Now corporations soon to have "freedom of religion"? Really?

[Quantum Windbag]

If Hobby were to win their challenge and be exempted from following this law due to religious objections, what's to stop someone like @The Rabbi from refusing to comply with minimum wage laws on account of they violate his religious beliefs?

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

It's a hypothetical, to explore weaknesses in an argument. Can you just answer it? If there were religious beliefs that minimum wage, or stopping at stop signs, or whatever, was wrong - should that give religious people a free pass to ignore the law?

koshergirl is saying, from what I gather, 'yes, as long as they don't violate the rights of others', and I ideally, I agree with that. But that is a general principle that should apply to ALL beliefs, not just religious beliefs. No one should face coercion from government unless they are violating someone else's rights.

But the sad fact is, our government is not ideal. There are many laws of expedience wherein breaking them wouldn't violate anyone else's rights. Should religious people feel free to skip out on those whenever it conflicts with their religious views?

It is not a hypothetical to argue that someone has a religious belief that precludes obeying traffic laws unless you can point to a religion that requires it.

On the other hand, I can easily show you hundreds of cases where laws have been struck down because of how they affected religious rights. For example, did you know that some cities passed laws making it illegal to knock on someones door unless you got a permit in advance? And that the Supreme Court struck it down because it was challenged by Jehovah's Witnesses who fought for the right to knock on your door without a permit? They have won 48 different times in the Supreme Court on the basis of religious freedom and free speech, and that has made you freer than you would be if they had lost.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Debating made easy: Just make up your own facts.

Made up facts bolded for your convenience.

But at least Vox admits that in his opinion the government gets to dictate what is and what is not considered a religious belief. Unfortunately he's still dumb enough to think he's making a case FOR 1st Amendment protection.

government does not get to dictate what constitutes religious belief - and THIS exactly is the reason for the court action.
but you are too obtuse to comrehend this.
p.s. there is no debate with an ignorant leftard( you) who brings straw men "arguments" to the discussion all the time and clearly does not understand what is it about
so - adieu.

So, you're of the view that any belief someone calls 'religious' can be used as a justification for ignoring the law?

No, he has the same view I do, all beliefs, religious or not, are protected by the Constitution. You really need to get over your obsession with framing this as a religious freedom issue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If Hobby were to win their challenge and be exempted from following this law due to religious objections, what's to stop someone like @The Rabbi from refusing to comply with minimum wage laws on account of they violate his religious beliefs?

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.

Like Scientology?

Get your head out of your fucking ass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess you must've failed civics class in high school, so let me clue you in...

The courts is one of three branches of GOVERNMENT.

And if the courts say that opposition to birth control is a protected religious belief but opposition to minimum wage laws is not, then the GOVERNMENT is ABSOLUTELY dictating what is and what is not a protected religious belief.

Damn you're fuck'n slow.

you, idiot, I was referring to THIS PARTICULAR court case.

but a leftard is exactly that - a tard.

And when someone goes to court to challenge minimum wage laws on religious grounds, what would you want the court to do?

I would want them to throw you into stocks and require everyone who passed by to slap you upside the head.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.

I am applying only that so far the SCOTUS did upheld only those and only in the cases when others rights are not violated.
and don't subsitute my argument of a proof of long-standing BELIEF to the long-standing religion.

although I am not aware about any SCOTUS ruling on the behalf of the scientology sect. Maybe there is some, just can't remember one

So do you see why mani and I are contending that this actually violates the spirit of the first amendment, by putting the Court in charge of deciding what is a legitimate religion and what isn't?

Do I see why you are confused?

Franky, no, because your stupidity is incomprehensible to me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So do you see why mani and I are contending that this actually violates the spirit of the first amendment, by putting the Court in charge of deciding what is a legitimate religion and what isn't?

Nope, I do not. You simply want somebody to pay for YOUR personal lifestyle choices and that is the very reason you so vehemently want the government to force employer's to pay for it.

What??? Have you been reading my posts at all? I'm firmly against ALL of the mandates associated with ACA. I thought I made that clear. I just don't agree with scapegoating some people at the expense of others. If Hobby Lobby doesn't have to follow the law, neither should any other businesses.

BTW, I, personally, think, that seeming stupidity and stubbornness of the obama admin in this case is neither stupidity, nor stubbornness. It is a well manipulated move in sync with all others to force employers to drop the healthcare coverage for their employees entirely - so the employees would be forced to buy insurance through the exchanges - the whole obamacare possibility of survival lies in the amount of people subscribing to it - so it is just simple, perverse, but very logical move form the standpoint of the administration in the implementation of obamacare.

Agreed.

Yet you keep arguing in favor of the mandate simply because you think your freedom is somehow restricted by other people being free.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again, neither do I. But I see no reason why some should be coerced because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and some should not. The way to deal with a law that conflicts with a religious belief is to strike down the law, not cut special deals.

that is just your personal opinion and on the personal philosophical level I agree with that.
But on the much more important practical level the whole possibility of throwing this garbage obamacare i n the trash now lies in this decision - and since it is the very core matter protected under First Amendment, there is a huge chance to overthrow the mandate.
Which eventually will lead to the demise of the vicious obamacare altogether.

I can not understand why you, if you claim you are against the law, and want it to be thrown out, do not want Hobby Lobby to win the case.
Unless, obviously, you are an obamacare fan.

So - are you?

Exempting religious businesses from the mandate will remove them from the ranks of those us fighting the law. Just as giving exemptions to the unions and all the other special interest groups that Obama bought off to pass this shit turned their opposition into tacit support. This is how they defeat us. It's the heart and soul of the statist motif, where special interests are played off each other as part of the political strategy. Everybody is so busy jumping through hoops to get special treatment we miss out on the fact that our rights are being systematically obliterated.

If the court rules that it would make more sense to make contraception available OTC than require women to report to a doctor on a yearly basis in order to not get pregnant how long do you think it will take Obama to make contraception less expensive?

 

[dblack]

that is your personal opinion and a wrong one. The Constitution is there to protect us from the government not to protect one group of private citizens from the other group of private citizens. employer's denial do pay for your privileges does not impose anything on you, government pressure on the employer of it's, government, values - is OPPRESSION and a direct violation of the First Amendment.

I completely agree. Which is why the entire requirement should be struck down, and not simply exempted for religious groups.

If it is struck down on religious grounds it is still struck down.

You're missing a key point in this. If they 'strike down' the law for everyone, whatever the reason, I'll be in favor of that. What I'm saying would be wrong is if they simple exempt religious groups, but still apply the law to everyone else. That's not striking down the law as unconstitutional, that's selectively enforcing it against groups who's sole 'crime' is not being religious. You're equivocating and bouncing back and forth between the two propositions. It's never clear which you're defending. You seem to want to pretend they're the same thing, but they're not.

 

[dblack]

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.

Like Scientology?

Sure, why not? If not, who decides? Should government be in charge of deciding which religions are 'real' and which aren't?

 

[dblack]

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

It's a hypothetical, to explore weaknesses in an argument. Can you just answer it? If there were religious beliefs that minimum wage, or stopping at stop signs, or whatever, was wrong - should that give religious people a free pass to ignore the law?

koshergirl is saying, from what I gather, 'yes, as long as they don't violate the rights of others', and I ideally, I agree with that. But that is a general principle that should apply to ALL beliefs, not just religious beliefs. No one should face coercion from government unless they are violating someone else's rights.

But the sad fact is, our government is not ideal. There are many laws of expedience wherein breaking them wouldn't violate anyone else's rights. Should religious people feel free to skip out on those whenever it conflicts with their religious views?

It is not a hypothetical to argue that someone has a religious belief that precludes obeying traffic laws unless you can point to a religion that requires it.

So, you don't get what a hypothetical is?

On the other hand, I can easily show you hundreds of cases where laws have been struck down because of how they affected religious rights. For example, did you know that some cities passed laws making it illegal to knock on someones door unless you got a permit in advance? And that the Supreme Court struck it down because it was challenged by Jehovah's Witnesses who fought for the right to knock on your door without a permit? They have won 48 different times in the Supreme Court on the basis of religious freedom and free speech, and that has made you freer than you would be if they had lost.

Once again, striking down a law, for everyone, is fine. Saying that only some people have to obey it is not.

 

[dblack]

paying for your privileges ( including the whole insurance) has nothing to do with violence against the private citizen. Beating of the wife is not a religious belief.

Please don't dodge the point. There are, or at least have been, religions which practice human or animal sacrifice. I'm assuming you wouldn't argue they should get a pass in the name of religious freedom. Surely you can see that the point of the first amendment isn't to protect religious practices when the come into conflict the law. The point is to keep the law from targeting religions.

And, like it or not, there are still religions that practice animal sacrifice, and the Supreme Court has ruled that laws that prevent animal sacrifice cannot be applied to Santeria churches because sacrifice is an integral part of their religion.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Will you admit you are wrong now?

Did you even read the article? It backs up my view. The law was ruled unconstitutional because it targeted the religion. The contraception mandate doesn't target a particular religion, or even religion in general. It also struck down the law for everyone. It didn't, as you suggest, simply say the law couldn't be applied to Santeria Churches.

 

[Vox]

Please don't dodge the point. There are, or at least have been, religions which practice human or animal sacrifice. I'm assuming you wouldn't argue they should get a pass in the name of religious freedom. Surely you can see that the point of the first amendment isn't to protect religious practices when the come into conflict the law. The point is to keep the law from targeting religions.

And, like it or not, there are still religions that practice animal sacrifice, and the Supreme Court has ruled that laws that prevent animal sacrifice cannot be applied to Santeria churches because sacrifice is an integral part of their religion.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Will you admit you are wrong now?

Did you even read the article? It backs up my view. The law was ruled unconstitutional because it targeted the religion. The contraception mandate doesn't target a particular religion, or even religion in general. It also struck down the law for everyone. It didn't, as you suggest, simply say the law couldn't be applied to Santeria Churches.

yes, it does. It targets Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants DIRECTLY.
On abortifacient methods of contraception - all branches. On other methods of contraception - not all of them, but majority. Hobby Lobby does not fight all contraceptive methods just abortifacient ones.

 

[dblack]

And, like it or not, there are still religions that practice animal sacrifice, and the Supreme Court has ruled that laws that prevent animal sacrifice cannot be applied to Santeria churches because sacrifice is an integral part of their religion.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Will you admit you are wrong now?

Did you even read the article? It backs up my view. The law was ruled unconstitutional because it targeted the religion. The contraception mandate doesn't target a particular religion, or even religion in general. It also struck down the law for everyone. It didn't, as you suggest, simply say the law couldn't be applied to Santeria Churches.

yes, it does. It targets Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants DIRECTLY.
On abortifacient methods of contraception - all branches. On other methods of contraception - not all of them, but majority. Hobby Lobby does not fight all contraceptive methods just abortifacient ones.

No, not in the way stipulated in decision:

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida, forbidding the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption", was unconstitutional. The law was enacted soon after the city council of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced Santería, was planning on locating there. The church filed a lawsuit in United States district court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking for the Hialeah ordinance to be declared unconstitutional.

Adhering to Employment Division v. Smith, the lower courts deemed the law to have a legitimate and rational government purpose and therefore upheld the enactment. The Supreme Court, however, held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable: rather, they applied exclusively to the church. Because the law was targeted at Santería, the Court held, it was not subject to an undemanding rational basis test. Rather, the nature of the case was held to mandate a standard of strict scrutiny: state action had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Because the ordinance suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve its stated ends, it was deemed unconstitutional, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision, “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection”

.

Based on the above criteria, the contraception mandate would not be struck down. It has general purpose and, regardless of whether that purpose is just, impacts anyone who isn't currently providing coverage for contraception.

To reiterate, I think it SHOULD be struck down, because it violates a more fundamental freedom to think and make our own economic decisions. But the law doesn't specifically target religion. I conflicts with the views of some religions, granted, but according to the above decision, that's not the litmus test for the first amendment. Nor should it be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I completely agree. Which is why the entire requirement should be struck down, and not simply exempted for religious groups.

If it is struck down on religious grounds it is still struck down.

You're missing a key point in this. If they 'strike down' the law for everyone, whatever the reason, I'll be in favor of that. What I'm saying would be wrong is if they simple exempt religious groups, but still apply the law to everyone else. That's not striking down the law as unconstitutional, that's selectively enforcing it against groups who's sole 'crime' is not being religious. You're equivocating and bouncing back and forth between the two propositions. It's never clear which you're defending. You seem to want to pretend they're the same thing, but they're not.

No, you are missing the point, Hobby Lobby challenged the contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says:

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

42 USC § 2000bb?1 - Free exercise of religion protected | Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

You seem to think this will create an exception for this company alone, it won't, so please, pull your fucking head out of your fucking ass and join the fucking fight instead of fighting for the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.

Like Scientology?

Sure, why not? If not, who decides? Should government be in charge of deciding which religions are 'real' and which aren't?

Don't be an idiot.

I used Scientology on purpose. Most countries define it as a cult and refuse to allow it to have the same legal protections they extend to "real" religions. Frankly, I agree with them, it isn't a real religion, but it still gets exactly the same legal treatment in the US as the Catholic Church.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's a hypothetical, to explore weaknesses in an argument. Can you just answer it? If there were religious beliefs that minimum wage, or stopping at stop signs, or whatever, was wrong - should that give religious people a free pass to ignore the law?

koshergirl is saying, from what I gather, 'yes, as long as they don't violate the rights of others', and I ideally, I agree with that. But that is a general principle that should apply to ALL beliefs, not just religious beliefs. No one should face coercion from government unless they are violating someone else's rights.

But the sad fact is, our government is not ideal. There are many laws of expedience wherein breaking them wouldn't violate anyone else's rights. Should religious people feel free to skip out on those whenever it conflicts with their religious views?

It is not a hypothetical to argue that someone has a religious belief that precludes obeying traffic laws unless you can point to a religion that requires it.

So, you don't get what a hypothetical is?

On the other hand, I can easily show you hundreds of cases where laws have been struck down because of how they affected religious rights. For example, did you know that some cities passed laws making it illegal to knock on someones door unless you got a permit in advance? And that the Supreme Court struck it down because it was challenged by Jehovah's Witnesses who fought for the right to knock on your door without a permit? They have won 48 different times in the Supreme Court on the basis of religious freedom and free speech, and that has made you freer than you would be if they had lost.

Once again, striking down a law, for everyone, is fine. Saying that only some people have to obey it is not.

Yes, I get what a hypothetical is, it is an argument from inference in classical logic. In order to be valid you have to supply two premises of which at least one has a conditional statement. What you are actually attempting to do is use reductio ad absurdum, which is an attempt to prove that you are right by showing that an absurd result is the inevitable end of my position. and call it a hypothetical. You really should learn the difference.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please don't dodge the point. There are, or at least have been, religions which practice human or animal sacrifice. I'm assuming you wouldn't argue they should get a pass in the name of religious freedom. Surely you can see that the point of the first amendment isn't to protect religious practices when the come into conflict the law. The point is to keep the law from targeting religions.

And, like it or not, there are still religions that practice animal sacrifice, and the Supreme Court has ruled that laws that prevent animal sacrifice cannot be applied to Santeria churches because sacrifice is an integral part of their religion.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Will you admit you are wrong now?

Did you even read the article? It backs up my view. The law was ruled unconstitutional because it targeted the religion. The contraception mandate doesn't target a particular religion, or even religion in general. It also struck down the law for everyone. It didn't, as you suggest, simply say the law couldn't be applied to Santeria Churches.

It had a general purpose which was, arguably, well within the duties of government, the health and safety of everyone not in the religion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did you even read the article? It backs up my view. The law was ruled unconstitutional because it targeted the religion. The contraception mandate doesn't target a particular religion, or even religion in general. It also struck down the law for everyone. It didn't, as you suggest, simply say the law couldn't be applied to Santeria Churches.

yes, it does. It targets Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants DIRECTLY.
On abortifacient methods of contraception - all branches. On other methods of contraception - not all of them, but majority. Hobby Lobby does not fight all contraceptive methods just abortifacient ones.

No, not in the way stipulated in decision:

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida, forbidding the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption", was unconstitutional. The law was enacted soon after the city council of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced Santería, was planning on locating there. The church filed a lawsuit in United States district court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking for the Hialeah ordinance to be declared unconstitutional.

Adhering to Employment Division v. Smith, the lower courts deemed the law to have a legitimate and rational government purpose and therefore upheld the enactment. The Supreme Court, however, held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable: rather, they applied exclusively to the church. Because the law was targeted at Santería, the Court held, it was not subject to an undemanding rational basis test. Rather, the nature of the case was held to mandate a standard of strict scrutiny: state action had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Because the ordinance suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve its stated ends, it was deemed unconstitutional, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision, “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection”

.

Based on the above criteria, the contraception mandate would not be struck down. It has general purpose and, regardless of whether that purpose is just, impacts anyone who isn't currently providing coverage for contraception.

To reiterate, I think it SHOULD be struck down, because it violates a more fundamental freedom to think and make our own economic decisions. But the law doesn't specifically target religion. I conflicts with the views of some religions, granted, but according to the above decision, that's not the litmus test for the first amendment. Nor should it be.

I already provided the law that negates your argument. Until you deal with the law as it actually exists instead of living inside a fantasy world there is really no reason to actually try to reason with you.

 

[dblack]

No, you are missing the point, Hobby Lobby challenged the contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says:

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

42 USC § 2000bb?1 - Free exercise of religion protected | Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

You seem to think this will create an exception for this company alone, it won't, so please, pull your fucking head out of your fucking ass and join the fucking fight instead of fighting for the government.

Thanks for the clarification. Per the bolded part, why do you think this won't result in an exemption for religions objections? Like I said, if they strike down the requirement across the board, I'm in favor of it.

To reiterate, my concern isn't that it will create an exception for this company alone, but rather an exception for religious objections alone. I don't see why a religious objection deserves any more Constitutional protection than a secular objection.

Also, why do you persist with the insulting language? The debate would be more enjoyable, for me at least, without it. Is it necessary?

 

[Vox]

Did you even read the article? It backs up my view. The law was ruled unconstitutional because it targeted the religion. The contraception mandate doesn't target a particular religion, or even religion in general. It also struck down the law for everyone. It didn't, as you suggest, simply say the law couldn't be applied to Santeria Churches.

yes, it does. It targets Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants DIRECTLY.
On abortifacient methods of contraception - all branches. On other methods of contraception - not all of them, but majority. Hobby Lobby does not fight all contraceptive methods just abortifacient ones.

No, not in the way stipulated in decision:

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida, forbidding the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption", was unconstitutional. The law was enacted soon after the city council of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced Santería, was planning on locating there. The church filed a lawsuit in United States district court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking for the Hialeah ordinance to be declared unconstitutional.

Adhering to Employment Division v. Smith, the lower courts deemed the law to have a legitimate and rational government purpose and therefore upheld the enactment. The Supreme Court, however, held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable: rather, they applied exclusively to the church. Because the law was targeted at Santería, the Court held, it was not subject to an undemanding rational basis test. Rather, the nature of the case was held to mandate a standard of strict scrutiny: state action had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Because the ordinance suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve its stated ends, it was deemed unconstitutional, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision, “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection”

.

Based on the above criteria, the contraception mandate would not be struck down. It has general purpose and, regardless of whether that purpose is just, impacts anyone who isn't currently providing coverage for contraception.

To reiterate, I think it SHOULD be struck down, because it violates a more fundamental freedom to think and make our own economic decisions. But the law doesn't specifically target religion. I conflicts with the views of some religions, granted, but according to the above decision, that's not the litmus test for the first amendment. Nor should it be.

what does the ritual animal sacrifice has in common to the enforcement to PAY for somebody's lifestyle option which is in direct contradiction with the religious beliefs of the one, who has to pay?
contraception mandate does not have any general purpose as it is NOT medical treatment. it is a LIFESTYLE option, available OTC.
those are absolutely different issues.