"[Plaintiff Thomas] Monaghan asserts that acting to have his company provide such coverage would cause him to commit a grave sin according to his religious beliefs. This argument is well-taken, since DF cannot act (or sin) on its own. Therefore, even though the ACA does not literally apply to Monaghan, the Court is in no position to declare that acting through his company to provide certain health care coverage to his employees does not violate Monaghan's religious beliefs. They are, after all, his religious beliefs.... The Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion "only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest'.... The government bears the burden of proof and 'ambiguous proof will not suffice'.... [A]t this point, the Court has insufficient information before it to adequately determine whether the Government's interests are sufficiently 'compelling,' or whether the Government's actions are the least restrictive. Thus the Government has failed to carry its burden."  MORE >>