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

[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.

[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.