Reach of Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby?

[Hamlet]

@Bricker

The “why” you give applies equally to non-profit corporations, Hamlet. They too are fictions created by law, aren’t they?

Yep. But they have been granted an exception to the rule.

@Bricker

I am asking you why it’s only the fact that a corporation has a particular tax status that loses it the right to exercise religion. The 700 Club is not a human being, either. It has no soul. The Archdiocese of Baltimore is not a human being. But you agree those can exercise religion: “…religious based associations that can wield free exercise claims.”

Again, they are the exception to the rule. They are allowed to claim free exercise rights, not because they are corporations, but because they are, by their very nature, religious institutions. That’s how they’ve been treated for years, that it is their religious nature, not their incorporation, that allows them to further the free exercise rights of their members.

You apparently believe it is the corporate form that somehow gives those organizations their free exercise, but it’s not. It’s the religious nature of their creation and members.

@Bricker

Why is “for profit” tax status the key distinction?

If language is a barrier, we could change from “for profit” to “secular” in these distinctions. I have not always been as precise as I could have been.

But to answer your question, there is, to my mind and the mind of the IRS, the Supreme Court, and a great many people, a difference between religion and secular profit making. People, certainly, can be both religious and profit making. Corporations, however, aren’t. If your corporation wants to be religious, be religious. If your corporation wants to be for profit, be for-profit. But combining the two is bad for religion and for the law.

Render unto Ceaser and all that.

[Hamlet]

@Bricker

Thanks.

Did Hobby Lobby, as a corporation raise a first amendment claim in this case?

[Hamlet]

Duplicate

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Well, the word “religion,” gets involved, because the RFRA is actually about substantial burdens on a person’s (or corporation’s) religious practice.

Congress has every right to change it. In fact, the Supreme Court DID change it, before the RFRA was passed, when they decided Employment Division v. Smith. Congress passed the RFRA to change it BACK.

How is someone else doing something you don’t like a burden on your religious practice?

Hindus pay taxes that support meat inspectors. Jains pay taxes that support wars. Scientologists pay taxes that go for mental health care.

People using compensation you give them in ways you don’t like is a fact of life. I simply can’t see how what someone does with what you give them burdens you.

Can you give some legal examples of substantial burdens according to the law? If that bar is this low, I can hardly imagine what doesn’t apply.

[Iggy]

@Hamlet

… If your corporation wants to be for profit, be for-profit. But combining the two is bad for religion and for the law.

Render unto Ceaser and all that.

OK. I’ll tell the owners of a few bookstores, supply houses, food concerns,travel agencies and many other businesses with a distinctly religious focus.

[Hamlet]

@Iggy

OK. I’ll tell the owners of a few bookstores, supply houses, food concerns,travel agencies and many other businesses with a distinctly religious focus.

And those businesses do not have their own free exercise rights. Because their businesses, not human beings.

[Bricker]

@Hamlet

But to answer your question, there is, to my mind and the mind of the IRS, the Supreme Court, and a great many people, a difference between religion and secular profit making. People, certainly, can be both religious and profit making. Corporations, however, aren’t. If your corporation wants to be religious, be religious. If your corporation wants to be for profit, be for-profit. But combining the two is bad for religion and for the law.

Render unto Ceaser and all that.

OK, I get it.

That’s a very valid approach. If “for-profit,” is synonymous with secular, then I completely understand your objections.

But I say that it’s possible to be BOTH for-profit and religious. I say there’s nothing wrong with claiming a religious mission and at the same time earning money for stockholders.

But I also comprehend your objection to this claim. I’d say only that your statement is not obvious – that this is why the courts exist.

[Hamlet]

@Bricker

OK, I get it.

That’s a very valid approach. If “for-profit,” is synonymous with secular, then I completely understand your objections.

But I say that it’s possible to be BOTH for-profit and religious. I say there’s nothing wrong with claiming a religious mission and at the same time earning money for stockholders.

My problem with the distinction between for-profit and religious is much more with the whole “religious” part. I have very little respect for any religion that has a “for-profit” motive with it. Maybe it’s the whole rich man/camel/needle teachings of Jesus I was raised with, but if want your company to be truly “religious”, then you are not “for profit”, you’re for the much more important things in life, like your faith, helping others, and doing good acts. Profits aren’t even a concern.

Which is why I find companies like Hobby Lobby to be not just insincere, but also troubling. Plastering a phrase like “being a Christian company” into your for-profit corporate statement is just so antithetical to religion.

None of which is important to the determination that for-profit corporations can magically have religious faith. To me, that’s remains just plain nonsensical, and completely against the thoughts of the founders that some rights are personal liberties. Rights like that of free expression of religion. And the history of how the Supreme Court has treated corporations with for-profit motives backs me up.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

How is someone else doing something you don’t like a burden on your religious practice?

Hindus pay taxes that support meat inspectors. Jains pay taxes that support wars. Scientologists pay taxes that go for mental health care.

People using compensation you give them in ways you don’t like is a fact of life. I simply can’t see how what someone does with what you give them burdens you.

Can you give some legal examples of substantial burdens according to the law? If that bar is this low, I can hardly imagine what doesn’t apply.

Yes. “All governmental actions which have a substantial external impact on the practice of religion would be subject to the restrictions in this bill,” quoth the House Report on the RFRA. (Thanks to Hamlet, by the way, are due for making me look up the legislative history).

@House Report

The definition of governmental activity covered by the bill is meant to be all inclusive… In this regard, in order to violate the statute, government activity need not coerce individuals into violating their religious beliefs nor penalize religious activity by denying any person an equal share of the rights, benefits and privileges enjoyed by any citizen. Rather, the test applies whenever a law or an action taken by the government to implement a law burdens a person’s exercise of religion.

Examples of “substantial burden,” include:

[ul]
[li]conducting an autopsy when the religion involved objects to mutilation of the body of the deceased[/li][li]enforcing a “clean shaven” rule for prison inmates when the religion involved commands men to wear a full beard[/li][li]a city’s denying a construction permit (a “Certificate of Appropriateness”) to construct a nearly 20,000 square-foot addition to the property of a religious corporation[/li][li]an ordinance banning “[c]hurches, temples, synagogues, mosques, and other religious facilities” from the “Business Courthouse Square District.” [/li][li]reducing unemployment benefits because claimant refused to work on Saurdays[/li][li]requiring children to attend public or private school through age 16[/li][li]requiring a litigant to stand when the judge entered[/li][/ul]

The rule is:

Requiring someone either to act affirmatively in violation of a sincerely held religious belief or face penalties substantially burdens the free exercise of religion.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Hamlet

Which is why I find companies like Hobby Lobby to be not just insincere, but also troubling. Plastering a phrase like “being a Christian company” into your for-profit corporate statement is just so antithetical to religion.

@Bricker

Yes. “All governmental actions which have a substantial external impact on the practice of religion would be subject to the restrictions in this bill,” quoth the House Report on the RFRA. (Thanks to Hamlet, by the way, are due for making me look up the legislative history).

Examples of “substantial burden,” include:

[ul]
[li]conducting an autopsy when the religion involved objects to mutilation of the body of the deceased[/li][li]enforcing a “clean shaven” rule for prison inmates when the religion involved commands men to wear a full beard[/li][li]a city’s denying a construction permit (a “Certificate of Appropriateness”) to construct a nearly 20,000 square-foot addition to the property of a religious corporation[/li][li]an ordinance banning “[c]hurches, temples, synagogues, mosques, and other religious facilities” from the “Business Courthouse Square District.” [/li][li]reducing unemployment benefits because claimant refused to work on Saurdays[/li][li]requiring children to attend public or private school through age 16[/li][li]requiring a litigant to stand when the judge entered[/li][/ul]

The rule is:

Requiring someone either to act affirmatively in violation of a sincerely held religious belief or face penalties substantially burdens the free exercise of religion.

"I’m pleased to announce my new religion, known as the Relapse Cult. Our tenets include sleeping until noon, lots of sex, drugs & rock ‘n’ roll, and a love of both hammocks and sandals. Sins include doing anything you don’t want to do, paying taxes and fighting in wars. Our icon is a dude on a snowboard taking a bhong hit while doing a double McTwist 1260. Our main hymn is, of course, Louie Louie.

To join, send $100 (Paypal accepted) and I’ll mail you an official Relapse Cult Membership Card, proving that you’re one of us. Freedom of religion rules!"

According to the laws as written today, how could the government deny any of my religion’s members the right to practice their religion by not paying taxes or doing a damn thing they don’t wanna do?

And if I ran the religion as a company, say by incorporating, how could the government ever collect taxes from the Relapse Cult?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@adaher

That’s an interesting question, although the corporate personhood issue isn’t even really an issue. That was decided over 100 years ago. Corporations, and any other organization made up of people, get treated as people for the purposes of constitutional rights.

If you don’t believe this, then the FBI would love to raid the ACLU anytime they feel like without a warrant.

One question I heard during the CSPAN replay of the oral arguments is whether a corporation can “exercise” religion.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

The RFRA says that the federal government can’t substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion UNLESS the burden is necessary to further a compelling government interest, and the burden must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.

There is at least some thought that if this doesn’t meet the definition of least restrictive way, then there are few laws that would survive a challenge based on the RFRA.

Can you explain how, precisely, you fear this would make the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional?

It wouldn’t, it might make the Civil Rights act subordinate to the RFRA.

[Bricker]

@Snowboarder_Bo

According to the laws as written today, how could the government deny any of my religion’s members the right to practice their religion by not paying taxes or doing a damn thing they don’t wanna do?

The laws as written today:

@Bricker

The rule is:

Requiring someone either to act affirmatively in violation of a sincerely held religious belief or face penalties substantially burdens the free exercise of religion.

I would like to draw your attention to the phrase “sincerely held,” in the quote above.

Your question seems to suppose that those words are meaningless.

Do you understand that courts are actually able to adjudicate whether a belief is a sincerely held one, as opposed to a sham adopted for the purpose of evading law?

And if I ran the religion as a company, say by incorporating, how could the government ever collect taxes from the Relapse Cult?

By finding that your claimed religious belief was not sincerely held.

There is another answer, of course, that would apply if the plaintiff in question did have a sincerely held religious belief, that would involve the government showing it’s scheme was narrowly tailored to achieve it’s compelling interest. But for your hypo, it’s not necessary to reach that point.

And I have to wonder if you simply didn’t read those words – “sincerely held” – when I wrote them, or if you assumed for some bizarre reason that because religion is involved, the court system somehow cannot evaluate sincerity of belief.

If the latter – why? You presumably have no problem when the courts find sincerity in other beliefs. You understand that a person’s claim that he thought his life was in danger is relevant to determining the truth of his self-defense claim. You have heard tales of people on trial for offenses in which the state of mind is relevant, and presumably understand that people may claim they had no intent to commit murder, but that it was an accident, and the court’s verdict must rest on the truth of that claim.

You’ve heard of dozens, hundreds perhaps, of court cases that turn on the sincerity of a person’s intention or belief, and I can’t remember a slough of incredulity from you over those cases.

But somehow, when the issue is religion, you lose your mind.

Why is that?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Bricker

The laws as written today:

I would like to draw your attention to the phrase “sincerely held,” in the quote above.

Your question seems to suppose that those words are meaningless.

No, it doesn’t. Your reply seems to suppose a lot that I didn’t actually write.

@Bricker

Do you understand that courts are actually able to adjudicate whether a belief is a sincerely held one, as opposed to a sham adopted for the purpose of evading law?

Yes.

@Bricker

By finding that your claimed religious belief was not sincerely held.

There is another answer, of course, that would apply if the plaintiff in question did have a sincerely held religious belief, that would involve the government showing it’s scheme was narrowly tailored to achieve it’s compelling interest. But for your hypo, it’s not necessary to reach that point.

And I have to wonder if you simply didn’t read those words – “sincerely held” – when I wrote them, or if you assumed for some bizarre reason that because religion is involved, the court system somehow cannot evaluate sincerity of belief.

If the latter – why? You presumably have no problem when the courts find sincerity in other beliefs. You understand that a person’s claim that he thought his life was in danger is relevant to determining the truth of his self-defense claim. You have heard tales of people on trial for offenses in which the state of mind is relevant, and presumably understand that people may claim they had no intent to commit murder, but that it was an accident, and the court’s verdict must rest on the truth of that claim.

You’ve heard of dozens, hundreds perhaps, of court cases that turn on the sincerity of a person’s intention or belief, and I can’t remember a slough of incredulity from you over those cases.

But somehow, when the issue is religion, you lose your mind.

Why is that?

I’ll ignore the absolutely fucking stupid and unsupported observation you made above, as well as the resulting insult-disguised-as-a-question, and just continue with my hypothetical.

Recently, Pastafarians have been granted the right to have their religious needs accommodated to some degree, mostly IIRC having to do with just getting to list their religion on their drivers licenses.

In light of that, it seems obvious to me that the courts guidelines must be set up so that nearly any belief can be held sincerely. Thus, there is no reason to think that my hypothetical new religion’s beliefs can’t be just as sincerely held as any other ridiculous religious beliefs, and no reason to think that the courts would not recognize it as a genuine religion.

So, now that Recidivism is a recognized religion, how is the government gonna make Relapse Cult members do stuff they don’t want to do, since it would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs?

[Hamlet]

@Bricker

Do you understand that courts are actually able to adjudicate whether a belief is a sincerely held one, as opposed to a sham adopted for the purpose of evading law?

How about sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with laws. Like can for-profit corporations now only hire people of their own faith? Can they refuse coverage of medical conditions related they sincerely believe are related to being gay? Not letting homosexuals stay in your hotel chain? No blood transfusions for employees of Jehovah Witnesses. No vaccines for others. How about WalMart refusing to cover all contraception?

Or, most troubling, “sincerely held”, but factually inaccurate beliefs like that emergency contraception is an abortion.

Are you contending that there is no slippery slope with the recognition of free exercise rights for for-profit, secular corporations?

[Bricker]

@Snowboarder_Bo

In light of that, it seems obvious to me that the courts guidelines must be set up so that nearly any belief can be held sincerely. Thus, there is no reason to think that my hypothetical new religion’s beliefs can’t be just as sincerely held as any other ridiculous religious beliefs, and no reason to think that the courts would not recognize it as a genuine religion.

So, now that Recidivism is a recognized religion, how is the government gonna make Relapse Cult members do stuff they don’t want to do, since it would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs?

I really don’t care to explore a hypothetical based on “it seems obvious to you.”

Because in the actual world, courts have had no trouble rejecting absurd religious belief claims.

So can you explain how the courts could do that, when “it seems obvious” to you that they can’t?

[Bricker]

@Hamlet

How about sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with laws. Like can for-profit corporations now only hire people of their own faith? Can they refuse coverage of medical conditions related they sincerely believe are related to being gay? Not letting homosexuals stay in your hotel chain? No blood transfusions for employees of Jehovah Witnesses. No vaccines for others. How about WalMart refusing to cover all contraception?

Or, most troubling, “sincerely held”, but factually inaccurate beliefs like that emergency contraception is an abortion.

Are you contending that there is no slippery slope with the recognition of free exercise rights for for-profit, secular corporations?

If there is, it’s up to Congress to amend the law to draw a line where they want it.

[Ravenman]

@Hamlet

How about sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with laws. Like can for-profit corporations now only hire people of their own faith? Can they refuse coverage of medical conditions related they sincerely believe are related to being gay? Not letting homosexuals stay in your hotel chain? No blood transfusions for employees of Jehovah Witnesses. No vaccines for others. How about WalMart refusing to cover all contraception?

Hey, I am the first to say that RFRA is a bad law whose unintended (or perhaps actually intended?) consequences are about to slap us in the face, but even to me the questions you asked are, well, bad.

Companies obviously can’t discriminate on the basis of the religion of their employees because the government has a compelling interest in the equal application of laws. Until ENDA becomes law - let’s hope soon - businesses can discriminate against gay people for all sorts of unethical reasons. And I think the government has a compelling interest in requiring coverage of blood transfusions because of the clear link between that treatment and death.

I’m just frankly not so sure what the compelling government interest is in requiring that employers cover birth control. I think it is outstanding policy - makes sense for tons of reasons - but the medical necessity for BC is slightly different than for blood. There are excellent medical reasons why BC is a very important medication for a number of reasons; but I don’t believe that “good medical reasons” is synonymous with the government having a compelling reason to require people to adhere to physicians’ or public health experts’ judgment.

Are you contending that there is no slippery slope with the recognition of free exercise rights for for-profit, secular corporations?

When did a slippery slope go from being a logical fallacy to a reasoned argument?

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

I really don’t care to explore a hypothetical based on “it seems obvious to you.”

Because in the actual world, courts have had no trouble rejecting absurd religious belief claims.

So can you explain how the courts could do that, when “it seems obvious” to you that they can’t?

Can Scientology be sincerely held? Because if so, all bets are off. You don’t have to be a primitive dude in a desert to make a religion people believe in. You can be a 19th century con-artist, or a shitty Sci-Fi writer.
On topic: Hobby Lobby isn’t paying for abortions. They are paying for insurance. Which can, if the employee desires, be used in a way that pisses off Hobby Lobby.

Same way with the money they are paying as wages. In what you posted, I see nothing that suggests that they are burdened, if something they give someone is used in a way they don’t like.

If one of the Gideons hands me a bible and I pee on it, he is rightly upset. But I haven’t kept him from expressing his beliefs.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

Can Scientology be sincerely held? Because if so, all bets are off. You don’t have to be a primitive dude in a desert to make a religion people believe in. You can be a 19th century con-artist, or a shitty Sci-Fi writer.

Yes. I am unaware of any aspect of the law that precludes Scientolgy from being a sincerely held religious belief.

On topic: Hobby Lobby isn’t paying for abortions. They are paying for insurance. Which can, if the employee desires, be used in a way that pisses off Hobby Lobby.

By “pisses off,” do you mean “violates their sincerely held religious belief?”

Because you don’t get to decide that question. If you believe, as you have signaled, that Scientology per SE fails to qualify, why do you imagine your assessment of how the words are applied elsewhere is in any way accurate?