1] Burger points out that the Congressional exemption, mention above concerning Byler, was only for self-employed Amish, not Amish who employed others; therefore, that exemption could not be construed as being applicable here.
2] Although Burger agreed that Lee's religious beliefs were sincerely held, ",,,not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest."
3] "Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity."
In other words, entering into commercial business (ie Hobby Lobby) is voluntary. Choosing to become a business owner entails certain legal responsibilities, "The social security system in the United States serves the public interest by providing a comprehensive insurance system with a variety of benefits available to all participants, with costs shared by employers and employees."
Compare that to Lynn's statement:
"The administration, and those of us that support it with 'friends of the court briefs,' will argue that there is a legitimate State interest in creating a healthcare system that works; and that it works for men and women, the rich and poor. This is an effort to have a comprehensive system of healthcare in America; at least the beginnings of a comprehensive system. That's the argument we will use and I think it is a very good one."
Personally I do not see how HL will over come this hurdle. Burger's assessment and opinion of Lee set outstanding precedent.
No comments:
Post a Comment