Corporate Religion
28/11/12 17:32![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsA 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?
* 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?
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 03:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 04:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 14:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/11/12 01:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 12:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 14:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:51 (UTC)The risks of endometrial and ovarian cancer are significantly reduced with the use of oral contraceptives, I see no religious reason to sentence those women to cancer.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 17:04 (UTC)I have a extremely high risk of heart disease. I ride my bicycle to reduce that risk. If I went to my employer and demanded that they pay for my bicycle and all maintenance for that bicycle, they would surely laugh in my face. When I told them doing so would "sentence" me to a severe heart attack at a young age, they would laugh at me harder, and rightfully so.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:08 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:58 (UTC)Also, preventive care is far different than physical therapy expenses.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 17:48 (UTC)In the situations you're talking about, they would be prescribed as such. This is a nonstarter.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 21:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 22:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 23:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/11/12 00:03 (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/12 00:10 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/12 00:03 (UTC)