General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Five years of Obama and what do we get? [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)exempted churches from compliance with the civil rights law in the hiring and firing of employees.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=483&invol=327
How would that apply to exempt organized churches from complying with the law requiring them to include birth control in the insurance packages they buy for their employees?
No employeewill be discriminated agains in the case before the Supreme Court now. Surely Amos will not be decided as a discrimination case.
Here, from Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (Scalia opinion):
As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.
....
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said, are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
, , ,
If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.
Lots more at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872
Of course, you never know with the Supreme Court.