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

[usekh.livejournal.com]

And in this magical world everyone could afford the health care they need!

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I think you're redirecting the question ; )

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Again: why would Jeff care if they're making bad theological choices? Why would anyone, for that matter? His whole point is that it's not for you or I to judge their validity, but to let them worship as they see fit.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It'd probably become a bigger issue, as it would become taxpayer money funding these things.

[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.

[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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's a different issue.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Speech is different, yes. The right to vote is an individual right limited to citizens. Speech is not.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And the individuals organized into a corporation already have religious freedom, and do not lose that when they organize.

....except when it comes to acting in accordance to their beliefs as a group when a business.

They just shouldn't try and construe their religious freedom as being able to control other people's choices.

If that was what was happening here, I'd possibly agree. This isn't about controlling anyone's choices, however - if anything, the government is the one controlling the choices of the people paying for the lion's share of the insurance.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If it's contraceptive requirements today, who's to say it won't be zoning laws, employment discrimination laws, workplace safety laws, etc., tomorrow?

A good question. Why should the line end at contraception? I'm not sure the Bible says anything about workplace safety, of course, but yes, those things also matter.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

They absolutely should, yes.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with this, actually.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

eff, however, has amazing predilections to ignore certain types of questions despite being repeatedly asking

There are certain rabbit holes I refuse to go down with you anymore, lest it devolve into a "37th Tigers/Stalin/Grant" craziness again. I don't have the energy for it.

It's part of how for an atheist he sure tends to take the theistic side of discussions far more than an atheist reasonably should.

If the government can tell a religious person how to worship, they can tell a nonreligious person how to as well. And there are many more of them than there are of me, and they won't be rushing to my defense.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The ACLU on Citizens United. (http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Is the Sierra Club religiously-oriented?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

hasn't the government clearly overstepped their bounds?

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

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

The NY Times Corporation, the National Broadcasting Corporation, the American Broadcasting Corporation and all the other press organizations that are for profit corporations that don't include that word in their name, don't have a right to free speech?

Good to know.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

It doesn't say anything about contraception either.

And no, Onan doesn't count.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

The problem is, shareholder influence demands only one thing: increased share value. We've seen, time and again, corporations behaving in incredibly irresponsible ways because of the threat of shareholder suit.

The regulations you mention are decried by one side of the argument as unneeded, and causing the very problems they're meant to correct.

We're left with market forces, which are purely reactionary in nature. Bhopal occured despite "market forces". Market forces can only act to prevent another Bhopal AFTER one happens, because the nature of the market (whose forces are so often invoked) is to value short-term consequences far more highly than long-term ones - a consequence of that "shareholder influence" you mention above.

The market does not do what we've been promised it does. The invisible hand is a fairy tale.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I don't know why you persist in this canard. Corporations are protected by the Bill of Rights completely independently of their status as "organizations" of natural persons such with rights; they do not in any sense derive their constitutional protection from the constitutional protections afforded such individuals. This is self-evident in any of the canonical cases you might choose to cite.

As such, if you want to defend their constitutional treatment, you need to defend that argument, not the one you made up that you think makes things easy for you.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Insurance is often considered a part of an employees salary - not neccesarily for tax purposes, but in terms (along with other benefits) of what the employee is being "paid" for his/her labor. I choose to work at a place that pays me slightly less than I might make elsewhere because I feel that the value of the various benefits I recieve outweighs that difference. To me, insurance coverage is a part of my salary.

And some of those benefits, such as my employer subsidizing payment for classes, IS considered taxable. So the argument of whether it's the same as wages has some basis in reality.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Why?

[oslo.livejournal.com]

So if I have a sincere conscientious objection to Christianity, such that I refuse even to associate with Christians, and I want my business producing widgets to reflect that objection, I ought to be entitled to discriminate against Christians in my employment practices?

[oslo.livejournal.com]

So you don't think there's any constitutional distinction to be drawn between churches and Hobby Lobby, or any other business?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I read exactly what the man in the funny hat said. Did YOU read what I said?

The man in the funny hat made a statement concerning when a medical procedure may or may not (should or should not) be "lawful" when performed. Right or wrong, the man in the funny hat is in no way qualified to make such a choice.