Some of us may have missed it, but President Obama declared yesterday Religious Freedom Day in the United States. Here is an excerpt from the presidential proclamation on the White House’s website:
Today, we also remember that religious liberty is not just an American right; it is a universal human right to be protected here at home and across the globe. This freedom is an essential part of human dignity, and without it our world cannot know lasting peace.
As we observe Religious Freedom Day, let us remember the legacy of faith and independence we have inherited, and let us honor it by forever upholding our right to exercise our beliefs free from prejudice or persecution.
While it is good to know that the U.S. government is doing something to recognize so fundamental a right, it would be better if it could acknowledge the injustice of forcing Hobby Lobby and other businesses to act against their owners’ consciences on pain of crippling fines. Otherwise such a proclamation sounds empty indeed.
January 17th, 2013 | 10:28 am
. . . . acknowledge the injustice of forcing Hobby Lobby and other businesses to act against their owners’ consciences on pain of crippling fines.
I am afraid it is not that simple. The Hobby Lobby question is one of whether a for-profit corporation can practice religion. Elsewhere I attempted to summarize My Business, Myself: Piercing the Corporate Veil, but I will just link to it here.
The whole idea of a for-profit corporation is to distinguish between the corporation and the corporate owners. For example, if a corporation goes bankrupt, the owners don’t lose their own money. To the extent you construe a corporation to be the owners, to that same extent you move away from the corporation being an independent entity.
That’s just one of the issues. Another is that there are no “crippling fines” if Hobby Lobby doesn’t defy the law. They are required to provide contraceptive coverage only if they provide insurance coverage, but they are not required to provide insurance coverage at all. The $2000-per-employee penalty (or tax) for not offering insurance is less than the cost of providing insurance.
January 17th, 2013 | 11:27 am
David, it is true that corporations have a distinct financial purpose, but surely it is unfair for you to loose your, identity as a person with moral responsibilities once you start a corporation, or any business…Despite their financial “personhood” corporations are still made up of and run by real people who have moral responsibilities like anyone else.
January 17th, 2013 | 12:09 pm
Hobby Lobby is a company that is within its spiritual, moral, ethical , legal rights to offer insurance with or without coverage which its leaders find to be within those very guidelines of spirituality, morality,
and ethics.
Shame on any government or self seeking interest group that demands otherwise;
blood has been shed to protect said rights, and how dare any man or woman tread on them.
January 17th, 2013 | 12:17 pm
Talk about tone deaf. People who complain about ‘Hobby Lobby’s oppression’ accomplish nothing but demonstrate just how ignorant they are of the lack of religious freedom in the real world. They do a vast disservice to the many people who are true victims of religious oppression.
January 17th, 2013 | 12:37 pm
This is really an issue with corporate person hood as much as it is a religious freedom issue. The general economic culture in the U.S. has spent decades separating the legal “personhood” of a corporation from the personhood of those people running it.
In this light, it doesn’t surprise me now that there is an argument that the religious interests of the people running a corporation should not be transferred to the corporation itself.
Let me be clear: I do not think that this situation is a good thing. I’m on the Church’s side. However, part of the problem seems to inevitably stem back to the fact that “Corporations are people, my friends.”
January 17th, 2013 | 1:59 pm
David, So, can a for-profit company practice free speech? Should they not be protected by the freedom of speech part of the 1st amendment? (Tell that to all the news corporations out there.) What about the right to peaceably assemble or to petition the government for a redress of grievances? We allow corporations to do that part of the 1st amendment too. Why is the objection only to the “religion part” of the 1st amendment? If corporations are “disqualified” from one part of the first amendment, (freedom of religion) because they are for-profit, then why would they not also be disqualified from the entire amendment, including free speech, asssembly, redress of grievances, etc? Many corporations are privately owned by individuals. Making a profit does not mean we lose our constitutionally guranteed rights. I think that it is clear that is NOT what the Founding Fathers intended.
January 17th, 2013 | 2:32 pm
David, So, can a for-profit company practice free speech?
katie,
Yes, they can, but that was only affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2010. (And there are those who disagree with the decision.) It is just a fact that the question of whether a for-profit corporation has a First Amendment right to freedom of religion is unanswered. Don’t get mad at me! It’s not my fault! Don’t shoot the messenger! I am just pointing out that it is an unanswered legal question. If Hobby Lobby is claiming that, as a corporation, it has a First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the government is claiming a for-profit corporation can’t in any meaningful way exercise religion (and thus corporate freedom of religion makes no sense), that question has to be answered by the courts.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I do not believe corporations have the right to peaceably assemble, because it would be essentially meaningless. Only natural persons (real people) can assemble (that is, gather together in a group). Regarding Fourth Amendment rights, Wikipedia says, “In the case of a constructive search where the records and papers sought are of corporate character, the court held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply, since corporations are not entitled to all the constitutional protections created in order to protect the rights of private individuals.”
It simply can’t be assumed that a corporation, because it is a legal person, has the same rights as natural persons.
January 17th, 2013 | 2:40 pm
Hobby Lobby is a company that is within its spiritual, moral, ethical , legal rights to offer insurance with or without coverage which its leaders find to be within those very guidelines of spirituality, morality, and ethics.
Brad Osborn,
This simply is not the case. For example, do you suppose they have the right to offer maternity care to married women and refuse it to unmarried women? Or may they declare marriage indissoluble and offer to give spousal benefits only in cases of first marriages? May they give insurance coverage only to Christians and not to Jews or atheists? May the refuse to hire non-Christians? The answer to all of those questions is no. We don’t know yet whether they have a right to refuse coverage of contraception (or what they consider abortifacient drugs), but they don’t have some kind of absolute right to act according to their religion or conscience and ignore the law.
January 17th, 2013 | 3:19 pm
To Mr. Nichol,
Mr. Obama has not yet voided the Bill of Rights, sir.
Hobby Lobby is within its rights to not assist in the murder of unborn babies.
January 17th, 2013 | 3:48 pm
Mr. Obama has not yet voided the Bill of Rights, sir.
Brad Osborn,
No, he absolutely has not. But while you are entitled to your opinion about what the Bill of Rights guarantees, the courts make the actual decisions. I guarantee you the Obama administration will abide by any decisions the courts make regarding any and all aspects of Obamacare.
Incidentally, I think Hobby Lobby is incorrect in its belief that emergency contraceptives are “abortifacients,” especially Plan B. That is a scientific question, not a moral one. And if they are wrong on the science, their case for a religious exemption is nonexistent.
January 17th, 2013 | 4:21 pm
Even if Hobby Lobby qualifies as a ‘religious person’ that has nothing to do with the Health Care law.
I’m a person, you’re a person. You give money to the Salvation Army and get a tax donation. I don’t because I belong to the Church of Ayn Rand. I pay more taxes than you because of that. Am I free to practice my religion, which consists of NOT giving to charity? Sure.
Hobby Lobby is perfectly free to not provide health insurance. The fact that the tax code makes such a policy less advantageous hardly qualifies as preventing it from practicing a ‘faith’.
January 18th, 2013 | 2:09 am
@David, I am disagreeing based on principle, not current law as determined by our courts. I am not a constitutional lawyer either, (obviously) but I have owned a corporation. Actually, my husband was the CEO and I was “Secretary” or something. (It was a roofing company) No one else had a position of authority in our corporation. Where do individual rights end and the “corporation” begin? Should I have to give up my religious convictions whenever I want to participate in my business?
I think the problem is that people tend to think of corporations as big businesses like BOA that have shareholders, etc. My husband and I were the only “shareholders” in our corporation. Our corporation was an entity that had OWNERS with rights guaranteed by the constitution. I do not think that owners should be required to give up their rights as individuals, in order to engage in business. We are exercising our individual rights simultaneously while we are engaging in business. An owner of a corporation is a “natural” person that represents a business. I don’t cease to become a person when I am operating my corporation. The government has passed a law that requires Hobby Lobby OWNERS to compromise their religious faith in order to continue to operate their private business. To me, that is a violation of the first amendment. I understand that the courts will make this decision, but I don’t see how they can grant corporations one part of the first amendment (free speech) and not allow another. They may rule that way, but that doesn’t mean its right. Regardless of what the courts say, I think we could agree that the Founding Fathers NEVER intended the federal government to have this much power over the lives of its citizens. This will be the death of religious freedom in this country, if it is allowed to stand. Does anyone seriously think it will end here?
January 18th, 2013 | 2:16 am
Also David, it does not matter what YOU or I think about Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs concerning abortificient drugs. (I do happen to agree with Hobby Lobby) But this is about THEIR beliefs and they don’t lose their rights just because someone (especially the government) disagrees with their religious beliefs. That is why we have the first amendment.
January 18th, 2013 | 11:04 am
Right on Katie.
Our fathers and grandfathers sacrificed to
defeat Nazi Germany, and we stood against the evil of communism, but this honorable history will be voided if we adopt those respective regime’s disregard for religious freedom and wanton disregard for innocent human life.
Our rights come, not from government, especially this administration, but from God
alone. They are not to be trampled on by any administration or court.
January 19th, 2013 | 9:23 am
katie,
Lots of passion but you haven’t answered a very basic question, what religious rights are you being asked to give up by running a small corporation?
January 19th, 2013 | 5:35 pm
Obamacare is a flagrant attempt to restrict our freedom, religious or otherwise, to not be forced to participate in the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies, as well as a flagrant attempt to bridle our economic freedom.
Political freedom is not possible without religious or economic freedom.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact