MarkDaSpark wrote:Um, because it isn't?
Your 'nuh-uh' rebuttal is not persuasive, and is contrary to the facts. The court said that one particular religious objection was worthy of exemption under current law, and that other religious objections are not. That's a textbook case of endorsing one religious belief over another.
Oh, and BTW, your argument about the blood transfusions is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are only against blood transfusions in to themselves. They support it in any medical plans for others. Just not themselves.
I didn't say anything about Jehovah's Witnesses, but even if I had, you're missing the point. The justices themselves called out blood transfusions as an example of a potential conflict between religious belief and the ACA, and specifically said it would not support a similar exemption.
In addition, "religious objections" need not be codified in a religious group's official teachings to be considered valid objections. Just one example (though there are others): Anti-vaccination web guides routinely point out that your particular religious organization need not take any stance on vaccinations for you to voice a religious objection to them.
Any individual or religious group might make an argument that they don't want their medical coverage to include some particular procedure that they have a religious objection to, and that therefore their coverage should cost less. Why should they pay for coverage they will never use under any circumstance? SCOTUS is saying that it doesn't matter why you object to a particular kind of coverage: religious objectors to contraceptive coverage are okay (or 'protected'). But religious objectors to any other kind of coverage are not similarly protected. That's seriously messed up.
The core issue is overreach by corporations into the private lives of employees. What's doubly puzzling is that in that respect, this decision has no teeth. Hobby Lobby has been afforded a religious exemption, but HL employees who want such coverage will now simply get it directly from the insurer, at no additional cost. This avenue already exists for employees of actual religious organizations, such as Catholic Charities. Insurers are happy to provide the 'rider' contraceptive coverage for free because it costs them much less to pay for contraceptives than it does to pay for maternity care.
(Warning: Going off on a tangent for the next two paragraphs.)
Which brings us to the Little Sisters of the Poor. By all accounts they are a wonderful organization which has done a ton of excellent charitable work. They too have religious objections to contraceptive coverage for their employees, and being an actual religious organization (as opposed to Hobby Lobby), already had accommodation under the law. All their employees have to do is get confirmation of their employer's religious objection and they'd be eligible for contraceptive coverage directly from the insurer.
But they (the Little Sisters) won't sign the form confirming their religious objection to contraceptive coverage because in doing so, it would ultimately allow their employees to get contraceptives. They're claiming that signing a form confirming their religious belief would violate their religious beliefs. In doing so, they're going beyond the idea of not paying for something they don't believe in (i.e., their employees' "desires"). They're stepping directly into their employees private lives and telling them it doesn't matter who's paying for the contraceptives, and it doesn't matter whether you have the same religious beliefs that we have. You can't have contraceptives.
Maybe Hobby Lobby will follow their lead and attempt the same tactic...
Again, they (SCOTUS) isn't saying you can't have the medical coverage, they're just saying you can't force someone to pay for your desires.
Others have already pointed out why this argument is meaningless. It's only sexual/reproductive desires that they're singling out. All other 'desires' (and the medical consequences thereof) are covered.