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

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

How a corporate leader behaves in other aspect of his or her life is irrelevant. While at work, a good leader has integrity.

I agree, however, that the bureaucracy that you can't elect, AKA the public service, is made to seem far nicer than it actually is. Corporations, which are subject to market forces, shareholder influence and regulations for accountability and transparency are far more responsive and accessible to ordinary people.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

The problem is, shareholder influence demands only one thing: increased share value. We've seen, time and again, corporations behaving in incredibly irresponsible ways because of the threat of shareholder suit.

The regulations you mention are decried by one side of the argument as unneeded, and causing the very problems they're meant to correct.

We're left with market forces, which are purely reactionary in nature. Bhopal occured despite "market forces". Market forces can only act to prevent another Bhopal AFTER one happens, because the nature of the market (whose forces are so often invoked) is to value short-term consequences far more highly than long-term ones - a consequence of that "shareholder influence" you mention above.

The market does not do what we've been promised it does. The invisible hand is a fairy tale.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Governments behave in much the same way: short term political gain over the long term public interest, laws or policies that address problems only after they occur, irresponsible behaviour, time and time again. Some people may not like the invisible hand, but unlike the visible, high handed measures of government, the market at least provides some choices.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

regulations for

You mean those toothless things that to ignore or not becomes a math question?

Maybe if I want my boss to pee on my leg to cure a rash.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The bureaucracy you can't elect, i.e. the corporate hierarchy, has no inherent niceness whatsoever. People kust delude themselves into thinking that it does.