It needs to be a "substantial" burden, and as Marty explains in his post, Hobby Lobby does not appear to have alleged facts sufficient to support a finding of such a burden:
"Because this [tax] option is legally available to an employer such as Hobby Lobby, plaintiffs cannot establish that federal law imposes a substantial burden on the Greens' exercise of religion unless federal law imposes substantial pressure on the Greens not to avail themselves of this alternative option and instead to offer their employees an insurance plan that includes contraception coverage. "Hobby Lobby asserts in its brief (p.11) that dropping its health care plan would result in 'crippling consequences.' But plaintiffs have not alleged, either in their complaint or their brief, any facts that would support such a conclusion, let alone allegations that are specific enough to satisfy Iqbal and Trombley pleading standards." On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote: > Yes, but the tax in and of itself is a burden on Hobby Lobby. > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Marty Lederman > <lederman.ma...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Actually, FWIW, Hobby Lobby is not required to provide contraception, or >> even to provide reimbursement for its purchase. See >> http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-iiitheres-no-employer.html >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net>wrote: >> >>> Hobby Lobby is required to provide contraception. >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
