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: 28/11/12 22:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 22:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 22:45 (UTC)Does that mean that those who do not believe in souls lack first amendment protection?
Does the soul disappear when organized?
(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 22:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 22:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 22:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 23:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 23:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 23:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 23:28 (UTC)Also, Liberty University shouldn't be state-accredited, that's a basic problem.
(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 23:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 23:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 23:52 (UTC)But that shield does not apply to, nor does it give superior right over the oxygen breathing employee's rights of not having religious views of the FOUNDER, and board of arbitrary individual oxygen breathers.
Hence, the corporations claim of any 'religious freedom' is hollow; a reflection of the people who are in control of it. The corporation is free to participate of not in BC programs, BY POLICY. The policy, of course, must pass constitutional muster.
Your (people's) problem is that you view the corporation as a 'person' when it is a 'structure' endowed with certain restrictive freedoms.
If a corporation is a 'citizen by right' in your mind, what percentage of a citizen are they? three fifths? 100%? Many of us say 'zero', legal rulings aside. Pass the cost down: they don't hesitate to do it to all the other costs involved in doing business under our system of justice.
(no subject)
Date: 28/11/12 23:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:06 (UTC)Personhood doesn't factor into it.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:13 (UTC)Let's say you're a vegetarian. I give you $5 to get lunch, or I take you out to lunch. and say "Order what you want, but it has to have meat in it." Same thing?
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 00:18 (UTC)