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 05:17 (UTC)Almost.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 05:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 05:39 (UTC)Explain.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 16:14 (UTC)I didn't 'just make a quip', it was another way to suggest that the implications might be more than he imagined and not in a good way.
A solo artist sings and has a right to sing, but the effect of what is being offered above would in essence say that the moment you join your voice with others under a paper charter, that right disappears and the group of people as a whole can be made to shut up. Legally. Because of a stupid piece of paper whose primary purpose is to define the legal structure of the group, not affect the rights of the people within the group to speak together. This is the root. If you agree with this there is no chance we're going to find a mutual understanding or answer.
Using the proverb was also a way to end the thread. We were at loggerheads.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 16:59 (UTC)And the subsequent suffering would be sweet irony....yeah, I got it the first time.
A solo artist sings and has a right to sing, but the effect of what is being offered above would in essence say that the moment you join your voice with others under a paper charter, that right disappears and the group of people as a whole can be made to shut up. Legally. Because of a stupid piece of paper whose primary purpose is to define the legal structure of the group, not affect the rights of the people within the group to speak together.
That is a bit more substance than "you'll be sorry!"
a way to end the thread
It didn't end the thread. It devolved into this "explain" thread.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:37 (UTC)We had already discovered that dwer does not think any chartered group or organization has rights. Once we've established that, as I believe we already had at that point, what is there left to say but "you might not like what you get if you do"?
All I said to you was to restate what had already been said.
Why are we talking about talking?
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:48 (UTC)Took a sentence, which is better than your original quip.
Why are we talking about talking?
Because you asked why your quip came across with a superior `tude.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 19:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 19:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 19:44 (UTC)And what is being said is fairly straightforward. I could belabor the point, but even before my supposedly incendiary comment, I think all had been said that could be said between the two of us.
Can both of us just let this die already? The thread is beyond saving.