Was the cafeteria also at my house too? Because that’s where your analogy, AGAIN, doesn’t cover.
Good thing I didn’t say there was.
Uh, stpauler, I believe it was you who first brought up the issue of “affecting employees life outside of work”. If you now say that it’s ok if Hobby Lobby’s decisions affect employees’ life outside of work, then good. I agree with you, and so does the law, the courts, and judicial precedent.
You make it sound like there should be a clear-cut answer, and maybe there should be. But in general the job of the courts in our country has been to weigh competing rights and interests. They don’t typically do such an all-or-nothing approach, and if you think about it that makes sense. If they were to declare that your freedom of say, speech, could not be restrained ever when it collided with another person’s freedom of something else the whole system might actually break down. That would mean no school teacher could ever silence an unruly child. No movie theater could eject a patron screaming at the top of their lungs. A judge could not even order an unruly courtroom observer out of the court. Those extreme example show why colliding rights of different stakeholders (both individuals, groups etc) have to be weighed and balanced in some way. It can’t be an all or nothing thing.
No, I didn’t say that either. You see, there’s a middle ground as binary as you think things are.
What, then, specifically, is your argument? You’ve done an excellent job of explaining what your argument ISN’T. What is it?
If Microsoft was suddenly Jehovas Wittness owned, I assume Hobby Lobby’s defenders would be okay with them not providing blood transfusions with their insurance, right? :dubious:
Hobby Lobby’s owners are throwing a tantrum. They aren’t brave advocates for the first amendment.
What is the significance of this? Let’s say that my religious beliefs require a monthly output of $X. Does my employer have to specifically allocate $X so as not to deny me my freedom of religion? If the employer says “here is $X-$Y but feel free to pay for Y out of your own pocket” has it denied me such freedom? IOW, is an employer obligated to fully fund an individuals religious choices?
I’ve long tried to explain the concept of cash fungibility and why boycotting what people do with cash that was once yours is a questionable practice (for example the people who boycott a business because it chooses to donate to causes you personally find objectionable) and thus I see no moral conflict for Hobby Lobby.
But at the same time, the SCOTUS has always drawn out areas where business, organizations, and individuals are allowed to assert certain rights in a manner that conflicts with rights of other persons or organizations. There has to be a reasonable test, not everything is a slippery slope. It’s probably not reasonable, if you allow State employees to decorate their cubicles with private possessions to forbid say, a small symbol of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc from being on display, as an example. Even though that is arguably an individual using a publicly owned property to “advertise” or proselytize for their religion. But it’s reasonable to say that the employee’s right to decorate their personal space (if the employer allows decorations at all) can be allowed to go forward without really being a concern about the public’s right to make sure the State and religion do not become intertwined.
Likewise if you buy a landlocked piece of property, in most States you are guaranteed an easement that connects your land to the public road (although the particular route of the easement is often contentious.) The courts and the law see that infringing on another property owner’s right is a necessity in this case.
So you could definitely make the argument, that providing for emergency abortifacients (Hobby Lobby has no problem with their insurance providing traditional birth control pills or contraceptives) is somewhere that maybe Hobby Lobby could warrant a religious exemption but “not covering blood transfusions” is not. Blood transfusions must often be given in an emergency, and are often life or death matters. Abortifacients are not to my knowledge ever a life or death matter for the mother (actual abortions may be, but that is not what we’re talking about.)
There is a strong argument that requiring employers to provide abortifacient coverage in their insurance is not a compelling matter of public interest–because the law exempts any employee health plans that have not altered their health insurance offerings since the law was passed–a significant number of companies and employers. If it was a compelling matter of public interest, exemptions would not be written into law for totally banal reasons.
*While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it. *
Parker v. Levy, 417 US 733 (1974)
To my knowledge Hobby Lobby has never been found to be an arena of inherently reduced rights, justified by a compelling national need, so I don’t see how the comparison to military discipline is at all relevant.
OK. Forget military comparisons. How about other areas in which an employer can “…affect an employee’s life outside of work hours?”
I can think of several. Moral turpitude clauses allow for the termination of employment for various acts that occur outside the employer’s gates and have nothing to do (at least directly) with the job. Drug testing rules permit an employer to terminate an employee for conduct done outside and after hours.
More directly to the thread’s point: an employer can decide to offer bus subsidies. And an employer can decide to STOP offering bus subsidies. Employees are free to continue to ride the bus using their own money even if the employer fails to continue the bus subsidy program.
Yes. Microsoft is absolutely free to stop providing blood transfusion coverage at any time they please.
And Microsoft employees are then free to decide that they don’t want to there any more. Or they might decide that the benefits of Microsoft employment still outweigh any alternatives, and continue to work there. Microsoft does not owe anyone any continuing duty to cover blood transfusions.
I’m in full agreement with you, but the counter argument has an arguable basis: Health insurance compensation is equal to monetary compensation. As an employer couldn’t (presumably) say that you can’t spend your wages on the morning after pill why can they say that the insurance we provide won’t cover that (absent a non-religious reason)?
I don’t agree with the counter argument because it would create a rule that states that any non-monetary compensation must be subject to X, Y, and Z. That would be a perverse incentive to offer only monetary contributions for wages.
Sort of, but this is kind of the point of the discussion. Typically, outside of CBAs or other contracts an employer certainly had no Federal legal requirement to offer health insurance at all. With the PPACA that doesn’t truly change, except that now there are significant financial penalties for both not offering health insurance and for offering health insurance that does not comply with the law itself.
I know this isn’t a forum likely to agree or even listen to any defense of Hobby Lobby, but I do have some measure of respect for the way they’ve gone about this. The family that owns HL met when they first realized their situation, and they discussed not offering insurance at all. Because the PPACA has questionable design at several points, it’s actually relatively cheap for Hobby Lobby to just end employee health benefits and pay the associated penalty–around $26m/year. Not something they are thrilled about, but they probably spend that much on offering health insurance, if not more, per year. So it’s not unlikely they would actually be increasing their bottom line by going this route.
They chose not to do so, because I think they are genuine when they say their business is not just about making money but is also about their faith. They did not feel it was acceptable, and felt it would be shirking their responsibilities, to not offer health coverage to their employees. However, that route is far, far more expensive. A non-compliant health plan, under PPACA is subject to massive fines, to the tune of over $300m/yr, and that combined with the actual cost of providing the noncompliant plan means going that route would imperil the business itself.
So while Hobby Lobby certainly could decide to stop offering health insurance entirely, or blood transfusions (and thus be in the same non-compliant plan situation they are now), the real question is whether or not it’s permissible for government to use such financial pressure to compel a private entity to act against its conscience. I would say it is in some cases, not in others. I have no idea how the SCOTUS would rule.
I know that if you have a religion which prohibits contact with dogs that doesn’t typically get you out of ADA requirements in regard to service dogs. So that’s a case where religious beliefs are trumped by Federal law. But I also suspect (as a more ludicrous example) a financial penalty levied against any butcher shop or meat vendor that doesn’t sell pork, including Jewish Kosher businesses, would probably be struck down as an improper interference with religious belief (just guessing there.) To me the issue of whether or not an employer should be required to cover a specific thing in an employer offered health plan lies somewhere in between the obvious case of the service dogs and the kosher meat vendor.
I’m genuinely curious, if I’m CEO of GM and publish a policy that if any of my employees buy a Ford vehicle they are fired if/when the company discovers it, is that a violation of the law?
I can’t think of a law that would violate.
Does it matter that Hobby Lobby is privately owned while Microsoft is publicly owned? Hobby Lobby is basically owned by David Green and his family, vs Microsoft which has 8 billion shares outstanding and which anyone can buy. I don’t know that Hobby Lobby is right or wrong in their lawsuit, but I think it’s fair to say that the company has a specific set of religious beliefs that Microsoft doesn’t.
I think it might, but that puts a court in the position of adjudicating the sincerity and correctness of a religious belief. I think we can all agree that Hobby Lobby, either as a corporation or through its sole owners, has a strong religious belief. My hypo upthread would be if Microsoft, through its board of directors, decided it was a Jehovah’s Witness corporation for the obvious and sole purpose of evading a particular federal law.
What test would the Court use to separate the two without getting into the unwise territory of judging the sincerity or correctness of religious beliefs?
Well, first of all, I don’t know that it does put the court in that position, but even if it did, I’m pretty sure it’s constitutional for the court to judge the sincerity of a religious belief. There was a conscientious objector case in the 60s, US v Seeger, that said, regarding people claiming conscientious objector status that didn’t belong to an organized church:
[quote[Local boards and courts are to decide whether the objector’s beliefs are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious; they are not to require proof of the religious doctrines, nor are they to reject beliefs because they are not comprehensible.[/quote]
Or, US v Kuch, where somebody claimed that they shouldn’t be prosecuted because their religion required them to smoke marijuana. The court ruled that their religion was really just an excuse to use illegal drugs.
This is from an EEOC handbook on religious discrimination:
You make a good point, but the other side of the coin in arguing for the sincerity of a belief almost always gets into the correctness of that view.
As an employer, I don’t see a contradiction in having a health insurance program that pays for the morning after pill. Although I personally am opposed to abortion and casual sex (and the use of such emergency contraceptives, however one wants to define them) I don’t see a conflict with my beliefs by simply allowing my employees a choice, subsidized by benefits they receive in my employ, to use these medicines anymore than they might use their wages to buy pornography or anything else. What a person does on his or her own time is, and far as I’m concerned, there own business and he or she can answer (or not answer) to their preferred deity however they want.
So, who’s view is the correct “Christian” view? Mine or Hobby Lobby’s? Should any part of the government determine the correctness of a religious view? Would we want a court ruling that after reviewing the Koran, it really doesn’t require prayer 5 times per day, so that employees who claim that right can go fuck off?
It’s a dicey area, and in the cases you cited, bad facts can make bad law. If I’ve never went to church a day in my life and claim that my religious beliefs demand that I be able to drive drunk, then we can surely expect a court to see that I am insincere. How far should we take that?
But the correctness of the view isn’t what’s at issue, here. The question isn’t whether the correct “Christian” view is yours or Hobby Lobby’s. It’s whether or not Hobby Lobby actually believes that their view is correct. It is, like mentioned, a question of sincerity. Do the Hobby Lobby people really believe that their religion forbids them from providing health care, or are they just saying that because they don’t want to spend the money on health care?
Of course, even if they’re sincere, that’s not the only issue at play here. Somebody could sincerely believe they need to engage in human sacrifice, but we still don’t let them, but sincerity of belief is a precondition.