Corporate Religion
28/11/12 17:32![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsA 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?
* 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?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:28 (UTC)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/).
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:33 (UTC)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
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:34 (UTC)Why is discriminating against religious people in order to stop discrimination against women okay?
If a corporation were headed by Christian Scientists and they felt it was against their religion to provide any health insurace to anyone, I don't think we would be moved by that.
Why not? I certainly am.
If they want to act in the marketplace, they need to abide by the standards of the marketplace.
This isn't a marketplace standard, however. It's a government mandate.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:35 (UTC)Dante is wise, and also loves bacon.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:57 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:59 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 01:14 (UTC)Why shouldn't corporate entities have the right to vote?
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 01:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 01:28 (UTC)Last I checked, the action most directly involving contraception was most certainly against on-the-clock policies. At least at every job I've ever held. If you have had different job experienced, perhaps a list of the porn you've done can be worth a guffaw.
Lols, aside:
. . . although that's ultimately a very different discussion regarding contracts and reasonable job expectations and such.
Maybe lols are still in order.
Perhaps, but these employees aren't being denied contraceptive, they're merely being denied contraceptive coverage as part of their insurance package.
This entire issue is clouded, as someone else pointed out above, by our cludged-together health care "system" that allows employers to become de facto guardians in the en loco parentis vein. In a civilized world, employers should have zero say in an employee's health care decisions, which are ultimately the ultimate First Amendment decisions, ones that should trump imposed religious biases.
I would not, actually, be surprised to learn that this posturing was a simple strategy designed to lower health care cost overhead.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 01:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 01:40 (UTC)