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

[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.

[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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[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.