For John, BLUF: What exceptions should we allow for religious views regarding Federal rules. Nothing to see here; just move along.
At CNS News there is a discussion of an exchange between a Department of Justice lawyer and U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton. The topic is certain rules of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius).♠ The article is titled "DOJ to Federal Judge: We Can Force Your Wife to Violate Her Religion". An excerpt from the article:
Tyndale is a for-profit corporation that publishes Bibles, biblical commentaries and other religious works. Tyndale House Foundation, a religious non-profit organization, owns 96.5 percent of the corporation’s stock and receives 96.5 percent of its profits. The foundation’s mission is “to minister to the spiritual needs of people, primarily through grants to other religious charities.”And there it is. How much religion do you have to have on you to qualify for First Amendment protection under the "Free Exercise" Clause. Looked at another way, is there a limit to what one can do under the cover of religion.
As a matter of religious principle, the foundation believes that human life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong.
For me, the interesting question is, in these United States what degree of fuzziness should we allow at the margins of activities to accommodate different religious views?
Regards — Cliff
♠ This is the commonly called Obama Care.