[QUOTE=Hamlet]
Do you imagine that no other corporation would object to coverage of contraception itself violates their rights?
[/QUOTE]
No. I think that corporations and their lawyers will always try to object to as much as they can to protect their own interests and those of their shareholders.
[QUOTE=Hamlet]
Should we allow these corporations to decide what is an abortificiant and what isn’t?
[/QUOTE]
I would prefer that that decision be left to the medical community.
I understand what you’re saying, and I think you have a point.
However, I must point out that when I asked genuine questions that I did not know that answer to, I believe you were inclined to give them somewhat short shrift because you correctly identified me as someone whose heart isn’t with Hobby Lobby at all. But you did provide enough of a nugget of facts to make me conclude you’re probably in the right.
So if we are talking about the quality of debate in this thread, I’d say I’m probably equally bothered by people who twist the law into pretzels to come out with the conclusion they prefer as those to seem to want to preach to their own choir.
You know, I now recall reading this same argument in a previous post of yours; unfortunately I was working at the time and couldn’t really spare the time to comment, only to read along when I found a few moments of free time throughout the day. And I remember thinking then, as now, that it’s a very convincing argument and a very logical one; one that I think I’d like the court to see wisdom in as well…
But I can’t help but wonder if there are any precedents for what would constitute appropriate context, absent explicit mention, for the court to find it was reasonable to infer something NOT explicitly mentioned. Because despite that phrase being included in the Dictionary Act, since the DA explicitly defines a person to include corporations, how would it be possible to exclude them for the purposes of a law through context and not explicit mention? How could the courts ever find that “through context” the very definition of a what constitutes a “person” could legally be altered?
Oh, I forgot to add: I don’t really see how this is Hobby Lobby’s thing anyway, seeing as how insurance is part of compensation, and what an employee does with their compensation is their business, isn’t it?
But certainly this one. As I mentioned above, a corporation can be tried for a crime – just like a natural person. And when it’s tried, I think it’s entitled to confront the witnesses against it, to have counsel of its choice, and to avoid excessive punishments, in just the same way a natural person is.
I also think if it’s acquitted, it’s entitled to raise a defense of double jeopardy if the state attempts to try it again, and to be indicted by a grand jury before it’s tried in federal court.
I think a corporation can claim a First Amendment right to free speech. And a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
And lastly, for the purposes of this thread, i think a corporation can exercise religious freedom.
How? I hear you cry. A corporation has no religious beliefs!
But how can a corporation exercise First Amendment free speech rights? It has nothing to say, except those words put in its mouth by its owners.
So, too, with religious exercise – a corporation exercise the religious practices and beliefs of its owners in exactly the same way it exercises the free speech rights to express the ideas of its owners.
A corporation is nothing more than a legal entity that governs an association of people. That association has the right to free speech, to freedom from search and seizure, to have its property protected from seizure without due process of law…and to religion. Because the people that make it up have religion.
Can a corporation legally discriminate against customers or employees on the basis of religion? The Civil Rights Act says no, but since the RFRA post-dates the Civil Rights Act, does the RFRA effectively repeal these protections?
The reason I don’t think a company can practice religion is that, while its owners can be as religious as they want, they don’t have the right to compel their workers, due to religious discrimination laws. If a company is just a group of people, and those people legally can’t be confined to any one religion, then the company as a whole cannot practice religion.
A company can compel its workers to say things, so I get how freedom of speech can apply to the company. But it can’t compel its workers to perform any religious practices. (Whether someone can be compelled to commit a crime is more complicated, so I’m just accepting that on faith.)
Since you revealed that employers do pay for insurance out of their own pocket, I don’t see why this whole thing can’t be resolved by making sure any emergency contraception coverage is payed from the part deducted from the employees’ paychecks. That way the employees are paying.
And there’s another problem. Why should a company have the religious freedom not to pay for emergency contraception, but individuals have to buy plans that include emergency contraception? Why does a company get more religious freedom?
Which is halfway believable if your corporation is a religiously based non-profit. When the very reason the corporation exists is to further the religious beliefs of its people, when it’s duty is to help express those religious beliefs, when the corporation is an association with a clear purpose of working for a religion, then yes, what you say is true.
Hobby Lobby isn’t that. It’s purpose is to make money. Had Mr. Green wanted to found a religious corporation that gave all of its profits back to the community and to help further his religious ideals, he certainly could have.
But he wanted money. Lots of it.
And so, when you establish a corporation with a motive of being for-profit, you don’t get to get all the benefits you do of being a non-profit religious corporation. The corporation doesn’t have a soul, doesn’t have a faith, and doesn’t have a religious duties. Because it’s a corporation, not a religious group and not a person.
At least that’s the way it was for decades. We’ll see if it continues.
But that’s just you announcing a rule. You don’t get to declare that a corporation doesn’t have religious duties. And you certainly don’t get to declare that only a non-profit corporation can possibly have religious duties. That’s not written in the law. The way we are supposed to make law in this country is by elected officials writing the law down and voting on it.
Sure. But you obviously want Hobby Lobby to pay a particular type of compensation: insurance that includes contraception coverage. Why do they have to do that? Can’t they pay whatever compensation they wish?
Hobby Lobby can not pay insurance if they want. They just have to pay the penalty.
In any case, they are choosing to pay health insurance as compensation. Health insurance, in America has some rules now. So they should follow those rules.
If they were giving pizza coupons as compensation, is it your position that Hobby Lobby’s religion could allow the pizzaria to ignore the health code?
The pizza coupons give pizzas. Of course the pizza makers need to follow the law of the land.
I don’t? You’re kidding!!! Holy Crap, all this time I thought the things I posted here became the law as soon as I hit the “Submit Reply” button. Whew, thanks for clearing that up for me.
Tell you what, find me a case in the history of corporate law where a for-profit corporation has had the right to free exercise. Corporations have been around for centuries, yet I don’t know of a single case where a for profit corporation had the right to religious expression.
I know you really want to try to pretend that the Court finding for profit corporations have the right to religious expression wouldn’t be a change in the law, but we both know that’s simply not true.
Show me. Show me where in the legislative history that the RFRA was meant to extend the right to religious expression to for profit corporations. Where was it openly debated and discussed and voted upon with everyone understanding that the RFRA would do such a thing.
I understand your legal view, and your argument about the Dictionary Act, and the rest of it. What is incredibly frustrating is that you keep trying to hide around this “elected officials writing the law down” rhetoric when that was precisely NOT what the RFRA was supposed to do. There was absolutely no understanding among the legislators that the RFRA was going to allow for profit corporations the right to religious expression.
No. We as a society have decided that there are some standards that must be applied to employee compensation in order to avoid having our society descend into feudal anarchy (or something): there is a minimum wage, for instance. And forms of compensation are governed as well: an employee cannot be paid in mulch, for example, or in company scrips (which are themselves illegal).
But we as a society ALSO decided that those standards you speak of, applied to employee compensation by the federal government, can’t infringe on religious practice.
Sure. And the law of the land clearly says that all laws of the land can’t substantially burden religious practice unless the law in question is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.
And we’re back to the problems with rabid devotion to textualism. Who cares what the law actually means when we can use other statutes to fill in the blanks?
Besides, the Dictionary Act itself shows you’re wrong. It clearly states that the context matters in deciding the proper definition of an undefined word in a statute.
Do you believe it is not true? Someone asked you upthread if you thought that the RFRA was intended to extend the right to religious expression to for-profit corporations. Do you think it was? Or do you believe that prior to the RFRA, for-profits have had such a right under the First Amendment? From whence did this right to free exercise for for-profit corporations spring? I’m actually curious, because I know you want to hide behind your slavish devotion to textualism, but do you actually think the RFRA was intended to grant such a right?