HHS mandate: court rules against Catholic business owners [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CWN_News

Guest
A US district judge in the District of Columbia has refused to halt the implementation of the HHS mandate against Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics, two businesses owned by Francis and …

More…
 
Gricken said:
wait so which news link is correct?
Click to expand...
District of Columbia district court in March ruled against the business owner but they appealed to the D.C. court of appeals and the court ruled in favour of the business owners.
 
Gricken said:
wait so which news link is correct?
Click to expand...
District of Columbia district court in March ruled against the business owner but they appealed to the D.C. court of appeals and the court ruled in favour of the business owners.
 
Gricken said:
wait so which news link is correct?
Click to expand...
District of Columbia district court in March ruled against the business owner but they appealed to the D.C. court of appeals and the court ruled in favour of the business owners.
 
Gricken said:
wait so which news link is correct?
Click to expand...
District of Columbia district court in March ruled against the business owner but they appealed to the D.C. court of appeals and the court ruled in favour of the business owners.🤷
 
Gricken said:
wait so which news link is correct?
Click to expand...
District of Columbia district court in March ruled against the business owner but they appealed to the D.C. court of appeals and the court ruled in favour of the business owners.:confused:
 
Gricken said:
wait so which news link is correct?
Click to expand...
District of Columbia district court in March ruled against the business owner but they appealed to the D.C. court of appeals and the court ruled in favour of the business owners.😉
 
Gricken said:
wait so which news link is correct?
Click to expand...
District of Columbia district court in March ruled against the business owner but they appealed to the D.C. court of appeals and the court ruled in favour of the business owners.:cool:
 
Gricken said:
wait so which news link is correct?
Click to expand...
District of Columbia district court in March ruled against the business owner but they appealed to the D.C. court of appeals and the court ruled in favour of the business owners
 
Good news today. I wonder if they will appeal. I’m not sure how the process goes in such cases.
 
nationalreview.com/bench-memos/362850/dc-circuit-ruling-against-hhs-contraceptive-mandate-ed-whelan
  1. The primary opinion, by Judge Janice Rogers Brown, rules, first, that the closely-held companies that the Gilardis run do not have any rights under RFRA. Judge Brown determines that “secular corporations” do not have free-exercise rights. And although the line between secular and religious corporations might not be easy to draw (and does not turn on the for-profit/nonprofit distinction), the plaintiff companies conceded that they are religious corporations. (Slip op. at 7-15.)
Click to expand...
But, Brown rules, the Gilardis themselves have been injured by the HHS mandate in a way that is separate and distinct from the injury to their companies. (Slip op. at 15-17.) The HHS mandate burdens their exercise of religion by pressuring them to approve and endorse the inclusion of objectionable coverage in their companies’ health plans. “They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong.” (Slip op. at 20; see generally pp. 17-23.) The government’s supposedly compelling interest is nebulous (slip op. at 23-28), and even if it were compelling, the HHS mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering that interest (slip op. at 28-32.)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top