Is there any group that finds vaccines sinful? And can these groups also start businesses according to their religion?
Does this ruling go beyond abortions? Could this mean for instance that a company owned by someone who follows a religion that believes in sex segregation could go single-sex (either all-male or all-female)?
Similarly, part of being a person is that you sometimes have to sign up to get drafted and possibly sent off to war. Also, part of being a person is that sometimes you have to be confined to a 9x9 room with bars on the windows.
“Sometimes” sure does a lot of work …
You would both do well to read Bricker’s numerous posts in this thread about the significance of the phrase “compelling government interest.”
It’s more about narrow tailoring. The government does have a compelling governmental interest in gender equality and sex discrimination laws are narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling governmental interest (there is no better option out there).
Actually, I have, and stpauler’s. And I’m none the wiser. Not being American and having the background likely doesn’t help.
I have read it, and yes compelling government interest is key here. In order for the government to infringe on religion, it has to do so while furthering a compelling interest. Contraception is not a compelling interest. Vaccines would be.
But you don’t question the idea that corporations have free speech rights, correct?
I mean, NBC News is a corporation.
So – does it have ideas, and can it rely on the right of free speech?
It’s just as silly, right? NBC News as a corporation has only the ideas of its owners, not its own ideas. But that’s the same deal as religious exercise. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore is a corporation: does it not have religious exercise rights?
I suspect John Oliver’s “brilliant” points did not include the existence of the RFRA. That’s a law, just like the ACA. In fact, it’s older than the ACA. Why is the ACA’s command to “pay for shit that you don’t like,” to be followed so closely, but the RFRA’s command that laws that burden the free exercise of religion be required to narrowly implement a compelling government interest can be safely ignored?
Did John Oliver explain why he was ignoring the RFRA?
Can you?
Does Oliver see the irony of being given a platform to reach millions of viewers by a large corporation and using that platform to question whether corporations have 1st amendment rights?
So says adaher and 5 of the 6 men on the Supreme Court. Oddly enough, the 3 women (and one man) disagree.
No, the Supreme Court did not say this. indeed, five justices said the opposite.
Can NBC News use it’s ideas to say ‘we shouldn’t have to follow the law’ and expect to win in court?
No.
But then again, neither did Hobby Lobby. To the contrary, they argued that they SHOULD be allowed to follow the law.
One, but not another. I can see ‘religious exercise’ applying to actual religious, non-profit organizations for things like this, but not for for profit companies. Especially when their religious beliefs are actually affecting other people in a real way, not just a ‘we disagree with it’ way.
I haven’t read the thread until today, so most of what I would have to say was probably already covered. The NBC analogy just didn’t make sense to me.
OK, let’s try another approach.
Does the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore, a corporation, have any rights to exercise religion?
I assume you answer “Yes.”
But, you say, that’s because the Archdiocese is non-profit.
But why is that the distinction? If you agree a corporation, as well as a natural person, can exercise religious rights, what is it about how the corporation is organized under the law that removes religious rights when we add profit?
Specifically: what changes?
The Treatise of the Law of Corporations says:
So there’s nothing actually in the law that says a for-profit corporation can’t do anything a non-profit can. Indeed, a non-profit corporation can make money. What it can’t do is distribute its profits to its owners. But it can make and accumulate stacks of dough.
So why, specifically, do you feel a non-profit and a for-profit are treated differently under the law when it comes to religious exercise?
Bonus question: how about the Crown Kosher Super Market? Does it have any religious exercise rights?
Because one is specifically a religious group, the other is not.
Do those religious rights affect anyone? What rights are they asserting?
As to who they may hire? No.
Would it change your mind to learn that in Hobby Lobby’s official statement of purpose, the following commitment appears: “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.”
Does that not suggest that they intend the company to have a religious purpose?
They close the store Sundays, which represents an enormous loss of profit, because they believe that Sunday should be a day of rest. They are religiously opposed to alcohol, and so they don’t sell shot glasses, and refused a deal with a beer company that would have put their empty trucks to use and offset the cost of driving back empty to the warehouse.