I am increasingly convinced that Hobby Lobby is going to win, but I am more convinced that a Hobby Lobby win will create a Wild West of corporate religious objections. The Jehovah’s Witness thing is the least of it.
Do we know that Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association was previously considered a religious organization? I thought that they were simply an organization that was making a religious claim.
The only thing I found in the opinion was this: “After exhausting their administrative remedies, respondents – an Indian organization, individual Indians, nature organizations and individual members of those organizations, and the State of California.” Cite
The entirety of the opinion is a discussion of individual rights to free expression, not free expression as a corporation, whether profit or non-profit. It certainly could be context for the RFRA’s burden test, but I’m not seeing any distinction between religious organizations and for profit corporations.
Because the Dictionary Act existed when Congress passed the RFRA. And because I can point to other examples of legislation where Congress carved out non-profits for special treatment its legislation, leading me to conclude that Congress didn’t forget to do so with the RFRA, because Congress has remembered when it wanted to.
I am not sure that’s a position I can strongly defend, but in this case, I rest my support for Hobby Lobby on the RFRA. For the moment, I take no position on the question of pure constitutional guarantees for for-profit corporations.
Yes.
I don’t believe they SHOULD. I think the wisest path would be to carve out exceptions for non-profits, and for-profits that explicitly adopt religious purposes in their charters. That’s what I’d vote for as a Congressman.
But as a judge, I should limit my role to interpreting the law Congress passes, not writing in my own view of wise policy.
If Hobby Lobby’s convictions had remained true the whole time, then I’d concede a possiblity. But just two years ago this wasn’t a problem for them and now there’s Jesus? Bullshit.
“Except in rare and special instances, the due process of law clause contained in the fifth Amendment is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution.” A. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 US 40 (1934), quoting Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 US 1 (1916).
So less tentatively than a moment ago: no. I don’t think the First Amendment helps Hobby Lobby against the ACA.
But they just failed to mention it at all in the legislative history? Not one mention in the purpose section of the statute itself that they were extending free exercise to for-profit corporations? Just slipped everyone’s mind? How about in the discussions or debate? Was there anyone who pointed out this change was going to happen? Maybe list it as the actual purpose of the statute?
Congress enacted RFRA to reset caselaw back to pre-Smith ruling, not to extend free expression to for-profit corporations. I am, however, impressed with your ability to read their minds absent their actually stating it.
Why not? Surely you have an opinion on the matter.
Would extending free-exercise protections to all corporations be a massive change in the law and court’s interpretation of the First Amendment?
While I admire your ability to follow through on your belief to it’s absurd end, I find it absolutely insane to think that Congress intended to change 200 years of jurisprudence, create a whole new area of law covering religious for-profits, and to grant massive corporations the right to claim religious expression without mentioning in the purpose of the statute or in any of the legislative history.
Can you explain this?
Hobby Lobby objects to only four of the twenty covered drugs.
This isn’t a new objection. They have always objected to the process those drugs use. When they became aware that two of the drugs that were permitted had abortion effects, they removed them. they did this before the ACA restrictions were published, and in fact, by doing so, lost the chance to claim they were “grandfathered.”
What, specifically, do you mean?
Wait, what? Are you saying that two years ago, Hobby Lobby provided insurance to its employees that covered abortifacient drugs?
No. What case would be overturned as a result?
200 years? Really? What case from 200 years ago held differently?
What about the Civil Rights Act itself? Currently, the Act forbids companies from discriminating against its employees or customers on the basis of religion. Since the RFRA post-dates the Act, would a decision in favor of Hobby Lobby effectively repeal the Civil Rights Act?
Could a for-profit corporation hire only employees of a certain faith? Could they allow only male customers and bar women from their stores?
Were the SSM cases a change in the law? Goodridge didn’t overrule a case, ergo it wasn’t a massive change at all.
That’s the logic you want to use?
In the past 200 years of jurisprudence, has any case held that all for-profit corporations has the rights to free exercise of religion? Wouldn’t recognizing that be a change in the law? Hell, you yourself said that the Free Exercise Clause doesn’t apply to Hobby Lobby, and RFRA was enacted in 1993, so prior to RFRA, for-profit corporations wouldn’t have the right to free exercise. To do so by statute would be a massive change in the law. One that, apparently, wasn’t important enough to mention.
IMO, that’s not as sinister as it sounds. It seems that they were unwittingly providing drugs that they were opposed to. I think that it’s easier to blame incompetence than to say “because Jesus”.
ETA. Dammit. Meant to quote stpauler.
Especially since the change only involved two drugs – they had always banned the other two.
Cite please
You made the initial claim:
But OK, I’m a fun guy:
And:
Both quoting the Brief for Respondents in the current Supreme Court case.
Maybe I’m being dense, but I’m not seeing where they “always banned the other two”.
Marriage existed 200 years ago. For-profit and non-profit corporate forms did not.
I didn’t quite say the Free Exercise Clause doesn’t apply to Hobby Lobby. I said that it doesn’t apply to Hobby Lobby’s ACA complaint.
There were no such things as for-profit / non-profit corporations 200 years ago. But there were corporations, and those corporations were certainly able to exercise religious practices. “The legislature may enact laws more effectually to enable all sects to accomplish the great objects of religion by giving them corporate rights for the management of their property and the regulation of their temporal as well as spiritual concerns.” Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. 9 Cranch 43 (1815).
4 - 2 = 2
Can you now explain what you meant when you said: