Could an employer who is a Jehovah's Witness refuse to pay for

[edhopper]

a blood transfusion for an employee in critical condition.
And if not, why not? Isn't that an affront to their religious freedom?
Did anyone ask the Justices this?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. RBG herself asked about this in the Hobby Lobby case.

The short answer is: They could (although I think you're thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses), but it's pretty unlikely that they would, because Hobby Lobby was kind of a one-off case (closely held, family company, sincerely held beliefs). Hobby Lobby opened the door for Little Sisters of the Poor, so it's possible JW-owned businesses/nonprofits could push the door open farther.

[KWR65]

2. You are confusing Christian Scientist with Jehovah's Witnesses

However, If the CS employer provides health insurance then they can dictate to the health insurance company that they won't cover certain procedures then the health insurance does not have to cover it.

[exboyfil]

3. Out of wedlock pregnancies

Spousal benefits not extended to mixed race couples. No vaccines. Even no modern medical care for the most extreme believers.

The skies the limit.

[JenniferJuniper]

4. No one's employer should have control over

their health care.

This ridiculous system needs to go.

[Buckeyeblue]

5. I think the employer should have to prove their religious beliefs

You shouldn't just be able to say, birth control is against my personal beliefs. Prove it Biblically. What are the passages in the Bible that demonstrate to you that BC is an affront to God.

Because there has to be a line between personal opinion--or even a collective opinion--and something the is scripture based.

This is why this case is so poorly decided.