The incredible Arizona legislation which fostered claims gay people could be denied service or products by appropriately religious propreitors and vendors was, thankfully, vetoed. I reviewed that proposed law and, frankly, it was so poorly-drafted that I was inclined to infer that those involved in its preparation were semi-literate at best. Just what it meant and how it would be interpreted would be anyone’s guess as far as I’m concerned, but I have no doubt it could be construed to sanction objectionable conduct.
I’m more concerned, though, by the extraordinary legal claims being made in connection with Hobby Lobby, apparently to the effect that it, as a legal entity of person, has religious rights under the Constitution which would make it exempt from portions of the Affordable Care Act. The majority owner of the corporation has been quoted as maintaining that he is not its owner–God is. God as shareholder is a novel approach to the Deity, it must be admitted. But if God has all the legal rights of a corporate owner, one would think God would also have the legal obligations of a corporate owner; one can’t have one without the other, as one couldn’t be an owner under the law in that case. So the curious Mr. Green may want to rethink his position in that respect.
I can only hope–pray?–that the Supremes will find a way to avoid according religious rights and liberties to corporations or similar entities. Would they thereby become religious entities? If they are religious entities, would they be tax-exempt? Would they have the right to impose certain restrictions and requirements on their employees because they are religious? Would it be the case that corporations which are religious persons in a manner many here in the U.S. would find objectionable (Islamic corporations) be entitled to exemptions which would likewise be considered objectionable? Would the reilgious beliefs of corporations impact other federal laws, such as those related to wages and hours, discrimination?
For a lawyer, these are only some of the interesting questions raised, and perhaps some of us are even enthralled by the thought of the litigation which would result from a decision in favor of corporations having legal rights. I hope, though, that even this conservative court will balk at this fantastic claim.
From my reading of Supreme Court decisions historically, I’ve been extremely impressed by the rationality, ethics and fairness of the justices, no matter the party of the adminstration which appointed them. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for the present court. I can only hope that when some of those ideologues pass, we get justices who actually decide on the law rather than on their biases. We may be faced with re-examination and reversal of a fair number of their decisions, even though courts are reluctant to do that.
Occam
If you don’t already subscribe to the freedom from religion podcast you may want to take a listen to the latest one. FFRF filed and Amicus Brief in this case and the lawyer representing FFRF discussed this in the podcast. I thought it was pretty interesting
I read a good article where it sounds like SCOTUS is raising some valid points that I had not considered: what about the businesses owner who objects blood transfusions, may he deny this coverage to an employee in need of a transfusion? May a business owner who disagrees with childhood vacinations prevent a mother from getting her newborn vaccinated because the insurance does not cover it? Also, certain immunoglobulin injections contain animal serum (such as horse serum), so could a business owner object to insurance paying for this as well? Organ donations are also something else that could be denied. Before we know it, there could be a huge list of what one could cover vs. deny and it is more far reaching than contraceptives. We again will have a piecemeal situation.
Ohh…thought of a few more:
What if an unwed mother seeks prenatal care, could her employer who disagrees with premarital sex refuse to offer a health plan that offers medical treatment to mother and fetus?
Also, there is the existing Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which is more of a human resources topic that states parents who adopt are permitted use of leave under FMLA. Could a gay couple who decides to adopt and utilize FMLA be denied because the owner of the business does not want a gay employee to adopt…or an unwed heterosexual couple to adopt?
There could easily be a “carve-out” exemption for anything if business owners area permitted to dictate what their employees may and may not do.
A case I just heard about was that the court turned down a proposal by an Indian tribe that they be allowed to use a drug (probably peyote) that was required by their religion. This may be another basis for shutting down the Hobby Lobby challenge.
Occam
I read a good article where it sounds like SCOTUS is raising some valid points that I had not considered: what about the businesses owner who objects blood transfusions, may he deny this coverage to an employee in need of a transfusion? May a business owner who disagrees with childhood vacinations prevent a mother from getting her newborn vaccinated because the insurance does not cover it? Also, certain immunoglobulin injections contain animal serum (such as horse serum), so could a business owner object to insurance paying for this as well? Organ donations are also something else that could be denied. Before we know it, there could be a huge list of what one could cover vs. deny and it is more far reaching than contraceptives. We again will have a piecemeal situation. Ohh..thought of a few more: What if an unwed mother seeks prenatal care, could her employer who disagrees with premarital sex refuse to offer a health plan that offers medical treatment to mother and fetus? Also, there is the existing Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which is more of a human resources topic that states parents who adopt are permitted use of leave under FMLA. Could a gay couple who decides to adopt and utilize FMLA be denied because the owner of the business does not want a gay employee to adopt...or an unwed heterosexual couple to adopt? There could easily be a "carve-out" exemption for anything if business owners area permitted to dictate what their employees may and may not do.One more point. What happens if a Christian Scientist owns the business; would they be exempt from providing health care at all?
All good points. You would think that any rational human being would see the problems here and also the Hipocracy of a company using its corporate status to claim the owners and the corporation are separate entities to protect its owners from liability and then turning around and trying to claim that the corporation is an extension of the owners religious beliefs, but then again Scalia is on the court.
This could all be taken even further. The company pays its employees. Could it then define what things the employee can purchase with their wages? Could it issue vouchers instead of cash and only allow them to be used at the company store and pharmacy that refuses to carry birth control items or magazines and newspapers that dont fit the company belief system. There seems to be no end to how far this can be taken.
This could all be taken even further. The company pays its employees. Could it then define what things the employee can purchase with their wages? Could it issue vouchers instead of cash and only allow them to be used at the company store and pharmacy that refuses to carry birth control items or magazines and newspapers that dont fit the company belief system. There seems to be no end to how far this can be taken.When the healthcare reform discussion first started to heat up a couple of years ago, I asked the same question (about a company dictating how a paycheck is spent). Ultimately, I think this company needs to step off of the moral high horse and realize that employee benefits, once dispensed, belong to the employee, just as the paycheck is put in the hands of the employee for utilization, so does the healthcare benefit. Hobby Lobby is not in my state, but if they're such a big corporation, I am surprised employees aren't taking a stand against this.
If the Supreme Court, in its lack of wisdom, goes so far as to rule that employers don’t have to include certain health care products and services in their health care benefits, the Affordable Care Act could be rewritten to provide these things free to any employee who requests it and whose employer does not provide it in the company health care plan. They would be able to do this without the knowledge or involvement of the employer.
Does anyone think this would not work?
Lois
Sure, but I think the employer should pay a surcharge to cover the costs to the government. Wait a minute, that’s getting the employer to pay for it anyway, although indirectly, right? :lol:
Really, why should the rest of us subsidize those religious fruitcakes?
Occam
If the Supreme Court, in its lack of wisdom, goes so far as to rule that employers don't have to include certain health care products and services in their health care benefits, the Affordable Care Act could be rewritten to provide these things free to any employee who requests it and whose employer does not provide it in the company health care plan. They would be able to do this without the knowledge or involvement of the employer. Does anyone think this would not work? LoisThat depends. Who's going to pay for that? If the public has to then pick up the cost of those free services lots of companies might claim exemptions to save money and dump the cost on the rest of us and it rewards companies for being discriminatory.
. The company pays its employees. Could it then define what things the employee can purchase with their wages? Could it issue vouchers instead of cash and only allow them to be used at the company store and pharmacy that refuses to carry birth control items or magazines and newspapers that dont fit the company belief system. There seems to be no end to how far this can be taken.Yes, they need to issue vouchers that define exactly what their employees can purchase because if they give them cash with no accounting of how it is spent, you will have employees who might buy condoms or something else they do not like and that will give the appearance that the company lends tacit approval. :)
Sure, but I think the employer should pay a surcharge to cover the costs to the government. Wait a minute, that's getting the employer to pay for it anyway, although indirectly, right? :lol: Really, why should the rest of us subsidize those religious fruitcakes? OccamWe shouldn't with a rational government, but we don't have a rational government. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the exemptions what do you think the legislature should do? Allow people to be deprived of full health care because of an emplyer's religious beliefs? Lois
Funny that Hobby Lobby et al have no problem subsidizing vasectomies, Viagra, Cialis etc. And they were paying for birth control without complaint before the mandate became law.
Funny that Hobby Lobby et al have no problem subsidizing vasectomies, Viagra, Cialis etc. And they were paying for birth control without complaint before the mandate became law.I hadn't thought of that, but you are correct. we haven't heard any information saying that the complain includes those things. It certainly shows that they are discriminating based on gender. I don't understand enough law to know if it wold make sense for the governement to bring that up in their arguments or if it would distract from the main argument by doing so.
Funny that Hobby Lobby et al have no problem subsidizing vasectomies, Viagra, Cialis etc. And they were paying for birth control without complaint before the mandate became law.I hadn't thought of that, but you are correct. we haven't heard any information saying that the complain includes those things. It certainly shows that they are discriminating based on gender. I don't understand enough law to know if it wold make sense for the governement to bring that up in their arguments or if it would distract from the main argument by doing so. They did bring up blood transfusions and vaccinations, so I'd say they are showing some restraint. Good point asanta.
Actually all this may show the advantages of a European style government run health insurance system.
Actually all this may show the advantages of a European style government run health insurance system.Which is what we should have, and would have if it weren't for the idiot Republicans who voted against everything they could in the ACA and have been trying mightily to dismantle it since it was passed. Lois
If anyone is curious regarding how the law can be construed to provide that for profit corporations have rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause (the applicable federal statutory law), given the very broad definition of “person” also appearing in the U.S. Code for use when the word “person” is not specifically defined in the law, you may wade your way through the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which you’ll find at:
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Hobby_Lobby_Stores_Inc_v_Sebelius_723_F3d_1114_10th_Cir_2013_Cour
There is reason for concern given the language of the laws in question, although I would maintain that they were not intended to apply in these circumstances.
If this kind of “religious freedom” is given protection by law, it follows that at some point, the court will be clogged with cases that seek to denote which religion’s beliefs will be given priority over those of other religions. There will need to be a legally backed religious pecking order. In other words, this will lead to the state giving preference to some religions over others. Very unconstitutional! The Supremes have a difficult path if it allows Hobby Lobby its religious exemption. Even if it does not pass, the dissenters will have to wright one hell of a legally elastic dissenting view. The court stands to loose even more credibility than it lost with the Citizens United case.