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

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Wages are essentially payment for labor.

Other bonus compensation is just that - some of it subsidized, some of it agreed upon, no two are exactly alike.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No. We do not.

Then work to change the Constitution. You need 2/3rds of the Senate and House and a whole bunch of states to sign onto your changes that would remove any consideration of how people worship from the Constitution. Good luck with that.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Who's going to give it away?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Does the government exist to serve us, or do we exist to serve the government?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I believe that women controlling their reproduction benefits our society. This is true worldwide.
I would prefer it be free to all women, as the social costs of unwanted children is very high, and therefore it is fiscally conservative to fund contraception.

I also don't agree that an insurance company or employer should be involved in what amounts to a medical issue between a woman and her doctor.

And what your insurance will and wont cover definitely is pressure on what options are available. I don't want my employer to be a moral arbiter over my health care choices.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

What text do I need to change?

Does the constitution define worship as employers providing health care coverage?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Uncle Sam.

Consider what the costs of unplanned pregnancies and unwanted children have upon the government currently.
Contraception isn't that expensive. We could make a fiscal case for it by reducing the first costs even a fraction.

Course, this is true for much of health care.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It smartly leaves it open as "free exercise" of religion.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So it's not free.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The social benefits of women having control over their reproduction are pretty well established.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

I don't see the difference. It's all payment for labor, negotiated at the beginning of employement as: "I do this, I get this." You can tack the word "bonus" on there, but it's not a gift, it's not just something the employee finds and keeps. It's part of compensation for labor performed. It's a different FORM (actual direct dollars, payment towards an insurance company on an employee's behalf, payment for classes on an employee's behalf) but why should that difference in FORM of compensation have any bearing on how we treat it?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

If your doctor would prescribe the exercise / physical therapy, then you would have a case. Your employer may want you to ride the bicycle, rather than fund your subsequent bypass surgery on their insurance.

I have had physical therapy prescribed, and it amounted to exercise and my employer covered it. This isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

To add to my comment just above (since I don't think we can edit):

If, as part of payment for services rendered, in addition to normal wages, an employer agrees to contribute a thousand dollars towards a car I am buying, and pays this money directly to the dealer on my behalf, in my name. Does this employer have any say in what kind of car I buy, its color, its accessories?

How is this different than an employer contributing to the cost of health insurance?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Employment benefits are also payment for labor.

I work. My employer pays for a portion of my health insurance. It has an easily defined monetary value, and it is contingent upon my providing my labor. It is not a "bonus" provided periodically or upon completion of some set target of performance. It is part of my total compensation package for showing up and doing my job. And even if it were a "bonus", employers do not have the ability to tell me how to spend a cash bonus based upon their religious convictions.

Your distinction makes absolutely no difference.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Both.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Its worked for me exactly once. (geezer_also) agreed with that logic. I have not had much success with others, sadly.

It really is important for a societies females to have reproductive options.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Well, the pills don't rain from the sky. Given the social benefit, which is pretty darn well established worldwide, of women having reproductive options, it seems a reasonable thing to provide our citizens.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Well, in that case... we get the government we deserve.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Ironically, with this comment you've taken another fringe position that puts you in direct conflict with your other fringe position, which is that there is no constitutionally-acknowledged distinction between churches and for-profit businesses that are not engaged in religious worship, teaching, advocacy, etc. Because while, on the one hand, you think the government should steer clear of imposing burdens on religous practices, you apparently believe that the government retains some role in determining just what constitutes a bona fide "religious practice" worthy of deference in the first place, thereby inviting the government to take an even more intrusive role in religious life than any currently threatened by the contraceptive mandate.

I mean, I get why you take this position. You must, on some level, appreciate that your extreme views on impermissible infringement practically invites people to come up with religious objections to all kinds of laws. But how you can view the government deciding whether Hobby Lobby's objection to the employer mandate is legitimately and sincerely based on religious belief as more consonant with the First Amendment than just telling them to comply with a law that applies to them completely escapes me.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

So, no legal objection to not serving blacks food in a restaurant?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

It shouldn't take a paragraph to explain why eliminating rights on the basis of a group's legally defined structure on a piece of paper that deals with defining structure and has nothing to do with the rights of the group as a group of people, is a bad idea for everyone.

We had already discovered that dwer does not think any chartered group or organization has rights. Once we've established that, as I believe we already had at that point, what is there left to say but "you might not like what you get if you do"?

All I said to you was to restate what had already been said.

Why are we talking about talking?

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

As yes_justice points out above, and as I said above to gunslinger, by their very nature, the demands of religion can be arbitrary. I can construct or modify a religion to target any expenditure of any local, state, or Federal agency, and thus claim exemption from any local, state, or federal taxes.

The idea of so constructing or modifying a religion is not outlandish... It's my opinion that elements of Modern Evangelical Christianity are exactly so constructed. Its commitment to ensoulment at conception is a new feature predominantly of the 20th century, adopted as part of a larger social strategy to maintain traditional gender roles.

This is why its important to draw a line to how far a religious exemption can go. If simply paying money into a bucket used for various things is enough to be exempted, that construction is apt for massive abuse.

People against abortion and birth control should not be forced to have abortions or use Birth control, but not exempted from their other legal responsibilities. Conscientious objectors are excused from roles where they would be expected to take a life, but not taxes in general.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

It shouldn't take a paragraph to explain why eliminating rights on the basis of a group's legally defined structure on a piece of paper that deals with defining structure and has nothing to do with the rights of the group as a group of people, is a bad idea for everyone.


Took a sentence, which is better than your original quip.


Why are we talking about talking?

Because you asked why your quip came across with a superior `tude.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

My father's doctor tell him to exercise, and has done so for years after his bypass surgery. The insurance company would never pay for his bike. They don't even pay for his heart medications. They of course aren't "sentencing" him to early death because of it. He still rides his bike that he pays for. For me? A guy in his 20's trying to trying to make sure I don't suffer from the same fate as my father and his grandfather 20 years from now? No way would my insurance company pay my cycling expenses. I wouldn't expect them to nor do I feel entitled.

Also, preventive care is far different than physical therapy expenses.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Warning that it might be dangerous to have something you want to see come about is copping a superior attitude?