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?
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 14:48 (UTC)So, now we care what the Bible says? What does the Koran say about public schools?
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 14:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 14:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 14:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 14:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 14:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:05 (UTC)You mean those toothless things that to ignore or not becomes a math question?
Maybe if I want my boss to pee on my leg to cure a rash.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:07 (UTC)peonsindentured servantsminionsemployees 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...................
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:07 (UTC)2) The governments of these states do do that when they ban atheists from say, holding government office. But that quite obviously is less of an issue to you than the people who want to justify business in the eye of God, who as per the Bible they claim to read is not fond at all of such pretensions.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:09 (UTC)We need to care what these religious texts say if we're concerned with proper worship and striking the correct balance.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:10 (UTC)This is also true, yes.
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.
Not at all. The one I've "made up" is also self-evident, also by some of the cases used (not that those are incredibly important in this case). It's a demonstration that "corporate personhood," as it were, is not the signifier that confers these rights.
Your time may be better spent on that.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:13 (UTC)Can I be the religion of no taxes and amphetamines?
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:19 (UTC)Lest I declare my whole life an act of worship and thereby above secular law.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:22 (UTC)