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 17:49 (UTC)Other bonus compensation is just that - some of it subsidized, some of it agreed upon, no two are exactly alike.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:09 (UTC)If, as part of payment for services rendered, in addition to normal wages, an employer agrees to contribute a thousand dollars towards a car I am buying, and pays this money directly to the dealer on my behalf, in my name. Does this employer have any say in what kind of car I buy, its color, its accessories?
How is this different than an employer contributing to the cost of health insurance?
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 19:45 (UTC)I would say yes.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 20:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 18:11 (UTC)I work. My employer pays for a portion of my health insurance. It has an easily defined monetary value, and it is contingent upon my providing my labor. It is not a "bonus" provided periodically or upon completion of some set target of performance. It is part of my total compensation package for showing up and doing my job. And even if it were a "bonus", employers do not have the ability to tell me how to spend a cash bonus based upon their religious convictions.
Your distinction makes absolutely no difference.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 19:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 19:55 (UTC)I've explained the similarities to wages. Now explain why those don't count in terms other than, "we don't say the word wage".
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 21:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 22:13 (UTC)We're not talking about a break room coffee pot here. We're talking about something valued at 1000s of dollars per year.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 23:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 20:13 (UTC)So you are willing to give up all of the non-wage benefits you receive for the same amount and quality of labor you provide?
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 20:39 (UTC)