By Jason Hines – Today the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that Hobby Lobby and other closely held corporations can refuse to cover certain forms of contraception in the insurance plans they provide to employees because of their “religious beliefs.” Now I put religious beliefs in quotes because despite the Court’s decision, I refuse to admit that corporations, created in order to separate themselves from the people who create them, can have religious beliefs.
Today, without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a New Mexico photography studio and its owners. The highly-publicized case of Elane Photography v. Willock involved a photographer who refused on religious grounds to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony.
By Michael Peabody – On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores (transcript and audio). According to a number of court pundits, the court is expected to split with four justices on each side and the deciding vote is predicted to fall to Anthony Kennedy. Perfectly projecting the Court’s decision is not much easier than predicting a perfect NCAA March Madness bracket, but here are some potential outcomes for the case.
The United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on the Hobby Lobby case for March 25, 2014. According to SCOTUSBlog, the issue is: “Whether the [RFRA], which provides that the government ‘shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion’ unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest,…
This October the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in Town of Greece v. Galloway, a case that could change the way that prayers are conducted in legislative proceedings. The Court will determine whether city council rules, which do not openly discriminate against non-Christians or permit prayer to be used to promote a particular religion, are unconstitutional when most of the people offering the prayers are Christians.
Neither Hollingsworth nor Windsor demand that any church, even in states that allow gay marriage, be forced to conduct gay weddings. Moreover, these decisions do not affect the ability of churches to decry homosexuality or homosexual conduct as immoral.
One of the more interesting aspects of the gay marriage debate that the arguments of the last two days have highlighted is how different the discussion of marriage is from the religious to the legal realm. Religion was not mentioned one time over the course of the two days and neither should it have been. The issues of the extension of civil marriage are not issues of theology or spirituality (and they still won’t be if same-sex marriage became legal nationwide tomorrow).
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled two days of oral arguments on two separate but related cases beginning on March 26, 2013. The Court will be hearing arguments on California’s Proposition 8 which amended the state constitution to disallow same-sex marriage is constitutional and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Last week, after three days of tough argument before the Supreme Court, the President created a stir when he said that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his national healthcare plan. Obama further questioned the legitimacy of “unelected” and “activist” judges. Conservatives went crazy! How could the President criticize the authority…
In ruling the way it did, the Supreme Court protected the right of a religious organization to select its clergy without government interference and avoided placing church doctrine under government interpretation. Civil magistrates will not be in a position to where they are forced to determine which religious view, that of the clergy member or the church, is correct.