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]

Contraceptives are, in few cases, a need. In most cases, it's a want.

In the situations you're talking about, they would be prescribed as such. This is a nonstarter.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

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

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I agree 100%. That doesn't mean that they trump the rights of someone else's religion.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Because a woman's health is not as important as someone's metaphysical belief-system?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If this was the only outlet for contraception, I might be more open to this line of argument.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

It's alright for a woman to be treated like a second-class citizen and be made to secure her health needs more circuitously and expensively than others need do because of someone's metaphysical belief-system?

I'm curious, if you will indulge me. You must be familiar with the issue that some conservatives express about the attempt to have sharia law regulate Muslim communities. This has been more successful, I think, in Europe than in America, but if Muslims should start to demand that sharia law should rule in their communities over American laws, would you be on their side?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's alright for a woman to be treated like a second-class citizen and be made to secure her health needs more circuitously and expensively than others need do because of someone's metaphysical belief-system?

Absolutely not. However, a religious exemption for offering contraceptives does not create a situation where women are "Second-class citizens," either.

if Muslims should start to demand that sharia law should rule in their communities over American laws, would you be on their side?

If both parties are on board, I don't have an issue with it. I can't see making it apply across the board beyond that community, though.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Upon that, I disagree. The rights of the religion end when they act as an employer.