Corporate religion? Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court, and the science behind emergency contraceptives

[championofreason]

Tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. CST the oral arguments will commence in the second significant challenge to come before the Supreme Court concerning the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In one of the most consequential cases of the year there are two sweeping questions that potentially will be answered by the Court.

Are private, for-profit corporations afforded the right to “freely exercise” religion? If so, to what extent does that prevent government intrusion?

The two cases being heard, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, raise issues concerning the First Amendment’s free exercise clause and whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 permits a private business to opt out of a government mandate.

The First Amendment guarantees rights “of the people” while RFRA was instituted to safeguard the religious freedoms of “persons”.

Do corporations constitute persons?

According to the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission they do reserve the right to freedom of expression on the Court’s logic that a corporation constitutes an “association of citizens”. In regards to the ability to promote ideas with funding from a corporation the Court ruled that corporations do in fact assume “personhood”. Whether this also means that such a thing as corporate religion is protected is unclear. However, it seems likely that the 5-4 majority in Citizens United will find similarly for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood.

However, some disagree with that assertion. The Citizens United decision ruled that corporations are afforded similar freedoms of expression as individuals. However, as argued in Slate by UCLA Constitutional Law Professor Adam Winkler, “The owners claim that their personal religious beliefs would be offended if they have to provide certain forms of birth control coverage to employees. Yet Hobby Lobby’s owners aren’t required by the law to do anything... If Hobby Lobby fails to provide the required insurance, the company, not the owners, is responsible.”

That line of reasoning dives deep into semantics, but so does the idea of corporate personhood. This leaves a foggy solution as to how far corporate protections extend.

In both cases the government makes the same main assertions: for-profit businesses do not “exercise” religion to any extent, in regards to the Constitution or RFRA. The government claims the contraception mandate in the ACA is applicable only to the corporations and not to the owners, and that corporate law distinctly treats the owners separately from the corporation.

The New York Times released an editorial on Saturday that stated, “The real threat to religious liberty comes from the owners trying to impose their religious beliefs on thousands of employees.” The piece argues, “prayer and other religious behavior...is a quintessentially human activity”.

http://www.reddirtreport.com/red-dirt-news/corporate-religion-hobby-lobby-supreme-court-and-science-behind-emergency

[Tx4obama]

1. Three good videos - one in the OP (w/Sandra Fluke) and two in the comments on the link below...

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017182538

[customerserviceguy]

2. Do corporations have religions?

It would have been much easier to make the case that they didn't fifty years ago. Within that space of time, practically every corporation has paid expensive seminar slicksters to come up with "mission statements" and such drabble.

If we can accept the idea that a "mission statement" embodies ethical and moral values (followed faithfully or not) that the individual employees of that firm may not necessarily subscribe to, but are expected to honor, then we've said that a corporation can have a philisophical outlook that is akin to a religious belief system that it's employees tacitly agree to honor, at least with lip service.