I must wholly disagree. This proposal has been criticized rigorously precisely because the real problem remains: Government wishes to control which beliefs and values we act upon in our daily lives in a dangerous manner.

I notice that it took about a year before the Administration would even budge this much. They aren’t giving up on their fight. Even if we agree to this “compromise”, we’ll be back at it again within 6 months or a year about SOMETHING.

We shouldn’t be interested in any sigh of relief until these mandates have been summarily scrapped and the government has been forced to mind its own business.

There have been certain stirrings in the courts to remove this arbitrary distinction between for-profit and non-profit, which is why it’s a shame to see the Obama administration try to further enshrine it in our law. To the extent that the business of America is business, religion must be recognized as making final, non-negotiable claims—in the market as much as anywhere else.

Exactly! There’s no reason a church in the eyes of the law cannot be a place of business – or a business cannot be a church. Why the arbitrary distinctions?

I largely share the view being articulated by Schmitz, and by Scalia: Government should not discriminate on the basis of religion, and government should not accord different religious deference to organizations based on whether the organization is for-profit or not-for-profit.

Hobby Lobby espouses a world view. So did Leman Bros. Government should be will to accord each organization the same treatment before law. Worship of God or worship of mammon, the law should not discriminate. To do otherwise would be to engage in viewpoint discrimination, and specifically, religions discrimination.

Do we really want to open the Pandora’s Box of every for-profit corporation being able to challenge government regulations it doesn’t like as an infringement on its free exercise of religion….

I do not see how these kind of exemptions work in the business world, unless you [let] any employer cover or not cover at will.

And we should let any employer cover or not cover at will. And, indeed, the law provides for precisely that option for all employers. I see no justification for discriminating between religious, not-for-profit employers and other employers.

Do you mean to say you support any business owner denying his employees health care based on a privately held belief system that may stem from his religious believes.

There are three questions:

1. Whether anything which makes use of the technologies or body of knowledge possessed by physicians, surgeons, and pharmacists qualifies as ‘medical care’.

2. Whether it is appropriate for the state to coerce an employer of any description to compensate an employee in any way but the timely payment of legal tender at the agreed upon rate.

3. And, quite apart from that, to answer why it is imperative to compel private employers to behave as if they endorsed a particular opinion given that their employees are not practically impaired from paying for their rubbers out of pocket.

The answers to these three questions are no, no, and ‘the joy of rubbing the christianists nose in it’.

Therefore a Christian Scientist has the right to deny health care in a medical setting to all his employees because he believes God is the only healer? Or perhaps a particular religious order does not believe in immunizations or antibiotics? There are other religious sects that do not believe in the construct of mental illness-well I guess the employees of such folks won’t get psychiatric coverage for medication or therapy.

Or perhaps you’re saying that only employers who object to contraceptive coverage get this exemption? If they are from a different religion objecting to other things then no exemption for them. That seems a little arbitrary and discriminatory. So no I do not see how these kind of exemptions work in the business world, unless you all any employer cover or not cover at will.

Josh DeCuir,

Not only do I support their right. I supported the right of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York, et al. to sue to override the previous accommodation. If you go back and read my previous messages on the topic, my position was that there were concerns that ought to be taken seriously, and that I trusted the courts to settle them fairly. For example, back in June I said,

I have a feeling that because the CHA has spoken out, there may be further changes to the HHS approach, and some kind of further accommodation can be reached. If not, I trust the courts to settle the matter fairly.

I am sure that is not the only time I expressed the opinion that the “accommodation” so many were unhappy with would not be the final regulation.

I trust the courts to settle the issue of whether a for-profit company has First Amendment rights of free exercise of religion. At this stage, I think they don’t, and I think that is what the courts should decide. I am not sure how I feel about Employment Division v Smith overall, but certainly there is something to be said for Scalia’s view:

It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.

Do we really want to open the Pandora’s Box of every for-profit corporation being able to challenge government regulations it doesn’t like as an infringement on its free exercise of…

Group health plans of “religious employers” are totally exempt from the contraceptive coverage mandate. Today’s proposal revises the definition of “religious employer” from the March release. The proposed exemption now conforms to language in Internal Revenue Code Sec. 6033– any church, integrated auxiliary of a church, convention or association of churches, or religious order is a “religious employer.” This eliminates a narrower test suggested in the Advance Notice.

Not being a lawyer, I am only speculating here, but it seems clear that most of the lawsuits brought by religious institutions are now moot. Even if, say, an archdiocese or a Catholic university or hospital supports Hobby Lobby, I believe they have no standing to sue over a regulation that does not affect them.

And no doubt you will not object to them pressing their case against the Administration in court to determine so?

This is a rather startling statement given all the dire predictions from some quarters about the consequences of the previous “accommodation.” Massive fines, civil disobedience, the shutdowns of Catholic hospitals and universities. The alleged mechanism for attacking the Catholic Church and driving it underground is now gone, and apparently that’s not even worth a sigh of relief!

From what I can tell, this new policy deals with all of the original complaints of the USCCB before Richard Doerflinger surprised quite a few people by talk of extending exemptions to anyone who objected, not just religious organizations.

The question now, it would appear, is whether for-profit corporations exercise religion, and it is far from obvious that they can in any meaningful sense.

Exactly right, and the “Naked Public Square” mentality is the reason why a discernible distinction between Christians and non-Christians in the public-square, especially in the realm of business and economics, is often absent. Though, we need to remember that while matters of conscience are important, a religiously-informed public-square presence–in the market and elsewhere–runs deeper. Non-Catholics and non-Christians, even irreligious persons, can conscientiously object to contraceptives and abortion. The truly Christian difference–a difference of presence in the academy, the arts, politics, the market, and elsewhere in the public-square–witnesses to the presence of Someone other who dwells among, with, and in (not outside as a checklist criterion) all human work. A sign of something Other, a Christian-informed public-square presence gives witness to a more human way of work–a way that is interested in life rather than gaining power.

As Christians, we are interested in things in a new way and we seek to publicly live and share this interest in our lay vocations. We cannot split Christ from ourselves and the split between Faith and life is, Pope Benedict XVI affirms, the great travail of our time. As we continue the necessary discourse concerning a total religious-freedom, we ought to remember that overcoming this split, not gaining power, is at stake.