Reach of Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

So corporations can now do everything people can except bear arms and receive custodial sentences. Orwell would have been proud.

Man are you going to flip a lid when I tell you about gun trusts.

@Skammer

Seriously though, as a religious person myself, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that a corporation can hold religious beliefs, sincere or not. Especially a for-profit company. I hope the ruling touches upon the question of a corporation having a religious objection to women not keeping their heads covered or other “religious freedoms” that are infringed upon by government regulations. Would a business closely held by a Christian Scientist be allowed to not provide any medical healthcare at all?

I’m looking forward to hearing more details about this decision.

A lot of churches are 501(c)(3) corporations. Can they have a sincerely held religious belief? The Christian Bookstore might be a for profit corporation, can they have a sincerely held religious belief?

@Richard_Parker

The holding only applies to closely-held corporations. The reasoning of the ruling pretty unequivocally extends to Wal-Mart. Alito says once you concede that non-profits are protected by RFRA, the text demands that everyone is covered:

I think you’re right. Corporate boards cross the country are entertaining their conversion to that brand of Christianity that believes in faith healing alone.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Damuri_Ajashi

A lot of churches are 501(c)(3) corporations. Can they have a sincerely held religious belief? The Christian Bookstore might be a for profit corporation, can they have a sincerely held religious belief?

A church, sure. A bookstore, no.

[Skammer]

Churches and bookstores and craft stores are not living beings with self-awareness and conscience, except in a metaphorical or anthropomorphic sense. So no, they cannot believe anything.

Churches as a matter of practice may declare certain teachings or doctrines, and we metaphorically speak of a church denomination ‘believing’ this or that, but churches do not literally believe anything. A church, like a corporation, is a legal entity but not a natural person. Only people believe things.

[Skammer]

To determine if some entity can hold sincere beliefs (or ANY beliefs), subject it to the Shylock test:

Hath a corporation eyes? Hath a corporation hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick one, does it bleed? If you tickle it, does it laugh? If you poison it, does it die? And if you wrong it, shall it revenge?

[Richard_Parker]

The corporate form is a legal invention. Asking what it can do and believe is not like asking what a bat can do and believe. We as a society get to say what it is, and what it can do. We have said that it can take actions apart from the humans who run it such that those humans cannot be held liable. Obviously, it does not actually take any action–humans take actions. It’s not really a greater leap of logic to say that it can have beliefs. Of course the reality is that the humans running it have the beliefs, and we choose to regard them as those of the corporation, just like we regard certain of their actions under certain circumstances as those of the corporation.

[aldiboronti]

@Skammer

Only people believe things.

And people who believe things can own corporations. Why should they be forced to go against their sincerely held beliefs in a company that they wholly own? There are many ways the Administration can cover female employees of such corporations for contraception. This is a good decision.

[stpauler]

I’m trying to find an answer to a question, but I can’t seem to google it:

When was the Dictionary Act passed and can it be amended with a simple congressional bill? It seems that would have remedied this case (and maybe even Citizens United even though that case doesn’t mention the Dictionary Act).

[suranyi]

@running_coach

Yes way.

Huh, I stand corrected – the Walton family owns just about 50% of the company. Although there may be more than 5 individuals.

[Bricker]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I believe that requirement to be void of any meaningful way of assessing it, to the point of it being assumed by the court without requiring said beliefs to be attested to or proven they were held. Why should I think, given the precedents I can examine, that the courts won’t simply assume that claims of “sincerely held” beliefs are factual every time they are presented to the court?

Because that’s not what happens.

I’m curious to know what, if any, research you did to inform this opinion. You say, “…given the precedents [you are] able to examine…” but don’t mention any of those.

For example, there’s Lineker v. State, an Alaska appellate case that concluded:

Whether a religious belief is sincere is a question of fact. Judge Weeks was able to observe the Linekers when they testified, so he was obviously in a much better position than we are to determine their sincerity. As with most factual matters, we defer to the trial court and will reverse the trial court’s findings only if they are clearly erroneous. After hearing the testimony, Judge Weeks concluded that “the Linekers contrived this set of beliefs in order to have access to an illegal drug.” He concluded that Michael Lineker’s “speech and manner under oath left the court with a firm conviction that as he was testifying he was making it up as he went along.”

As the opinion makes clear, the question of sincerity is a question of fact, and a judge is completely capable of deciding that some of these “parade of horribles” fake claims mentioned in this thread are insincere.

In Jordan v. Fuller the Tenth Circuit rejected the sincerity of litigant Aaron Jordan, who claimed a religious necessity for a vegetarian diet while in prison:

To evaluate Jordan’s request, [Sterritt Fuller, the Programs Coordinator for the prison] requested certain information regarding Jordan’s religious affiliation and practice. Jordan responded claiming to be affiliated with a religion known as the Ever Increasing Faith and stated that his leader is Jesus Christ. Fuller denied the request concluding that based on the information provided, there was no indication that Jordan’s religion called for a non-meat diet. Fuller also noted that dietary considerations for Christians were not noted in the Department of Corrections’ guidelines. Jordan again requested a non-meat diet, citing biblical scriptures, but Fuller similarly denied the request.
.
.
.
Finally, regarding the First Amendment claim, the magistrate judge concluded that the evidence demonstrated that Jordan did not practice any particular religion or attend a particular church holding vegetarianism as a church tenet.

In Sourbeer v. Robinson, the Third Circuit rejected the sincerity of a religious claim:

The district court rejected Sourbeer’s free exercise claim, finding that his complaint was not credible or sincere. . . . A sincere religious belief is a prerequisite to any free exercise claim. (citations omitted) Unless the district court’s finding of insincerity is clearly erroneous, we need go no further. Sourbeer argues that the finding was based on an impermissible inference from the fact that during 1978, while in general population, he attended services only five times. He cites Cole v. Fulcomer, (citations omitted) where the court rejected evidence that a Native American Indian prisoner had not always been religious, and did not observe his religion in every respect, as indicative that his desire to wear his hair at a traditional length was not a sincere religious belief. Though we may agree that courts should not put undue weight on past or unrelated departures from orthodoxy, such is not the case here. The court below relied on evidence relating to the precise practice at issue — attending worship services — during the time period immediately after the restriction at issue was lifted. The court also took note that Sourbeer failed to designate a spiritual adviser who could visit with him in the R.H.U., as he would have been permitted.

In US v. Quaintance:

Danuel and Mary Quaintance responded to their indictment for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana with a motion to dismiss. They didn’t deny their involvement with the drug, but countered that they are the founding members of the Church of Cognizance, which teaches that marijuana is a deity and sacrament. As a result, they submitted, any prosecution of them is precluded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), which forbids the federal government from substantially burdening sincere religious exercises absent a countervailing compelling governmental interest.

After taking extensive evidence, the district court denied the motion to dismiss. It held, as a matter of law, that the Quaintances’ professed beliefs are not religious but secular. In addition and in any event, the district court found, as a matter of fact, that the Quaintances don’t sincerely hold the religious beliefs they claim to hold, but instead seek to use the cover of religion to pursue secular drug trafficking activities.

Courts are, as you hopefully now see, quite able to assess insincere and self-serving claims of religious belief and, as they are matters of fact, reject them as insincere, that being the function of the fact-finder at trial. Can you explain what cases you relied upon in reaching the opposite conclusion?

[Bricker]

@stpauler

I’m trying to find an answer to a question, but I can’t seem to google it:

When was the Dictionary Act passed and can it be amended with a simple congressional bill? It seems that would have remedied this case (and maybe even Citizens United even though that case doesn’t mention the Dictionary Act).

Where’s the sig?

[stpauler]

@Bricker

Where’s the sig?

Let me try it again. (Apparently if you click on “Show your signature” and then click “preview post” and then submit reply, it removes it).

[WWhiskey]

trying to dis-allow persons from starting, building, operating business based on the their religious views was a bad idea , some people find their pursuit of happiness in business .
why on earth would you want the government to stop people from growing business based purely on their beliefs?
in other words Hobby lobby would have never been opened under the laws as written, how is that a good thing? do you think it is better for people to be on welfare and get birth control from the gubment, or have a job and get it on their own?

just some thoughts flame away!

[Bricker]

@stpauler

I’m trying to find an answer to a question, but I can’t seem to google it:

When was the Dictionary Act passed and can it be amended with a simple congressional bill? It seems that would have remedied this case (and maybe even Citizens United even though that case doesn’t mention the Dictionary Act).

The Dictionary Act can indeed be amended – and so can the RFRA itself. Simple Congressional bill plus Presidential signature is all that’s needed.

[Deeg]

Bricker, were any of the defendants main-stream Christians? (This is just a question of curiosity; I’m generally in agreement with Bricker regarding this thread.)

[Bricker]

@Deeg

Bricker, were any of the defendants main-stream Christians? (This is just a question of curiosity; I’m generally in agreement with Bricker regarding this thread.)

I’m not aware of any instance of a court finding a mainstream Christian belief insincere.

But then again, I’m not aware of any case in which I think an asserted mainstream Christian belief was insincere.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@WWhiskey

…in other words Hobby lobby would have never been opened under the laws as written, how is that a good thing? do you think it is better for people to be on welfare and get birth control from the gubment, or have a job and get it on their own?

They could still have opened as a sole proprietorship or partnership.

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

I’m not aware of any instance of a court finding a mainstream Christian belief insincere.

But then again, I’m not aware of any case in which I think an asserted mainstream Christian belief was insincere.

Mainstream Christians very rarely need RFRA, so there aren’t nearly as many cases. They generally get their accommodations the old-fashioned way: because everyone around them is like them. Abortion is one of the rare exceptions.

[Skammer]

@aldiboronti

And people who believe things can own corporations. Why should they be forced to go against their sincerely held beliefs in a company that they wholly own? There are many ways the Administration can cover female employees of such corporations for contraception. This is a good decision.

People can own corporations, but the corporation is not the person or people who own it.

The gov’t wasn’t telling David Green that he personally had to provide contraceptive care. It passed a law saying that corporations had to do so. I doubt Hobby Lobby appears on the membership list of any religious congregation in the country.

[Bricker]

@Skammer

People can own corporations, but the corporation is not the person or people who own it.

The gov’t wasn’t telling David Green that he personally had to provide contraceptive care. It passed a law saying that corporations had to do so. I doubt Hobby Lobby appears on the membership list of any religious congregation in the country.

But it also passed a law binding it’s own application of laws when those laws burden a person’s religious exercise.

And it ALSO passed a law saying that for the purposes of all laws, the word “person” means “corporation.”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

As it turns out, I am a genius.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I don’t really see a way for them to do that in the present case, since Hobby Lobby has taken no action to distinguish itself from any other corporation (other than remaining closely held.) I am expecting lots of dicta explaining what corporations wishing to avail themselves of HL’s argument need to do - explain their closely held religious belief in their founding documents, or something. Or organize as an LLC.