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: 1/12/12 20:23 (UTC)Either way, providing birth control would save billions in prevented abortions, and of course an untold amount in government-assisted children. So there's that.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:39 (UTC)To recap though: Your claim about 'you can get birth control for $10 a month' is not correct for the kinds we're talking about allegedly being denied in the corporate health coverage. It also represents a fundamental lack of understanding (or maybe you just don't care, whatever) about the matter at hand and what's at stake.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:47 (UTC)its already very affordable (about $.30 a day). the bigger issue is access, which doesn't involve the supreme court or religious liberty.
Your claim about 'you can get birth control for $10 a month' is not correct for the kinds we're talking about allegedly being denied in the corporate health coverage
actually, were talking about religious organizations not providing birth control services. that would include the $10 / month variety. your claim is false.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 00:07 (UTC)I love the many ways you can spin around the up-front cost.
actually, were talking about religious organizations not providing birth control services. that would include the $10 / month variety. your claim is false.
Which specific birth control are you talking about? You mean the kind you can't get over the counter, so the cost is irrelevant?
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 00:10 (UTC)its not spin, its math.
so the cost is irrelevant
the cost isn't irrelevant.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 05:44 (UTC)Math that I assume impoverished at-risk teens do, like amortization.
the cost isn't irrelevant.
I'm glad we agree on something!
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 05:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 19:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 19:35 (UTC)life is just so hard aint it?
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/12 06:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/12/12 06:32 (UTC)these are the costs of living in society where people are free. people don't always do things that mitigate externalities. you'll have to learn to deal with it, or you could move to China.
but the real irony here, is that in your beloved canada, the government insurance plan doesn't cover birth control. now that is some comedy!