For-profit corporations have never had religious rights in America. Of course, every powerful entity seeks more power and less regulation, and so businesses have attempted to evade the law based on religious objections for many years. Each time, the US Supreme Court has held that corporate America must comply with all laws, period.
The Hobby Lobby Case
With the Hobby Lobby case argued today, that may change. Hobby Lobby objects to a portion of the Affordable Care Act (also called Obamacare) that requires large employers like Hobby Lobby, with its 13,000 employees, to provide comprehensive health insurance, including coverage for all FDA approved birth control methods. The conservative Christian owners of the arts and crafts retailer object to the inclusion of the morning after pill, the IUD and a few other other post-fertilization birth control methods as abortifacients.
While this might seem like a minimal request in this one case, a ruling for Hobby Lobby could have huge implications which would allow large companies to opt out of potentially thousands of laws. As a result, the US Justice Department argued before the Court that the government could not operate effectively if religious beliefs could be the basis for corporations’ refusing to comply with general laws, such as child labor laws, immunization laws, civil rights or income tax laws. Should pacifists like Quakers and Mennonites get a pass on paying taxes since some of those funds support combat operations? Should a religious hospital be permitted to bar a same sex spouse from her partner’s room? May a conservative business owner deny spousal health benefits to an interracial couple?
Does Hobby Lobby Have Religious Rights?
The answer has always been no, because while individuals and religious institutions like churches are entitled to religious freedom, corporations are not. But this time, the outcome might be different. The high court may indeed find that a large company like Hobby Lobby has religious rights. What has changed is the Court’s monumental decision in Citizens United, which held in 2010 that corporations are people with free speech rights, striking down campaign finance reforms and allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to gush into political races with little regulation. A ruling for Hobby Lobby may enlarge the scope of that ruling to find that Hobby Lobby is a “person” with the constitutional right to religious liberty.
If it did, corporate “people” would have more rights than female people, who could then be denied comprehensive coverage for birth control.
The court’s decision is expected by June.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Avvo.
6 comments
William Ridgeway
Lisa Bloom is a typical liberal lawyer.
Common sense should tell you that if an American corporation has to abide by American laws, that same corporation should be afforded the protection of the American Constitution.
I don't remember exactly what John Jay wrote but it was something like what I just wrote.
Of course I doubt she even knows who John Jay was.
Justin bertelli
Good point, why should healthcare cover anything outside of work, if you're fat and have a heart attack, no coverage, your boss didn't make you fat. Have diabetes? Pay for it yourself, your boss didn't cause it, Cancer? Pshaw! Suck it up boss man didn't cause it. Health care is a benefit used to entice new employees and maintain the useful labour of current employees. Personally, so long as Capitol is treated as superior to labour, then we are all just slaves anyway, we ask that pet owners spay an neuter all over the place, why shouldn't corporations have to provide the same level of care for their pets?
MikeB
I agree with Bruce, your statement makes you sound like a person trying to use your influence to bash a group you obviously aren't a part of. Also, corporate "people" having more rights than "female" people? Really? If a company head is "forced" to pay for birth control for "female" people that work for them, do the "female" people not have more rights now than the person signing their checks? Simple choice, your employer doesn't want to pay for your birth control, pay out of pocket or find a new job. When did birth control become a health care issue that health insurance companies HAD to pay for it? If a guy stops at 7-11 and picks up condoms, then takes the receipt to his boss, and when his boss says "no", should the man sue? Or better yet, sit in front of a panel and argue why his boss should be responsible for the cost of his activities outside of work.
Bruce
It was a great article for me until you asked about a "conservative who wants to deny health benefits to an inter-racial couple". Nice! You get to slam conservatives as racists and equate a reasonable and debatable issue about freedom of religion, at the same time, to racism.
I don't think you meant to do that, but I see this was a failure of your objectivity. I suspect that you see this as some sort of "war on women" by conservatives... That statement poisoned the rest of the article for me.
Kevin
Please tell me you are not your mother - dui, first one. Convicted in WI, live in VA - going g to ASAP Monday - If I tell them I am a weekend drinker, will that matter or do they want to fry me? Any help much appreciated. Kevin
Kristen Cain
Your post sent a chill down my spine. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but notice that personhood for American corporations is promoted by the same folks who also promote personhood for fertilized eggs. It almost seems as if this were the end game they had in mind.