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

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The way you did it, sure. Telling someone you see a danger of X happening is a bit different than wishing danger upon them. Also, that whole "it shouldn't take a paragraph to explain" thing is a pretty superior tude.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering who'll be the first to realize the uselessness of this exchange, and eventually return on-topic. Been following with an increasingly morbid fascination thus far.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

It should be noted that I would be wishing it on myself as well. Public policy has a tendency to not just burn your neighbor's house down when it goes wrong, but your own as well. Which is why I said almost, as in, it's a tempting thought tempered by what effect it would have on all of us, myself included.

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.