re: #251 lawhawk

I used the example yesterday about how a business owner could conceivably claim that insurance shouldn’t cover transfusions, vaccinations, or other procedures that are widely accepted and necessary, because of religious beliefs. It still stands.

And it opens the door to so much mischief that a religious belief exemption could undermine pretty much any law that they disagree with.

The ‘law’ of unintended consequences are huge if the Justices side with Hobby Lobby et al. Teabaggers are so obsessed with sticking it to Prez Obama, that they don’t realize the potential downstream effects can, and likely will, impact them.