LEGAL CHALLENGES to the HHS Mandate The Becket Fund
"Leading the charge against the HHS Mandate" is how they sell themselves. I don't know what motivates them. They think they're heroes. I think they're nuts. Complicity in contraception is a moral burden an employer cannot be compelled to bear? But so far it looks like they may be wining! The rights of the employees of companies whose owners adhere to Catholic orthodoxy nowhere appear in the Becket vision.
In Korte V. Sebelius the majority opinion written by Judge Sykes declares
"Leading the charge against the HHS Mandate" is how they sell themselves. I don't know what motivates them. They think they're heroes. I think they're nuts. Complicity in contraception is a moral burden an employer cannot be compelled to bear? But so far it looks like they may be wining! The rights of the employees of companies whose owners adhere to Catholic orthodoxy nowhere appear in the Becket vision.
In Korte V. Sebelius the majority opinion written by Judge Sykes declares
Accordingly, we take it as both conceded and noncontroversial that the use of the corporate form and the associated legal attributes of that status—think separate legal personhood, limitations on owners’ liability, special tax treatment—do not disable an organization from engaging in the exercise of religion within the meaning of RFRA (or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter).Gee. I thought that was settled 400 years ago. 401, to be exact, in The Sutton's Hospital Case.
No comments:
Post a Comment