I didn’t act like that at all. I think the Dictionary Act is the exact place to start when a statute doesn’t define its terms. But I don’t think the courts should simply stop after finding the term and instead should go on to determine the context and legislative intent of the term.
So I guess I’ll ask again: “Wouldn’t you consider it odd that, in the entirety of the legislative history, from the language to the debates, to the very clearly stated purpose of the statute, NOWHERE does it mention that it applies to for profit corporations?” The entire reason for the RFRA was to overturn the Smith decision, not to extend the right to religious expression to corporations. Had the RFRA meant to do that, why the hell didn’t a single person mention it during the 3 years it was written and debated?
And nevermind the legislature’s actual intent. Again, the folly of blind adherence to textualism.
But since we’re apparently at an impasse, could you explain to me how a corporation, if it is found to have religious rights, could exercise those rights? Is Hobby Lobby going to church on Sundays? Is it going to parish festivals? Can I expect Hobby Lobby doing the Passion Play this Easter? What is the nature of the free exercise that a for-profit corporation seeks to use in this case? How does a corporation, which I’m assuming we agree can’t actually have soul, sin?
No, not odd at all. Because Congress knew that it did, and that’s what they intended.
Look, when we talk about corporate social responsibility, we don’t mean that the corporation itself, as a paper creature, has an ethical duty. We mean that the owners, the officers and directors, acting through the corporate vehicle, have ethical duties.
Similarly, we mean that a corporation can exercise First Amendment religious freedom by being the vehicle for the owners, officers and directors to do so.
So to answer your question: a corporation can exercise its religious obligations by avoiding sinful actions. It can act in spiritually-minded ways, such as abjuring work on the Sabbath and applying their view of other Christian ideals to their business practices.
With that in mind, wouldn’t the issue be more properly phrased as a alleged violation of the religious expression of the decision makers that is the issue in this case?
If that is the case, it strikes me as a complete reversal of what a corporation is, and what it does. The very reason that corporations exist is to create a separate entity to deal with taxes, lawsuits, liabilities, debt, etc. To me, it seems that what Hobby Lobby is asking for is to have their religious rights recognized through this supposedly separate corporation. As this Amicus argues, the belief that shareholders/owners have rights they can exercise through the corporation flies in the face of the very reason corporations exist.
I think this extension of Citizen United once again emphasizes the stupidity of that decision. Or, if you like, maybe we should look to the 5th Amendment, which does not extend to corporations
And that, right there, strikes me as one of the most ludicrous statements I’ve read on this board, and that’s including Beryl Mooncalf.
I also don’t think that is what you just said. You posited that a corporation can exercise the religious obligations of it’s shareholder/decisionmakers/owners, not that it has those of it’s own.
You, and Hobby Lobby, can’t have it both ways. Either a for-profit corporation is a separate, legally created entity, or it’s not. If the former, it cannot have any religious duties of its own. If the latter and the religious duties of its shareholders somehow flow through the corporation, then it’s not really a corporation as we’ve known it for centuries.
Hey Bricker, I don’t know much about strict scrutiny and some of yer law-talkin’ terms, but riddle me this:
A Muslim American, for whatever reason, doesn’t pay his taxes on time. He racks up penalties and interest on the debt. Citing RFRA, he believes it is a substantial burden on his religious beliefs to be required to pay interest on a debt. (I’m not arguing whether Islamic law is being correctly interpreted by him, but let’s pretend this is a sincerely held belief for him.)
Do you believe that this individual, under RFRA and other provisions of law and the Constitution, cannot be compelled to pay the accrued interest that would apply to other, non-Mulsim individuals who could not make a religious claim of this sort? Why or why not?
A person (human) can be religious
A person (human) can be black
A corporation can be religious since the RFRA in 1993 with the Dictionary Act from 1945 (?) But a corporation can’t be black in 2005?
That isn’t exactly what that case says ;). The case is a black man is suing because a contract between his own company and a separate company was terminated and the man claims it was due to racial animus. The company was in bankruptcy proceedings and the bankruptcy trustee filed on behalf of the company for racial animus and received a settlement. This case is about a claim the person made on his own behalf on a contract between his company and a third party and the court claimed he doesn’t really have standing to do so.
Strict Scrutiny applies, as per RFRA. And taxation has been shown again and again to survive strict scrutiny because of the government’s compelling interest in collecting revenue. Since the Muslim objects to the debt, that’s even more of a slam dunk, since our very Constitution requires that we faithfully pay our debts. So if you have a problem with debt, you really shouldn’t be living here.
One interesting thing Anthony Kennedy brought up: corporations don’t actually have to provide contraception coverage. They only have to if they choose to provide insurance. Since it’s actually cheaper to pay the fine than provide insurance, Hobby Lobby can solve its problem by just dropping insurance coverage. They’d even save money in the deal.
The problem is that Hobby Lobby’s owners take their faith seriously and pay their employees well. You would think liberals would want to encourage such practices and prioritize it over free contraception. And the owners don’t even object to contraception, they only object to certain kinds of contraception. Seriously, the administration could have conceded on this issue. It’s a pretty small thing. Now they are risking an adverse decision that could have much more far-reaching consequences.
Which put Mr. Clement in the tough spot of having to simultaneously argue that the burden placed on them by the ACA is substantial, but also that they would save money if they simply paid the fine. It’s that kind of talking out of both sides of their mouth that makes these cases so fun.
No. The problem is Hobby Lobby wants to dictate what health care they will pay for and what they won’t. While I appreciate your attempt at rewriting what this case is about to make Hobby Lobby some kind of hero, that’s not what is actually occurring.
I’ll inform the millions of women (and men) in the workforce that getting pregnant is a “small thing”. Then I’ll go ahead and total the millions of dollars unwanted pregnancies cost companies in health care and assert that Hobby Lobby shouldn’t worry about what is right and fair and instead do what is easier and cheaper and pay for contraception.
So why does the Muslim-American have to pay tax penalties without respect to their religious beliefs, but Christian-Americans do not have to pay financial penalties because of their religious beliefs? That makes no sense to me. Please explain the difference.
An individual’s personal debt has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. The Constitution requires the GOVERNMENT to repay debts that are AUTHORIZED BY LAW; not that adaher needs to respond to his utility bills in a timely manner.
Which put Mr. Clement in the tough spot of having to simultaneously argue that the burden placed on them by the ACA is substantial, but also that they would save money if they simply paid the fine. It’s that kind of talking out of both sides of their mouth that makes lawyering so interesting.
No. The problem is Hobby Lobby wants to dictate what health care they will pay for and what they won’t. While I appreciate your attempt at rewriting what this case is about to make Hobby Lobby some kind of hero, that’s not what is actually occurring. Hobby Lobby wouldn’t have to even worry about any of this if they were non-profit, if they were a religious organization, or if they paid the fine. But they chose to be a for profit (and a very for profit if David Green’s worth is any judge) corporation. And with that decision comes certain responsibilities.
I’ll inform the millions of women (and men) in the workforce that getting pregnant is a “small thing”. Then I’ll go ahead and total the millions of dollars unwanted pregnancies cost companies in health care and assert that Hobby Lobby shouldn’t worry about what is right and fair and instead do what is easier and cheaper and pay for contraception.
Taxation is a fundamental government power. Pacifists have to pay taxes to support a military. And if the government chooses to fund abortion through tax money, everyone will still have to pay taxes, regardless of their feelings on abortion.
Now the contraception mandate, that does not involve a fundemantal government power. Unlike the collection of revenue, there is no compelling interest in having contraception coverage under employer insurance. Also, strict scrutiny requires that even if there is a compelling government interest, there can’t be an alternative way of achieving it. But there is: the government can pay for contraception directly. The government doesn’t HAVE to make Christian business owners pay for contraception. It CHOOSES that method. Furthermore, the government already has conceded the principle by exempting churches, which are also not persons, anymore than corporations are. As a general rule, if you can create big exemptions, you can create exemptions that are a little bigger. The number of business owners who will opt out will affect a far smaller number of people than the churches and religious non profits opting out already affects. There’s just no compelling interest here in making Hobby Lobby conform. If it was really so all-fired important, Obama would be making the churches pay too.
Hopefully Bricker will correct me if I’m getting some of the finer points wrong. I have a basic understanding of how strict scrutiny works but I’m not as familar with the case history surrounding it.
That sounds pretty fishy to me. While I wouldn’t argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 goes so far as to create an “Establishment Clause for Businesses”, I think it effectively does so in regards to how they treat their employees. That is, they can hype their religion to their customers and the world at large, but they can’t affect policy that would single out and punish employees based on their religious (or irreligious) beliefs unless a reason for discrimination can be found that is genuinely relevant to the work being performed.
Until very recently, that’s what companies did: they dictated what their health care coverage would be. Now I realize that part of the purpose of ACA was to reform this process so that businesses couldn’t do bad things to employees like have lifetime limits or whole swathes of basic health care not covered. But was contraception really a vital part of that? I don’t remember that being a part of the debate over ACA at all as it pertained to employers. Because it’s just not that important. There is no access problem for contraceptives that this regulation is meant to solve. Access to contraceptives is nearly universal in this country already.
So what you have here is a very new law that changes a longtime practice of corporations, one that wasn’t even talked about much before the contraception mandate rules were issued. I just don’t see how it’s vital enough to justify an infringement on religious freedom of business owners.
Yes, I think it is. But even beyond what you and I think, it is the law. If you want to redraft the ACA, by all means, start a new thread about how unimportant contraception is. Good luck with that. But the fact remains, it is the law, and Hobby Lobby thinks it shouldn’t be subject to the law.
This isn’t about how important contraception coverage is, that’s already been decided. It’s about whether a for-profit corporation gets to ignore the law because they’ve tried hard to convince themselves that their money goes to pay for contraceptives they don’t like when, for the entirety of their existence, their money has gone to pay for contraceptives they don’t like.
A corporation has a First Amendment right to free speech, right? If not, the New York Times will be pissed. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington is a corporation, isn’t it? Why can’t it have religious duties?
How about The 700 Club? So why can’t it have religious duties under the Free Exercise Clause?
You just made up this rule and announced it as though it were handed down on Sinai. You already agree that a non-profit corporation can have religious duties without somehow losing the character of “a corporation as we’ve known it for centuries.” Why does a reorg into a for-profit S corp change it’s centuries-old character?