Should companies be allowed the free exercise of religion?
- middlegroundamerica
- Oct 12, 2015
- 6 min read
Companies like Hobby Lobby are trying to get out of certain ObamaCare provisions by claiming religious excemptions. Should they be allowed to do that?
Jimmy D:
Who gets religious freedom with this bill, People or Corporations? Firstly, and importantly, I am for the free practice of religion. Although, I no longer practice any religion, this issue was a fundamental portion of the foundation of our country. Our founding fathers ensured that separation of church and state were present in our Constitution with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Federal RFRA in 1993 ensured the Federal Government cannot "substantially burden" an individual. So a State re-applying that to their State laws shouldn't even be questioned. Indiana's bill is different because of the broad brush that the law painted of who this applies to (1). This could open up the doors for discrimination. There is simply no way around that. But that isn't my issue. Let Capitalism flush out the bigots who discriminate. My issue is providing this defense to corporations (i.e. Hobby Lobby). Corporations are not people. Allowing Hobby Lobby to escape certain provisions of Obamacare because of their religious persecutions is ridiculous at best. Not everyone in a Corporation follows that religion. Who has the right to religious freedom? People do. If the law were fixed to better define whom an individual is, I wouldn't care as much. That is why the Hobby Lobby decision irks me. Hobby Lobby is a company. A company cannot hide behind freedom of religion. An employee who works for Hobby Lobby may be without a much-needed portion of their health care on the whim of a board of directors who are completely disconnected from our society due to their personal religious convictions. Ronnie R:
Private corporations (and their owners) should be afforded the same protections as citizens. Public corporations should not.
Private corporations that receive zero funding from the public (subsidizing, stocks, bonds, etc) should be protected from undue burdens of the law. In the case of Burwell v Hobby Lobby, the SCOTUS granted a reprieve from the contraception mandate because the company is a ‘closely held company’ (2). The company is privately owned, by private citizens and receives no public funding of any kind, therefore they have the right to opt out of the mandate on religious grounds. This precedent was set in 1886 and has been in place for 129 years (3).
The purpose of this is so that private citizens should not have to abdicate their personally held beliefs in order to conduct business within the United States. If that were the case, many businesses would most likely never have been started as so many great companies were created and driven by the beliefs held by their owners.
Furthermore, Hobby Lobby makes no effort to hide their beliefs. In fact, the company espouses their belief system into their business every day (4). It is factually incorrect to say that an employee’s health insurance will be affected because of a disconnect with the board of directors. The health insurance they offered beforehand was perfectly fine. This only became an ‘issue’ when the federal government decided it was allowed to mandate coverage types regardless of beliefs.
Anyone who works for Hobby Lobby would know that contraception is not covered under their plan. If that was a deal breaker they wouldn’t be working with Hobby Lobby to begin with. Go to Planned Parenthood they’ll give you birth control that I disagree with for free…. Paid for with my tax dollars….. Jimmy D: Firstly, I thought individual beliefs (be it religious, moral, or social) were not universal and cannot be forced on your employees. I.e. Free Practice of religion. Secondly, the contraceptives in question aren't even abortifacients. (5) The idea that the heads of "closely held" companies should be allowed to force their personal beliefs on their employees is absurd. There are some estimates from the IRS that conclude closely held companies comprise 90% of all companies and 52% of employed people (6) in this country. So we should trust all employers to draw the line on who/what should be covered? This isn't about forcing a company to go against their beliefs. It's about ensuring people get basic coverage (most importantly, the low-income, minimum-wage, workers). Ronnie R: Is Hobby Lobby forcing anyone to work there? Are they holding team meetings where they indoctrinate their employees?? The idea that they are forcing their beliefs on their employees is a false premise. The employees CHOOSE to work there and Hobby lobby clearly states what they are about, there are no misperceptions. There was no problem with the health insurance to the 1000's of employees that CHOOSE to work there. Typical government trick, create a problem so they can 'fix' it. I do not buy the premise that contraception falls under 'basic' coverage. That's a bunch of crap, I'm not paying for you to have sex. Again, planned parenthood will give you whatever you want for free or if your feeling extra naughty you can get a 40 pack of condoms at Walmart for 11 bucks. That's 27 cents each! (7) Jimmy D: No Hobby Lobby isn't forcing anyone to work there and it's not a false premise when Hobby Lobby is willing to go to the SCOTUS for a personal religious belief. AND when you live in poverty, you'll work damn near anywhere. AND if you have 23,000 employees (8), you can't expect them all to be God fearing Christians.
We have to agree that not all guys are smart and a lot of them bolt at the sound of "I'm pregnant." So a woman should be able to protect herself from those jackasses. Why not have contraception covered instead of going to a place that a certain politic party is always trying to shut down. Let her go to an actual doctor.
Ronnie R: No I don't expect them all to be Christians. But again they choose to work there. Most hobby lobby's I know are built in strip malls with a Walmart attached. It is not like Hobby Lobby is the only employer available to people.
And yes most guys are jackasses, so if I'm a woman I'm not letting him come anywhere near me without a condom. Why can't we hold people accountable to their own actions anymore? And regardless of planned parenthood condoms are so cheap...
Jimmy D:
Concession: I will concede that there needs to be personal accountability and you should be careful where you choose to work. And if employers are going to actively fight provisions, they should make it known to their employees. Non-concession: I will not concede that an employer should be able to back out of certain provisions because of their personal religious beliefs/convictions. Proposed Action: A good point you made earlier was the differentiation between closely held companies and those that receive public funding. The first thing is we need to differentiate between the two. The second thing is employees need to have health care plans laid out for them as far as what is supplied by the organization during the application process. Ronnie R: Concession: Publicly traded companies, or companies that receive any type of public funds, subsidies, stocks, bonds etc. cannot be considered a person. They forfeit that right by being public.
Non concession: Privately held companies that receive zero public funding should have the right to reject government mandates that violate their religious beliefs. With the caveat that it be reasonable and have established precedents.
Proposed Action: We limit the rights afforded to public corporations under the law. Any company that receives public funding of any kind, be it subsidies, grants or public sale of stock shall lose the right to object to various laws on grounds of religious freedom. Concurrently, private companies that receive no public funding of any kind should be allowed to object using religious exception. All predicated on there being reasonable discernment and precedent. MIDDLE GROUND: Any private company that receives public funding of any kind cannot invoke the Federal RFRA to withhold health care to their employees. If a company exists solely on private funding from their organization they may use the religious exception objection. All companies must notify any potential employee during the application process or orientation process as to what exactly is covered in their health care plan. References:
1) http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/indianas-rfra-similar-federal-rfra/70729888/
Comments