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

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> Why shouldn't corporate entities have religious freedom rights?


Why shouldn't corporate entities have the right to vote?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Because the individuals who make up that corporation already have that right, and don't lose that right when they organize.

[weswilson]

And the individuals in the company already have religious freedom rights, and don't lose that when they organize.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

They do if they're told they cannot freely exercise their religion when organized as a corporation, as the contraceptive mandate suggests.

[weswilson]

They CAN freely exercise their religion. They may not, however, choose to impose their religion on others. The right of individuals to free exercise their religious liberty is not inhibited when others are allowed to use their employee compensation for the things they deem important.

Insurance is part of the pay one receives as part of the job. Your preposterous supposition that money paid to an insurance plan is somehow different than money put into a paycheck is beyond the pale. The government can say that you must have the option for legal tender instead of being paid in sheep and goats, and the government can say what is an acceptable currency when one compensates employees with a health insurance plan.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

They CAN freely exercise their religion. They may not, however, choose to impose their religion on others.

They're not imposing their religion on anyone. They're imposing their religion on themselves by not funding practices that are against their religion.

Your preposterous supposition that money paid to an insurance plan is somehow different than money put into a paycheck is beyond the pale.

The courts are disagreeing, as am I. It's not different, it's subsidized bonus as opposed to monetary compensation.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> They're not imposing their religion on anyone. They're imposing their religion on themselves by not funding
> practices that are against their religion

By that logic, no religious conscientious objector need pay federal taxes, as they are funding practices that are against their religion, so asking them to do so is a violation of their religious freedom.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That's a good conclusion, and it should be implemented immediately.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

And since the requirements of a religion are arbitrary, I can construct a religion to similarly exempt myself from any tax pool which funds any identifiable thing.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If Scientology can do it, why not everyone?

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Scientology CAN'T do it, for exactly the reason that if everyone could and did, American society would collapse.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with this, actually.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

What qualifies as a religion then?

Can I be the religion of no taxes and amphetamines?

[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.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Your preposterous supposition that money paid to an insurance plan is somehow different than money put into a paycheck is beyond the pale.

The original question was a really preposterous too, I thought.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

just like with speech.

Oh, wait. Somehow, speech is different.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Speech is different, yes. The right to vote is an individual right limited to citizens. Speech is not.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Why?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Corporations aren't citizens.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

And the individuals organized into a corporation already have religious freedom, and do not lose that when they organize. They just shouldn't try and construe their religious freedom as being able to control other people's choices.

If some people wish to construe participating in a market that includes services for other people as an infringement on their Religious Freedom, that's just a sign that they are constructing religious freedom in such a way as to be able to exert social control over others.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And the individuals organized into a corporation already have religious freedom, and do not lose that when they organize.

....except when it comes to acting in accordance to their beliefs as a group when a business.

They just shouldn't try and construe their religious freedom as being able to control other people's choices.

If that was what was happening here, I'd possibly agree. This isn't about controlling anyone's choices, however - if anything, the government is the one controlling the choices of the people paying for the lion's share of the insurance.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> except when it comes to acting in accordance to their beliefs as a group when a business.

A corporate entity or organization does not have beliefs. It's owners, managers, and employees do, but their religious freedoms are already individually protected. Presuming that an organization has a belief in and of itself is just a way for those powerful within the organization to enforce their own religious beliefs on those less powerful within the organization.

> . This isn't about controlling anyone's choices,

Of course it is. For some reason, employment insurance has been the way we subsidize healthcare, and thus employers exert power as the gate keepers to this vital service. That's the only reason employers are part of this equation.

Make it a single payer system, and such artificial dilemmas of religious organizations evaporate, and it will be between individual people and the tax man, as we analogize about above.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A corporate entity or organization does not have beliefs. It's owners, managers, and employees do, but their religious freedoms are already individually protected.

If this is your belief, then you should still be on my side of this issue. Otherwise, you're saying that their individual freedoms are protected, but not their collective.

Make it a single payer system, and such artificial dilemmas of religious organizations evaporate, and it will be between individual people and the tax man, as we analogize about above.

It will then become an argument about what the government will cover, and with no competition. Sounds worse.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

you're saying that their individual freedoms are protected, but not their collective.

I'd say "By George, you've got it!" except you haven't.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> If this is your belief, then you should still be on my side of this issue. Otherwise, you're saying that
> their individual freedoms are protected, but not their collective.

There are no collective freedoms, just a collection of individual ones. Freedoms are employed by free agents. Collective entities are not free agents. We may talk about the actions or intent of collective entities, but this is metaphorical. Ultimately there are human decision makers who make decisions based on their own person interests. To imagine that collective entities have rights or freedoms is a useful metaphor, but sometimes a dangerous one, as the decision makers of such entities use the metaphor to beguile people into granting them a double portion of those rights, and to count double against the freedoms of others when those freedoms come in conflict.

My belief in individual freedom means that those who wish to use birth control can do so, those who do not wish to do so, need not do so. Health care is subsidized to either and both. One one hand, restraining people who wish to from using birth control is an obvious affront to their free agency, while on the other, there is no empirical evidence that the choice of B.C users affects those who do not in any real way, not even in the form of higher premiums.... there is only some idiotic magical thinking in which a pile of theoretical money is somehow 'made unclean' by what some part of the theoretical money pile is used for by some people. Opponents might as well talk about how birth control 'sullies the air they must breath', or 'stains the earth on which they tread', and then claim their rights to be free from sullied air and stained earth compel us to obey their whim that we cannot use/buy/cover birth control.

> It will then become an argument about what the government will cover, and with no competition. Sounds worse.

Sounds fine by me. And it works fine plenty of places.