Wow, seriously?!!!

[Jyn]

I was going to quote parts of Jyn's post to respond, but I realized I would end up quoting the whole thing. Every point was very subjective.

Actually, what what I did was take three legal factors established by the Supreme Court that all Federal Courts must use when analyzing whether there has been a breach of separation of church and state. The first two factors are met pretty easily. If you want to say that's subjective, all right, but I'd like to hear your argument on how they're not.

The third factor is more subjective, I'll give you that, but you obviously missed my point since you said,

Forcing a person to provide a substance for another person that they believe is opposed to their religion inhibits their religious freedom. I don't know how someone can argue that it does not.

I said that the position was arguable, but I wasn't arguing it. In fact, my analysis assumes that religion IS inhibited by this mandate, but I think you're mixing some things up here. The language in the 2nd factor states that a law's principal or primary effect can neither advance nor inhibit religion. This law does inhibit religion to some degree, but it is a secondary effect, not primary. That really isn't a subjective statement at all. It's pretty self-evident. If you disagree, then at least provide an argument.

The language in the 3rd factor states a law must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. I admitted this was a possible point of contention, and a bit more subjective. However, even here, I'm still not arguing that religious freedom isn't inhibited. In fact, I go so far as to say that "entanglement" with religion would be at a moderate or possibly even high level. There is definitely government interference here. However, the test isn't whether there is any entanglement at all. The test is whether there is excessive entanglement. We won't have an absolute answer here unless the Supreme Court rules on it, but my argument for the 3rd factor is at least an educated hypothesis on the direction it would go. This 3rd factor has become less and less important as a stand-alone factor as time has gone on.

The point is the government is allowed to pass laws that have an inhibiting effect on religion (and other Constitutional rights), as long as they pass the legal tests and standards of review set up by the Court for analyzing the respective Constitutional issues.

I posted the standards set by the Supreme Court for analyzing an establishment breach and cited EEOC policy that in the plain text appears to apply to the situation. My application of them is relatively objective, actually. I think I put sufficient disclaimer on the 3rd factor argument. I have no horses in this race. I'm not an activist. Whether it passes or not is of no consequence to me, so bias is minimal.

Stating that birth control can somehow be a solution to society's percieved ills is very presumptuous. Stating that unwanted children are somehow the cause of socieity's ills is pretty horrific.

I said unplanned children are a source of a decent number societal problems. I didn't say they were the root cause of all society's ills in this country. I fail to see what's horrific, or even inaccurate, about that. I didn't say coverage would solve everything, only that it would help mitigate. And presumptuous? Are you saying that affording greater access to birth control wouldn't help mitigate some of the societal problems the U.S. faces that stem from unplanned pregnancy? That simply doesn't flow logically. The only way that would work would be if you were saying that unplanned pregnancies are the cause of none of society's problems. The real presumption on my part is that I doubt you're taking that position. That being said, this is policy argument and has less basis in actual law.

Putting the burden of preventing the birth of those "unwanted" children on anyone but the unready mother and father is completely un-American; even worse, putting that burden on their employers is offensive. But then to force any church that is willing to employ those who do not profess the same faith, or serve those that do not profess the same faith (ie the homeless) to go against their belief and provide contraception for their employees is ludicrous.

This is a policy argument of your own. Interestingly enough, the issue could potentially turn on this. It would depend on whether the courts would find the government has a compelling interest in passing the law despite its burden on religion.