If someone had a a bona fide, legally-confirmed, unquestioned by the government religious obstacle to providing for a 40 hour work week, they could make a case that they are exempt from the law. The government could than make a case that this Constitutional violation is strictly-tailored to a compelling government…

1. Congress could not, however, require anyone who owns a corporation to not have an abortion. Its an individual right that you can't condition on an action as run-of-the-mill and commonplace as incorporating a company.

2. Actually, its the opposite. Corporations are an ancient (in the legal sense, meaning 1066)…

AS for Title VII, is Hobby Lobby refusing to employ people based on the putative employee's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin? They are not even taking an adverse employment action (though, perhaps, you could make a [shaky] case for constructive termination, but I think you would fail because people…

You can have any or no "good" reason, but you cannot have a protected reason. Nationally speaking, we are an at-will jurisdiction. An employee can be fired because of ugly shoes, funny clouds, or a coin flip and there is no federal protection. However, I do admit that my summary of that implied that it was "any…

Even if I accept the totally bizarre contention that this government is universally in favor of personal liberty, we will have a new government every two years. I am not comfortable with a President Ryan having the unchecked ability to determine what types of religious freedoms are ok.

Also, the issue is that, even…

The government already conceded (for strategic reasons) that Hobby Lobby's owners have a sincere, actual, and bona fide religous conflict. If SCOTUS finds on behalf of Hobby Lobby, the IRS can (and might) require a contemporaneous showing for each taxpayer of a scriptural basis and proof of sincerity.

I think you have this backwards. The law is forcing religious practice on the owners. The employee is not banned from using contraception, the owner is just not paying for it. I understand that, in fact, that prevents the employee from using it. However, there is a huge legal difference between taking an action…

Do you have Westlaw or Nexis?

There's two arguments against that:

1. CU seems to say that if individuals have rights, than they have those same rights when they are organized as a corporation.

2. Corporations have had a long tradition of being very motivated by sincere religious and moral beliefs. The majority of corporations are NOT…

I don't understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that there is no requirement for the state to strictly-tailor a law that makes it impossible for you to operate any business if you are of a particular religious faith? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

1. Under US law, they are. They has been unquestionably true for more than 150 years. If you disagree that they should, speak to you state legislator.

2. They are being forced to support a practice that they are religiously forbidden from supporting. They have already, uncontested, shown that this is a bona fide…

Are company stores illegal? As far as I know, under federal law you can condition employment, or continued employment, an any number (or no) reason that you choose, as long as you are not a governmental actor.

Anyway, its government action (ACA) that required the employer to enter into a situation where he had to…

You might want to read the "Brief of respondents Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al. filed on Feb 10, 2014"

He can do that. He is not the government. Its the same thing as the Free Speech clause of the same amendment. Obama has to play by stricter rules than a private actor.

I am also not sure where you are going with that last sentence. I'm not a memeber, but it is massively popular

No. Wrong clause. Read the whole amendment.

Citizen's United* held that if the government couldn't criminalize behavior if a natural person did, it can't prevent an association of people (including a Corporation) from doing it. That case focused on free speech, but I see no justification for differentiating it from the clause immediately prior:

There's still a "bona fide rreligious belief" test that Hobby Lobby unquestionably passed. Assumably, the mandate would be enforced by the IRS, who is wholly comfortable with requiring substantial, contemporaneous proof of the tax payers presentation of the facts

Unfortunately, Hobby Lobby has the same slippery slope argument. If the government can tell a Christian that his religious beliefs are less important than the single way that Congress wants to accomplish a non-enumerated policy goal, what keeps them from telling people that can't wear headgear or face coverings in…

Are you basing this on anything other than "I Hope" because its seems pretty at odds with Citizen's United.

I'd go the other way and VASTLY reduce the prison sentence of all crimes. Six decades of politicians wanted to enhance their "Tough on Crime" street cred has lead to a ridiculous situation.

Imagine where you were on March 18, 2009. Now replace every single moment since then with you sitting is a poorly lit room for…