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 12:41 (UTC)A good question. Why should the line end at contraception? I'm not sure the Bible says anything about workplace safety, of course, but yes, those things also matter.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 13:23 (UTC)And no, Onan doesn't count.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 13:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 14:48 (UTC)So, now we care what the Bible says? What does the Koran say about public schools?
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:09 (UTC)We need to care what these religious texts say if we're concerned with proper worship and striking the correct balance.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 15:36 (UTC)No. We do not.
these religious texts
Which texts? How does something qualify as a "religious text". What about graffiti written by god that says I can do any damn thing I want?
we're concerned with proper worship
I'm not concerned with it.I guess I am concerned. Its strictly between a person and their god. Period.(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 17:49 (UTC)Then work to change the Constitution. You need 2/3rds of the Senate and House and a whole bunch of states to sign onto your changes that would remove any consideration of how people worship from the Constitution. Good luck with that.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 17:57 (UTC)Does the constitution define worship as employers providing health care coverage?
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:23 (UTC)I mean, I get why you take this position. You must, on some level, appreciate that your extreme views on impermissible infringement practically invites people to come up with religious objections to all kinds of laws. But how you can view the government deciding whether Hobby Lobby's objection to the employer mandate is legitimately and sincerely based on religious belief as more consonant with the First Amendment than just telling them to comply with a law that applies to them completely escapes me.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 19:44 (UTC)I don't see how this position is fringe, or where it's in conflict of anything else.
Because while, on the one hand, you think the government should steer clear of imposing burdens on religous practices, you apparently believe that the government retains some role in determining just what constitutes a bona fide "religious practice" worthy of deference in the first place, thereby inviting the government to take an even more intrusive role in religious life than any currently threatened by the contraceptive mandate.
I don't know who said this. Not I, for certain.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 23:35 (UTC)It may be your usual problem with language. It is "fringe" in the sense that it is a position no one in the mainstream legal establishment takes. There may be many people who think that free exercise protections for employers should be stronger than they are, but no one sensible thinks that there is no constitutional distinction to be drawn between churches and Hobby Lobby. You may not like the word "fringe" because you've just decided that the word has to mean that your position wholly lacks merit, and you think your position has merit. Call it "extreme" then, since you're more comfortable using that word purely relativistically.
I don't know who said this. Not I, for certain.
Oh, you do hate it when we draw inferences you're not ready to acknowledge, don't you? That seems to be the most reliable way to truncate any discussion with you - set you up against an uncomfortable conclusion before you're ready to explain why you actually prefer the absurd.
No, Jeff, you did say it, when you demurred that we have to make some kind of judgment about what religions actually require of their adherents in order to strike the right balance. You even referred to "proper worship," whatever that is.
So who makes that judgment? Under existing law, it's the adherents themselves. As long as they can demonstrate that their belief is sincere, it's not the state's role to evaluate doctrine or texts to assess whether the person is "properly worshipping." You evidently don't think that lets us strike the right balance, when it comes to religious freedom. So if it's not the adherents who decide whether they are entitled to an exemption from the law to protect some religious practice they claim to have, who decides?
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/12 00:00 (UTC)And, of course, the only sensible people are the ones who agree with you. Convenient.
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/12 04:50 (UTC)Oh - and what's this? You're avoiding any substantive response again? And here I thought you might be able to formulate an argument to support your position or to contradict mine. Whoops! How did I get that idea?