Originally posted by FreshFish
View Post
The four dissenters argued the RFRA was never meant to apply to comprehensive schemes like this, and the courts should not be making decisions on which conditions the government should be picking up the tabs (contraception vs transfusions or vaccines, for instance, or why tax schemes do not violate the RFRA but the ACA does).
All nine justices recognized the conflict between the owners rights vs the employees rights.
Comment