Posted on 11/28/2013 9:49:22 AM PST by ReligiousLibertyTV
By Jason Hines -
Yesterday the Supreme Court decided to hear two cases regarding the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The interesting aspect of these cases is that the companies involved (Hobby Lobby being the more famous of the two) are for profit companies whose owners are committed Christians who believe that certain forms of contraception covered by the mandate are against their religious beliefs and that they should not be paying to provide them for their customers.
I think now is as good a time as any to point out the hypocrisy in the fact that Hobby Lobby was providing for the contraceptives they now are against and that their only problem really seems to be that the government is now obligating them to do what they were already doing.
Unfortunately the only reason why a case like this is now plausible is because the Supreme Court has opened the door to this type of challenge with their decision in Citizens United. One of the first things that you learn in corporations law is the legal fiction that corporations are people. One of the main reasons why people create corporations is so that they as the owners/shareholders can be isolated from the corporation itself. But if corporations are people or individuals, then it begs the question of whether they have the same rights as the rest of real individuals. What Citizens United did was expand the notion of free speech rights for corporations. So the argument goes - If corporations can have First Amendment free speech rights, why cant they have First Amendment free exercise of religion rights as well?
But it seems to me that the analogies dont really line up. The good folks at Hobby Lobby (and any other for-profit corporation) can make at least a plausible argument that they need free speech rights. After all, things may occur in America where a corporation would need a voice in the political realm. Support for one candidate or another could have a significant effect on the ability of a corporation to conduct its business. But exactly what religious rights could a corporation have that would be akin to what Hobby Lobby is asking for? After all, I as a citizen do not have the free exercise right to burden other peoples healthcare. Im not sure it makes sense to give that right to corporations just because they have employees. Furthermore, while critics of this position would say that employees could just find another job, is this really the type of stratification we want as a society? Does this not amount to a de facto religiously discriminatory hiring practice? I think it comes dangerously close to being exactly that. Now if Hobby Lobby as a corporation wants to have free exercise rights, Im actually all for that. If the Hobby Lobby Corporation doesnt want to use contraception when it has sex, that is well within their rights. What their employees do, however, is none of their business.
The other aspect of this case that makes it a close case is the presence of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which governs activity by the federal government. When the federal government enacts a law, it must make sure that it does not substantially burden the free exercise right of any individual. If the Hobby Lobby Corporation is an individual for the purpose of free exercise rights, then this law would apply to them. We should note though, that the standard in this case is whether there is a substantial burden. It is a fallacy to argue that any religious burden is unjustified. I am willing to concede that Hobby Lobby and there shareholders religious freedom is being burdened. I just dont think that the burden is enough to justify a religious exemption. As Americans United has argued in other cases, one of the main issues here is that the effect on the religious practice of the shareholders is so attenuated. It is primarily attenuated by the fact that the shareholders are protected by the legal fiction of Hobby Lobby as an individual. Second, I think Hobby Lobby is confused as to what they are actually funding. Hobby Lobby is not funding birth control. What they are doing is giving their employees an insurance plan as part of the compensation package for the service their employees provide to the corporation. Those plans include an option for the employee to use birth control. It is then up to the employee to decide whether they will use birth control or not. This seems very similar to me to Hobby Lobby attempting to argue that they will deduct the cost of birth control from their employees' salary so that employees cant buy birth control with the salary they are given. The health insurance does not belong to Hobby Lobby, it belongs to the employees.
In a recent interview, Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet surmised that the Supreme Courts holding in this case, if it rules in Hobby Lobbys favor would be extremely narrow and would not include the avalanche of potential claims for-profit employers could then make. As much as I despise slippery slope arguments and would like to agree with him. I think Professor Tushnet is wrong here. If Hobby Lobby can remove contraception from employees health care, why cant Jehovahs Witnesses remove blood transfusions? Why cant Hobby Lobby remove HIV/AIDS treatment for single/LGBT employees? There are a lot more examples like this and I refer you to this primer from the Center for American Progress. The examples they give are reasonable. I like to think of the unreasonable examples that could be based on race or age. The Court could certainly just say that this only applies to the contraception mandate in future cases, but I dont know what the legal principle would be that the Court would use to distinguish between those future cases and the case we have now.
I want to return to the idea of the attenuated nature of Hobby Lobbys free exercise claim because I think it also shed some light on why I think theyre wrong not only legally, but biblically. Im not here to argue with them about whether the Bible outlaws the use of contraception or abortifacients. (I put abortifacients in quotes because I dont think what they are calling abortifacients actually are such.) We can agree to disagree on that point. However, Hobby Lobby seriously misunderstands what exactly theyre doing here. Once again, they are not providing contraception. They are providing an option to have contraception, which the employee will then decide to either use or not use. At best they are providing an option to commit sin, not actually committing the sin themselves, or even co-signing on the decisions their employees will make. I seem to recall someone else who provides an option to sin without condoning it. Thats right Jesus does! He provided all of with life, even though he knew we were all born in sin and shaped in iniquity (Ps. 51:5) He provides me with the means financially to survive although I will often use that money on things He does not want me to have, and in ways that He would not approve. How great it is to have a loving God who gives me the freedom to make my own decisions and gives me the tools to make the right ones instead of a God who tries to coerce me into His righteousness by burdening my decisions any way He can. Now if we can just get His followers to do the same .
###
Jason Hines, an attorney, is completing his PhD in church-state studies at Baylor University.
Lol, yeah!
Breaking news with a tag of “urgenty need show yoo!” to guarantee widest reading audience!
If part of the 1st Amendment applies to corporations, then all of it does. (Thanks to that article’s author for reminding us of just that!) Why there can’t be religious corporations if there can be freely talkative corporations, is an Alice In Wonderland kind of argument. And they could be religious for the same reasons... they may wish to appeal to a religious clientele. I hope Scalia and Thomas slam dunk this so hard as a team that the rest don’t even try to monkey around with this right.
I run a sole proprietorship. I've never incorporated because if anything happens to me, there's no one to back me up. If I had employees, I'd incorporate, just to make sure that someone had the legal authority to clean things up if something happened to me. (Of course there are other advantages to incorporation, but to me that's an important one.)
Now that`s some tasty lookin` elf.
I guess the Zot was mandated by the man himself...on orders from God.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
Dang it Darkwing, you're 'spose to inform me before the Zot :-)
Darnit; missed another one. The AMs are quick on the trigger.
Sheesh, me too, gotta put this beer down and hit the sack :-)
>> If the Hobby Lobby Corporation doesnt want to use contraception when it has sex...
Isn’t that cute...
>> Once again, they are not providing contraception. They are providing an option to have contraception
No, fool. The manufacturers of contraception are providing the option.
And who are we to stand athwart Providence?
May He bless this smoldering husk of which we partake...
So does that mean no liberal would object to a health plan that provides an “option” to euthanize unwanted black or Jewish children up to age 12?
He can also justify giving a nuclear bomb to Al Queda since it’s their “option” if they choose to detonate it. And his hands under his version of Christianity would be clean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.