An archdiocese does not have religious beliefs any more than my toaster does. The Holy Toast may emerge from it every day, but it remains (alas!) thoroughly dead, ordinary matter.
I think this decision reinterprets an old-ish law in a way its authors never anticipated, and the series of decisions conferring personhood on corporations will lead to shenanigans and outright chicanery.
Let me ask you: remember Jesus said, “whenever two or more of you are gathered together in my name, I am there among you.” If the corporations Hobby Lobby and the archdiocese could somehow be together, absent any natural persons, do you think Jesus would be there among them?
No. As I mentioned above, corporations have no physical presence. The usual form of baptism is wither water: either immersion or more simply pouring, but in either event a physical body is necessary.
Moreover, I spoke earlier about the corporation’s purpose being to allow an association of natural persons to jointly exercise their goals. I mentioned the corporation’s exercise of religion was an exercise of its owners beliefs.
It’s not clear to me which aspect of those descriptions would lead you to believe a corporation could be baptized. A reasonable primer on baptism can be found at the link:
Here’s a link that lays out the general Christian scriptural view, and again notice the importance of the presence of a physical body. The Cathechism of the Catholic Church, §1278, similarly declares, “The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
Other Christian denominations have similar requirements, virtually universally requiring a physical body.
Interestingly enough, there is a standout exception in the concept of baptism by proxy, which is practiced by the Latter-Day Saints. It allows a living person to stand in for one not present – but even then, the recipient must be a natural, albeit dead, person. The practice derives from the phrase “baptized for the dead” in 1 Corinthians 15:29.
I am not aware of any demonization that practices baptism of anything other than natural persons.
Apparently the closeness with which a corporation is held matters. A closely-held corporation can practice religion. A corporation whose parents are distant or indifferent will end up running with a bad crowd, doing drugs, selling bonds on street-corners, etc.
From a religious point of view, is the exercise of religion absent the personal presence of actual belief a valid thing? I am not religious, myself, but it seems to me that exercise of religion by an entity without actual personal belief is a hollow, empty thing. You can make the argument, I suppose, that the personal belief of the owners is present, and thus gives meaning to the exercise, but it seems almost - like I pray, and my invisible friend prays, so that’s two prayers. Not really, no.
ETA for clarity - in other words - does it mean anything if an atheist “goes through the motions” - is that pleasing to God? An empty gesture absent of belief?
Also, from a non religious, non lawyerly perspective- I see issues with the idea that corporations are people. I am sure its been well hammered out before now, but corporations are fundamentally different from people, legally, aren’t they? I mean, a corporation can be sold. A person cannot. A corporation is, by definition, separate from a person, in that it removes legal liability from the person of the owner. I just do not understand how a corporation can both protect the owner(s) while so closely mirroring belief. Does a corporation have the right to bear arms? What about casting a vote? The owners vote, and the corporation casts another vote in addition to the owners’ votes.
I know that this has already been settled in the legislative halls and the courts, but it just confuses the crap out of me.
Sure, it seems like that, to a person with the good sense God gave a goose, it seems utterly absurd that a corporation is a person. But remember, a lot of very smart things make no sense at all, even when explained to you by people much smarter than yourself.
You see, a corporation is just like O.J. Simpson, and his sincerity was adjudged at his murder trial. Happens every day, a murder trial is an objective determination of sincerity. You might think that an objective assessment of sincerity is impossible, but you are wrong, because it happens every day.
That’s one thing about really smart things, especially really smart legal things. Ordinarily, someone says that corporations have sincere religious convictions and are entitled to religious exemptions from the law…ordinarly, you would start looking around for white rabbits, mushrooms and hookahs.
Because “exercise” means doing stuff. Singing, praying, preaching, confessing, debating, and so forth. In this case, the subject wants to do the opposite of exercise, they want to refrain. Which, granted, can be a form of proactive religious exercise, but in this case, is not parallel: refraining, in a religious context (e.g., fasting, abstaining, vowing silence) involves a sacrifice, whereas Hobby Lobby does not appear to be sacrificing anything here.
In the gospels, Jesus says that famous render unto Caesar line; in Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 13, the author advocates a similar theme, abide the regime. Hobby Lobby wants to reject that ethos, they want society á la carte. A lot of us would like that. I would like to withhold the portion of my contribution that supports the Pentagon, and the part that goes to subsidize the financial industry, and so forth. In fact, I would like a rebate on the part of my taxes that subsidizes churches (primarily, their property tax break for those absurd cathedrals). But I do not get that, nor should anyone else, including Hobby Lobby, because we all have to ante up to make society function.
Jesus is said to have described a high hurdle to rich persons getting the ultimate reward. The Greens are more than a little well off, and they are using their wealth in questionable ways. It seems paradoxical (or that “h” word), and deplorable that they should be getting away with it. Legally, they won, ethically they are vile shitfucks.
Corporations exercise other rights. “The press” when the First Amendment was written was a couple of guys in a shop, hand-cranking a machine that imprinted the words the person who owned the machine wanted people to read. His personal thoughts were his exercise of “freedom of the press.”
Today the New York Times, a corporation, and Mother Jones, a corporation, exercise freedom of the press.
We would never countenance shutting down Mother Jones’ First Amendment right to publish ideas based on the lack of an actual live physical person “Mother Jones,” to exercise that right and think those ideas. We easily accept that the corporate vehicle Mother Jones is a way for the owners of Mother Jones corporation to exercise their free speech and freedom of the press.
So, to answer your question: it makes sense the same way it makes sense for the First Amendment to protect Mother Jones’ rights to exercise freedom of the press, even though “Mother Jones” is a corporation with no physical presence or ideas of its own to communicate.
(Technically, the corporation is called “Foundation for Natural Progress.” And there was once a real live physical person known as Mother Jones, but she stopped being a live physical person in 1930 and became a real dead physical person, roughly forty years before the Foundation for Natural Progress used her name on their magazine.)
They want to refrain from doing something they regard as sinful.
Our history is full of examples in which we acknowledge that refraining from conduct is also “exercise of religion.” Conscientious Objectors wanted to refrain, on religious exercise grounds, from joining the military in positions that would require them to take a life. No one successfully argued then that “exercise” was limited to doing stuff. We understood that requiring someone to act in violation of their beliefs was burdening their exercise of religion in the same way that forbidding them to act would be.
But the general Jewish answer is different: the actions of following the mitzvah are important. G-d commanded it; someone’s lack of belief in G-d does not destroy the need to follow His commands.
Because “corporations are people” is a shorthand way of expressing a more complicated concept. Corporations are simply a way for natural persons to organize together for a common lawful purpose.
I guess they’ll have struggle to survive without your approval. And I also guess this means you’ll be buying your scrapbook and macrame materials elsewhere, right?