You keep bringing up these corporations that have already had their exceptions carved into precedent and case law based upon the RFRA and corporate personhood. Is not their “protected rights” the right to discriminate based on religion? The diocese may require one to be a christian in order to get a job as a priest, the temple would require jewish beliefs to be a rabbi. Does this mean that Hobby Lobby, or other closely held corporations with sincere beliefs would be allowed to make religious views a condition of employment? If not, why not?
The God of old was said to have very stern ideas about lending for interest, labeling it “usury” and putting some serious “thou shalt not” on it. As time passed, it appears God changed His mind and instructed His representatives on Earth to more or less forget about that.
One point upon which all faiths seem to agree: God loves a loophole.
It can be very helpful. I am forbidden from coveting my neighbor’s maidservant’s ass, which would be daunting for me, as I am kinda weak in that whole coveting asses thing. But, happily, I’ve never had a neighbor who had a maidservant, so the Lord cut me some slack there.
Unanimity of purpose, not of votes. The shareholders are multiple, but there is one corporation: it’s virtually impossible, in a large, publicly-traded company, to achieve unanimity of purpose with respect to religious exercise.
That’s not a requirement in the way you’re using the word “requirement,” – not a condition antecedent. It’s a description of what is necessary for a corporation to exercise religion. The Greens can achieve unanimity OF PURPOSE with Hobby Lobby, because there are so few of them and they control the entire company.
Exxon/Mobil cannot achieve unanimity OF PURPOSE with respect to any religious exercise, because there will never be sufficient impetus from their shareholders to adopt any religious exercise.
Yes, it does mean that.
And it meant that even before the Hobby Lobby case. Religious views can be a condition of employment any time there is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification for religious views. True before Hobby Lobby, true during Hobby Lobby, true after Hobby Lobby. True in 2001, 2014, and 2024.
And where are the satisfying conditions of “unanimity of purpose” listed, if anywhere? How can a “closely-held” corporation meet them while a publicly-traded corporation cannot, ever? Did SCOTUS or Congress or anyone else spell this out at any time, or is it just assumed?
ETA: I looked at the ruling again and found this:
Are these necessary steps to establishing that unanimity of purpose exists?
Leviticus 25:36, Deuteronomy 23:19 and the other “G-d of old” rules forbid usury between Jews, but not between everyone.
Is that what you mean?
This “pledge” thing? Does that have the force of law, like making a commitment during Pledge Week at NPR, so that they can take your kids hostage until you pay up? If someone says “Fuck this shit, I want a ‘hookers and blow’ hobby section” does he then lose his corporate shareholder status?
Also, I was thinking I read that to be “closely held” does not require that the entire corporation be held by a family, but only the majority, like 51%?
It’s pretty clear to me you have zero genuine interest in the topic.
A closely-held corporation vests control of the corporation in five or fewer individuals. A publicly traded company has many more voices.
A closely held corporation can manifest unanimity OF PURPOSE because there are so few people controlling it that the barriers to adopting a single religious purpose can be overcome – as they were in the Green’s case.
A similar unified action will not happen with hundreds or thousands of shareholders because their number mitigates their solidarity of purpose.
It’s possible, in the same way that it’s possible that California voters will vote unanimously for a Republican presidential candidate: that is, there is no natural physical law of the universe which would be violated if that happened. But it’s not possible in the ordinary meaning of the word – it is a possibility so mathematically remote that it vernacular it is safe to say, “Impossible,” as a synonym for “So very unlikely that the faint possibility does not merit serious discussion.”
I am hopeful that when, in the fullness of time, I stand at the entrance to the Pearly Gated Community, my time spent arguing with you will count as penance.
It seems before the Hobby Lobby case, one would not have thought to allow a for-profit corporation to discriminate based on religious views. Is there a reason that Hobby Lobby cannot determine a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification for their workers? If it is their sincerely held belief that they should not have to employ heathens and pagans, is there anything actually stopping them from implementing such a religious test? From a cursory reading of Wiki’s take on BFOQ, I would think not, but there are a number of ambiguities and things left up to individual case laws that I can imagine there are loopholes there that could be taken advantage of. Could their cashiers become Sales Ministers, and they have to give God’s blessing to every customer? Could the stocking team be required to lead a prayer meeting before each shift?
If a closely held for profit corporation were to sue to allow religious discrimination in hiring and retention practices due to it’s sincerely held beliefs, would you agree that it has merit, or would you feel that they were out of line and should be ruled against?
What does “force of law” mean?
I can think of several possible meanings:
It does not permit the authorities to arrest a shareholder who begins to advocate the hookers-and-blow section.
It would serve as evidence in a partition battle or other legal action that the the shareholder who begins to advocate the hookers-and-blow section is not acting in the expressed interests of the corporation.
What are you thinking of?
Yes. Also they can’t have more than a set number of equity shareholders in the 49%.
Something along these lines, yeah. So, that person can be denied shareholder status? Or some other consequence
I’m thinking that if you had your way, nobody could win an argument about the taxonomy of butterflies without reference to case law.
I would.
I can easily imagine a Christian book store – a for-profit organization – wanting to hire salespeople who could discuss the works they sold from a faith-based perspective.
I can easily imagine – and can probably cite – a kosher butcher shop, a for-profit corporation, hiring only an observant Jew as a butcher. Kosher slaughter must be done by a certified ritual-slaughterer shochet, who must be both learned and pious. Kosher slaughter requires shehiyah, the smooth movement of the blade with no hesitation; derisah, a cut that moves across the flesh without pressing too deeply; chaladah, the blade must be visible during the cut; hagramah, the cut must center on the trachea and esophagus, neither high nor low; ikoor, the blade must be both very sharp and very smooth, so it cuts without tearing flesh. Any failure to observe these rules renders meat ritually unclean.
That requires a religiously knowledgeable and observant person.
And it’s a for-profit corporation that requires it.
For that matter, a kosher certifying organization can be for-profit, and require rabbis as certifiers.
Assuming they can articulate a bona fide occupational qualification, like the kosher butcher has been able to do for many years, and like the kosher certifying organization and the Christian bookstore and the halal market and any other for-profit company with a religious purpose, sure.
I’d want to see the facts. But I’d certainly be inclined to say that Avram Cohen’s Kosher Meat Market, a closely-held for-profit, doesn’t have too far a distance to go to convince me.
Yes.
What happy coincidence that we’re talking about a case at law, then, where the applicability of “case law” is pretty damn clear.
You’re not comfortable in saying, “Well, looks like I was wrong,” are you?
Ya got me, Bricker! I didn’t become a radical lefty because of sincere convictions, it was because I got sick of losing arguments.
Being a radical lefty means never having to say you’re sorry?
Ryan O’Neal, eat your heart out.
Buthchering using kosher methods does not require piety. It is only the requirement that the butcher be pious that is outlined in the religious rules that makes the discrimination legal. I do not need to be a christian in order to discuss the merits of a book, even one of a christian spiritual nature.
The end product is the same in either case, meat that was slaghtered humanely and sanitarily, or a knowledgable sales staff about christian literature, that do not actually depend upon the faith of the employee, yet the corporation can require it becuase it has created an arbitrary yet bona fide requirement that can only be filled by those of certain religious views.
If Hobby Lobby were to sincerely feel that no yarn shall be sold without being spun and blessed by a christian weaver, no dowel rod should be turned by the unclean, and only the pious may look upon googly-eyes, or any other arbitrary bona fide requirement that may sound absurd or ridiculous to an unbeliever, but that they sincerely believe, would that be a valid argument for them to begin implementing a beliefs test towards employment?
I would not put my predictions on Hobby Lobby itself pushing this next step, but I will be quite suprised if no one does.