Corporate Religion

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A few cases involving the mandates on employers have come down in the last week, which raise some interesting issues:

* In Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, the Washington, DC district court granted an injunction on penalties stemming from the publishing house's refusal to offer contraceptive coverage, citing religious freedom. Of the key findings from the ruling, it was held that even the indirect burden is enough to cause a religious liberty issue, and that the government lacked a compelling interest in handing down the mandate.

* In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, an Oklahoma district court ruled in favor of the federal government in part because the ruling differentiated between for-profit and religious corporations, making a distinction between organizations involved in worship and organizations that, at least according to this judge, are for-profit or simply religiously-associated.

We now have 4 lower court rulings in play right now regarding the contraception mandate. All four involved for-profit institutions, only Hobby Lobby ruling in favor of the government on the issue, and none of this has anything to do with the Liberty University case that just made it back to the 4th Circuit.

Why shouldn't corporate entities have religious freedom rights? Especially in the case of places like Hobby Lobby, who outright state that '[T]he foundation of our business has been, and will continue to be strong values, and honoring the Lord in a manner consistent with Biblical principles." Given the first amendment, hasn't the government clearly overstepped their bounds?

Comments

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Upon incorporation, does a corporate entity become endowed with a soul? If so, then it certainly deserves the protection of the Lord and the Constitution. But I find it doubtful.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Is possession of a soul a prerequisite to the first amendment?

Does that mean that those who do not believe in souls lack first amendment protection?

Does the soul disappear when organized?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Because a corporation is a legal construct.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Okay. And?

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I would think that any religious freedom rights just shouldn't trump the health and reproductive rights of women. These corporations are acting in the public market and should be held to the standards of said market.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Is it the reproductive right of women to have their contraceptives funded by someone else?

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but a corporation is not a living breathing person. As far as I am concerned they are like ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, yetis, the Fae, sprites, dragon kin, Merlin, gremlins, Thor, and whatever else may or may not exist, they are non-human, therefore the rights granted in the US Bill of Rights, and Constitution do not apply to them, as an entity.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

By that argument, corporations also have no moral obligations.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

So let these businesses opt-out of contraception coverage, then raise their taxes by however much it would cost to provide their female workers with the contraception coverage and provide it via the federal government. Of course, then they could say their tax dollars are still going toward contraception, but the same would be true if their employees (whom they pay) spend their own money on contraception. There are plenty of other things the government spends its money on that are forbidden by the Bible.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Corporate "persons" should have religious freedoms? Your arguments grow more ridiculous with each passing day it seems.

Also, Liberty University shouldn't be state-accredited, that's a basic problem.

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

I wanna quarter a few platoons of soldiers inside Monsanto's corporate HQ, would that be okay at least?

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Why aren't individuals using their Religion to become tax-exempt?

[existentme.livejournal.com]

This is the very first thing that occurred to me, truly, and not just individuals, but corporations, too, and my wondering how the courts might parse that argument out.

That is, roughly outlined, I'm not sure how the court distinguishes between a corporation claiming an exemption to the healthcare bc, (mandated by a law), and the idea of providing tax funding (again, mandated by a law) for the killing of innocents in various corners of the globe. After all, as far as those corporate souls most concerned about this issue, both mandated expenditures are for the use of arguably unjustified killing prohibited by the fifth/sixth commandment.

And, needless to say, the list could go on.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Herein is problem with this issue. Religious Freedom is nothing but a concept that addresses that government should have no rational interest in suppressing freedom. One does not have unlimited religious freedom; say, to slaughter humans or kittens, no matter how close it gets one to their god.

But that shield does not apply to, nor does it give superior right over the oxygen breathing employee's rights of not having religious views of the FOUNDER, and board of arbitrary individual oxygen breathers.

Hence, the corporations claim of any 'religious freedom' is hollow; a reflection of the people who are in control of it. The corporation is free to participate of not in BC programs, BY POLICY. The policy, of course, must pass constitutional muster.

Your (people's) problem is that you view the corporation as a 'person' when it is a 'structure' endowed with certain restrictive freedoms.

If a corporation is a 'citizen by right' in your mind, what percentage of a citizen are they? three fifths? 100%? Many of us say 'zero', legal rulings aside. Pass the cost down: they don't hesitate to do it to all the other costs involved in doing business under our system of justice.

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

If the company was being forced to hand out contraception, that would be a religious issue. They're providing comprehensive health insurance, which some employees might choose to use for contraception. Guess what, some employees might choose to use their wages for contraception as well, but paying employees wages isn't a religious issue.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Are wages the same as subsidized insurance?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The freedom to "make shit up" (religion) should not subvert laws in real life.

You grant religion far too much validity and power. At your peril (http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/irish-catholic-bishops-reveal-ignorance-in-statement-on-death-of-savita-halappanavar/).

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The freedom to "make shit up" (religion) should not subvert laws in real life.

Maybe not, but freedom to worship is a pretty important basis for the American existence.

You grant religion far too much validity and power. At your peril.

"Deliberately We have always used the expression 'direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,' 'direct killing.' Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions - granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies." - Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

An interesting point. To carry it to a further extreme, can a corporation citing religious prerogative claim tax exempt status? As long as the can demonstrate an apolitical approach to their business and thus not get confused for a political entity, why not?

Another issue: are the employees of every business required to adhere to the values imposed by their employers? It would seem if the answer is "No," that disallowing employees contraception would be an infringement of the First Amendment far more than what the lawsuits are claiming.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

An interesting point. To carry it to a further extreme, can a corporation citing religious prerogative claim tax exempt status? As long as the can demonstrate an apolitical approach to their business and thus not get confused for a political entity, why not?

It's because churches are charitable nonprofits, right? Plenty of nonprofit corporations exist.

Another issue: are the employees of every business required to adhere to the values imposed by their employers?

This doesn't seem to be an issue of what these employees do off the clock, although that's ultimately a very different discussion regarding contracts and reasonable job expectations and such.

It would seem if the answer is "No," that disallowing employees contraception would be an infringement of the First Amendment far more than what the lawsuits are claiming.

Perhaps, but these employees aren't being denied contraceptive, they're merely being denied contraceptive coverage as part of their insurance package.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> Why shouldn't corporate entities have religious freedom rights?


Why shouldn't corporate entities have the right to vote?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Because the individuals who make up that corporation already have that right, and don't lose that right when they organize.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You really don't see the flaw in attributing to private industries the power to wield religious influence? I seem to remember a Rabbi once said to Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. This is claiming that Mammon is God. There are theological reasons galore to oppose this blasphemous approach to business without roping in political ones, of which the most obvious is that this is a practical attempt to end-run Constitutional provisions against discrimination. Which I'm sure you don't believe in as you've never answered any of the legions of questions I've asked you about the role of the 14th and 15th Amendments in this regard.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

...what role do you think the 14th and 15th Amendments play in regulating the behavior of corporations, precisely?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Why shouldn't corporate entities have religious freedom rights?

For the same reasons corporate entities don't have speech freedom rights -- they are not people, and therefore cannot have the rights of people.

But you refuse to comprehend this, and thus will refuse.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

They're groups of people who do not lose their rights when they choose to organize. Why you refuse to comprehend that, I do not know.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Why not just make birth control over the counter? Everybody wins - those who want cheap easy access and those who don't feel they should chip in on it.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's been argued, and I'm definitely not against it, nor are many others as far as I can tell. The issue, however, is that over the counter drugs might not be covered by insurance anymore.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

You really need to get a lawyer to explain these cases to you, since you don't seem to understand them. I'd offer, but you probably couldn't afford my billing rate.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

What a racket, this thing called government!

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

If the government provided healthcare, rather than the ridiculous system of relying upon employers to do so, this wouldn't be an issue.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Better yet, if neither provided healthcare and people could buy what they wanted on their own, then this also wouldn't be an issue.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

hasn't the government clearly overstepped their bounds?

This assumption that the government has "bounds" is where you go wrong.

[existentme.livejournal.com]

Heh, well observed and played!

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

I'm hereby incorporating and will implementing Sharia law on all my peons indentured servants minions employees at the first available opportunity.

Where's my federal subsidy, already??? Come on Obama, this is why al Qaeda put you in there as a sleeper agent to begin with, and after all that free Hawaiian maryjane we gave you in college too...................

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I didn't realize that anyone as trying to force people into not using contraceptives. Not forcing a Muslim owned company to pay for people's pork sandwiches is a far thing from allowing that Muslim owned company to prohibit those employees to go and buy pork with their own money.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I love it when people claim that treating their employees like second class citizens constitutes religious freedom. It hearkens back to the Biblical justification for chattel slavery.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

+1

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

If corporations want to exist in a secular country and they are offering comprehensive health coverage, what they're allowed to cover is not up to them. Because if it was TRULY up to them, they would cover nothing. No company WANTS to provide insurance. So, no, I'm not in favor of them weaseling out of their obligations with petty excuses.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

why do corporations provide health insurance then?

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

That applies only if you really believe that corporations are people.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Much like personhood had nothing to do with Citizens United, so too does this.

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

No.

The authority of the state trumps the rights granted by the state to religious organizations. The law requires that an employer pay for its employees medical insurance by exactly the same kind of statutory authority that the law requires that an employer not murder its employees. You may no more cite a religious objection to health insurance than you may cite a religious obligation to human sacrifice.

This is because religion lacks not only controlling authority, but legitimacy. There is no religious trump card. Any fool could call anything a church and try to demand anything. The democratic state has an obligation to its people, while religions can simply make up arbitrary rules and pretend they are divine morality at will.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

The authority of the state trumps the rights granted by the state to religious organizations

you have it backwards. the authority of the state is limited by the rights of individuals. these rights are not granted to us by the state, they are unalienable. this is a fundamental precept of the American system.

You may no more cite a religious objection to health insurance than you may cite a religious obligation to human sacrifice

human sacrifice deprives an individual of the unalienable right to life. there is no unalienable right to having your employer provide birth control services in their insurance plan. this is just common sense.

Any fool could call anything a church and try to demand anything.

sure they could, but we have the judicial system for a reason.