Jehovah Witnesses and transfusions were already mentioned…
So what if the CEO or someone on the board, or the proprietor is a Christian Scientist, and doesn’t believe in ANY medical preocdures? As in, he/she/they only believes things can be cured or healed or “whatever” by prayer? Does that person then get to deny ALL health insurance benefits?
Where does it stop? And what if there is a change of ownership? Do all the rules then change on the whim of the new guy? A corporation does NOT have a religion. I don’t CARE how clever any argument for it is. It is not a lvining breathing human person, and so it does not have its own religious belief. It’s a company, in existence to make money. Period. If it IS a REAL person, I want to see one get executed. Then we’ll talk.
Well, that’s what we’re going to find out. I maintain that this particular instance of a “standard level of health care” is not, as you would have it, superior to the employers right to pick and choose.
I’m not sure when the concept of an employer not providing health insurance became so bizarre as to constitute hyperbole. But, yes, I think there’s a fairly credible argument that the employer mandate could violate RFRA. For much the same reason that the Amish are exempted from the individual mandate.
It gets tiresome to see the same one liners trotted out as if they are clever (“A corporation isn’t a person unless Texas executes one! haha!”). Still, it always seemed to me that the “legal fiction” argument bolstered, rather than undermined, the argument that it was the owners religious freedoms that were being violated (much like the confiscation of corporate property without due process violates the rights of the shareholders). The more fictional one wants to view the corporate form, the more plausible I find it that the rights of the individual owners are violated. Still, I have trouble believing that you would change your mind if Hobby Lobby was a partnership.
Hobby Lobby sends their “Christian” money to China and its policy of one child per family and forced abortions.
Apparently,when it comes to purchasing cheap goods from Chinese slave labor, Hobby Lobby’s “Christian values” are nowhere to be seen. Yet when it comes to telling its employees how to run their private lives, suddenly, it’s “Christian values” time.
So the Hobby Lobby is devoutly christian except whe money is to be made. Christian? HARDLY. More like a lying hypocrite who is using the Bible and Gawd. to keep more ill gotten gains in his hands.
And to a real christian who actually believes in something (anything) - doing business with China of ALL places and thereby approving of slavery and government mandated abortion, would be abhorrent.
David Green is a hypocrite and a liar. He can go straight to hell. Obviously money comes before any “ideals” which he so obviously does NOT have.
If Hobby Lobby were organized as a parternship or some form of proprietorship, then it would be the Green’s money. Even if HL is a closely held corporation (which I believe it is), the Greens finances and the corporations finances are separate.
So the question really comes down to a corporation having a religion. And while SCOTUS may end up disagreeing, that concept seems ridiculous.
To stop people from having sex and “getting away with it”. It’s all about power. These people want the power to run other people’s lives- that their status as “job creators” comes with it the power to dictate the sex lives of their employees.
There is some precedent for the proposition that corporations have standing to assert its shareholders’ religious rights. That was the whole basis of Judge Walton’s opinion in the Tyndale case.
There’s also a fairly interesting short article by Stephen Bainbridge on veil-piercing in these contexts.
What’s even more ridiculous about that ‘argument’ is that they areregularly “executed” when they get fined into bankruptcy and liquidation. What else could constitute the ‘death’ of a corporation? And the crimes that will get them that are far lower than the standards of what will get a human executed. No victim even has to die for a corporation to get fined more than they can pay and still stay in business.
Not quite sure how serious you were being here, but just in case : “moron” and “moronic” have precious little to do with Moroni, etymologically speaking.
Well, as far as I can tell, the RFRA tells the courts how they are supposed to interpret federal law so that they do not infringe on the religious liberty unless the law meets strict scrutiny. I was just asking whether this meets strict scrutiny.
You as an employee can have whatever rights you negotiate, the question is whether the government can require you to pay your employee with a particular form of compensation. Social security and medicare payroll taxes are part of the employees compensation that the government requires employers to pay, They are paying for insurance and some people might have a religious objection to insurance (if not they might quickly develop one if they think they can get away with it). So at least in some cases, the government can tell employers how to pay their employees.
Have they threatened to fold their business over this?!?!?!
If they close up shop, then an AC Moore or a Michaels will open up in their place but I will bet anyone a case of scotch that Hobby Lobby shops stay open even if they are forced to provide contraception coverage to their employees. The worst that will happen is they decide to cash in their chips and sell the business.
I understand that the question in this case is the relationship between the rights of the employer and the powers of the government. What I was taking issue with was the notion that the rights of the employees to recieve a certain form of compensation was implicated.
The church itself would be exempt from the contraception requirement, which seems logical since their direct employees would presumably follow its teachings. It’s when the church runs a secular business that they, too, would have to comply. So St. Mary’s Church can choose not to offer birth control coverage while St Mary’s Hospital would not.
And if St. Mary’s Hospital only exists because its founders and employees all believe they are supporting corporal works of mercy by assisting the sick?
I don’t see where that makes a difference. Presumably they have Protestants, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. all under their employment. What right do they have to treat their employees any differently than any other secular employer?