Supreme Court unmoved by religious employer’s coverage objections — for the Amish

[rug]

Posted on Monday, August 4 at 4:44pm | By Bob Egelko

When a small employer sought to opt out of a federal program because of deep-seated religious objections, the U.S. Supreme Court’s response was emphatic.

“When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct are not to be superimposed on the (laws) which are binding on others,” the justices said. “Granting an exemption … to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

That was in 1982. The employer was an Amish farmer and carpenter who said his religion forbade him to pay Social Security taxes.

If that claim prevailed, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in the court’s unanimous ruling, it would not only disrupt the nationwide tax system but would also deprive about 30 employees of their right to Social Security benefits.

http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2014/08/04/supreme-court-unmoved-by-religious-employers-coverage-objections-for-the-amish/

U.S. v. Lee:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/252/case.html

[PoliticAverse]

1. Note that self-employed Amish are able to opt-out of participating in Social Security.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/rulings/oasi/45/SSR82-44-oasi-45.html

&quot 1) Exemptions. -- Any individual may file an application . . . for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act)."

And can also opt-out of the ACA's requirement to maintain health insurance coverage.

[Jim Lane]

2. That was before the RFRA was enacted.

I don't know if your implication is that the Supreme Court is hypocritical or inconsistent, but that implication would be wrong. The basis for the Hobby Lobby decision was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law by President Clinton, which changed the legal status of religious objections to complying with a law.

Hobby Lobby was wrongly decided, but certainly any discussion of it has to take account of the RFRA, which the Supreme Court had a duty to interpret.