Marco Rubio jumps into birth control dispute

[Jim Lane]

39. Yes, in *most* instances

Religious objectors to war can't refuse to pay taxes that support the war machine. On the other hand, they can refuse to take up arms themselves, even when we have conscription. To some extent, the tax law infringes on individuals' free exercise of religion, and the Selective Service System's treatment of conscientious objectors gave special privileges to some religious people. The point is that, as between these two aspects of the separation of church and state (the two religion clauses of the First Amendment), neither is given automatic priority over the other. (A common legal term is that there's no bright-line test.)

I don't see any logical reason to distinguish here between individuals and entities like churches. For the government to compel a church, even as an entity, to act against its religious principles is regrettable and should be avoided, other things being equal.

Of course, other things never are equal. There's always some other valid interest involved, like the government's decision that employees should be covered for contraception.