Which kind of Catholic? Which orthodox creed?

Who would you trust to decide which one should be the standard? Then, who would be in charge of making sure it operates properly? Who would police that administration? Who would get to decide which scriptures would be the basis, and which translation would be allowed? How would you ensure that everyone got the same set of approved rules? For that matter, how would you guarantee that the system meets with your approval?

And, finally, how would you deal with the bloody fights that would inevitably ensue?

[KansDem]

1. There are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations alone...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

A "Christian Nation" made up of 41,000 belief systems...

[DirkGently]

2. Amen. There is no religious freedom TO discrimination

The argument to the contrary is a screwed up inversion of the idea of "freedom" that underlies a lot of what American conservative and libertarian movements yap about.

There is no limit to what people can think and "believe" and worship about. But there are limits to how you can treat people, regards of "belief."

The Bible and other religious texts are full of all kinds of noxious, morally unconscionable ideas. Rape, genocide, infanticide, slavery, animal sacrifice. None of it gets a "pass" from our laws on the basis of religious though, sincere or otherwise.

Owning a business is a privilege society bestows. Running it as a fictitious "person" that shields its human owners from liability is a special privilege.

If you can't run a business without dumping your hatred of women or others on them, you can go and do something else.

They exist at our sufferance, not the other way around.

[Jim Lane]

4. Alas, your post is not an accurate statement of current American law.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby, does allow for some religious exemptions from laws of general applicability.

One can dispute specific points, such as whether the RFRA applies to corporations, but there is no reasonable interpretation of the RFRA under which no religious beliefs are ever a basis for getting a "pass" from another law. The sad truth is that sometimes a pass is available.

[DirkGently]

5. Yes I know the law. Also not what I said.

I did not say that no religious belief is ever a basis for getting a "pass" from another law. It shouldn't be and it isn't under the First Amendment, which is the actual point, but as far as the law goes, the question is whether religious beliefs are ever a basis to allow discriminatory conduct.

Obviously a majority of the Supreme Court thinks that's so, but it is wrong in principle, and not, I suspect what RFRA, inspired by religious Peyote users, was intended to protect.

RFRA should go. It is clear enough under the First Amendment that a religious objection to, say, birth control, would be insufficient to override a legitimate state interest like healthcare reform.

In any event, RFRA should be amended or eliminated. It's superfluous to begin with, and now has been used by a rightwing Supreme Court to turn religious freedom upside down.

[Jim Lane]

6. Are you arguing that there can never be a sincere religious belief in discrimination?

I agree with you about the defects of the RFRA, but of course the Court in Hobby Lobby was obligated to honor the statute.

You keep stressing discrimination. First, I don't think that's central to the Hobby Lobby decision. The next employer that comes along may believe in a divine commandment to be fruitful and multiply. That employer could say, "We don't discriminate. We don't want to cover IUDs or vasectomies or morning-after pills or morning-before pills or condoms. Men, women, doesn't matter, we object to any interference with reproduction." I don't think it would make sense to say that that employer is given a pass from covering IUDs, but Hobby Lobby must cover IUDs because it also covers vasectomies.

Beyond that, there are indeed some sincerely held religious beliefs that entail discrimination. For most of the history of the LDS Church, it barred blacks from the priesthood. Many churches still won't ordain women.

One problem with the RFRA is that it forces courts to plunge into issues of sincerity. As Alito stated in his opinion:

To qualify for RFRA’s protection, an asserted belief must be “sincere”; a corporation’s pretextual assertion of a religious belief in order to obtain an exemption for financial reasons would fail.

If this decision stands, then, down the road, some unlucky federal judge will be called upon to rule as to whether a particular discriminatory belief is based on religion (supporting an exemption from a statute) or just plain old secular bigotry (no exemption). There may be circumstances where that kind of judicial inquiry into someone's religious belief is necessary, but it should be avoided if at all possible.

[DirkGently]

7. No. "Sincere belief" does not convey a right to discrimininate.

Various religions sincerely believe in various terrible things. Slavery. Child abuse. And of course, every type of denigration of women.

What Hobby Lobby demanded WAS a right to discriminate -- to treat just women's health needs differently because of a combination of a factually incorrect understanding of how birth control works, and because of a claimed religious objection to abortion.

The overall attempt is to frame affirmatively discriminating against women as a "right" under the concept of religious freedom. This is an inversion of logic, ethics, and good taste. More broadly, religious conservatives in America frequently argue that mistreating people in various ways should be protected as religious freedom.

That is not the way we have ever interpreted the First Amendment, nor do I think it was what was envisioned under RFRA, and it's an incredibly bad road to travel going forward.

[Jim Lane]

8. At least to some extent, religion does convey a right to discriminate.

For example, I don't believe that the government should compel the Catholic Church to ordain women. The religious practice of the Catholic Church includes sex discrimination, which would otherwise violate the EEO laws, but it's rooted in a sincere religious belief, which the government should respect. To do otherwise would violate the First Amendment.

That doesn't mean that every bigot and his brother can claim religious exemption for everything. Even the Catholic Church has to treat women equally when it's hiring for other jobs.

One troubling issue raised by the Hobby Lobby decision is that the asserted religious belief concerned other people's conduct. Although I'm uncomfortable with a system in which courts assess religious beliefs, testing for sincerity and for how terrible are the terrible things this litigant believes, some inquiry of that sort is inevitable, more so with the RFRA. Here, I would be less inclined to accommodate a belief that takes the form of "If we do this, other people will engage in conduct of which we disapprove." That's why even the nondiscriminatory religious objection -- the one that covers vasectomies as well as IUDs -- would not be entitled to much legal accommodation.

[DirkGently]

9. No. There is no religious right to discriminate.

Ordination of priests lies completely within the practice of religion itself. Churches don't have to recognize gay marriage either. I frankly don't know if the courts have drawn any conclusions with regard to women priests, but I think the Mormons had to invent a sudden revelation reversing its previous race discrimination to avoid losing exempt status.

Regardless, none of that is analagous to a claim that it is a protected religious practice to deny rights or benefits otherwise protected by law.

It's easy enough to see why, as religious conservatives have already proposed thinly-veiled protections for anti-gay discrimination and the like under the theory of religious freedom.

Edit: Maybe we're defining "discriminate" differently. Religion does not confer an ability to mistreat people or deny rights or benefits (pre-Hobby Lobby anyway). Religious belief or practice, which are theoretically voluntary, can "discriminate" within itself, but that is not the same thing.

[Jim Lane]

10. By my definition of "discriminate" the Catholic Church discriminates.

Men can become priests. Women can't. I consider that discrimination. If you don't, then you're right that we're using different definitions.

I agree with your basic point about the importance of asking whether and how a religiously motivated practice affects other people. That's why I said that, although the government should try to accommodate different religious views, an objection based on someone else's conduct (someone other than the person immediately subject to the law, like Hobby Lobby) is on a different and much weaker footing.

[safeinOhio]

3. You can call this country anything you wish, but

the Founding Fathers set up a NONSECTARIAN country. They came from a Europe that had seen hundreds of years of sectarian violence between and within Christian nations and wanted none of that.