Hobby Lobby Case: How Will the Court Decide?

[phkrause]

By Michael Peabody -

On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores (transcript and audio). According to a number of pundits, the Court is expected to split with four justices on each side and the deciding vote is predicted to fall to Anthony Kennedy. Perfectly projecting the Court’s decision is not much easier than predicting a perfect NCAA March Madness bracket, but here are some potential outcomes for the case.

http://religiousliberty.tv/hobby-lobby-case-how-will-the-court-decide.html

[Gregory Matthews]

As said by Jason Hines:

Quote:

Now if Hobby Lobby as a corporation wants to have free exercise rights, I’m actually all for that. If the Hobby Lobby Corporation doesn’t want to use contraception when it has sex, that is well within their rights. What their employees do, however, is none of their business.

Quote:

If Hobby Lobby can remove contraception from employees’ health care, why can’t Jehovah’s Witnesses remove blood transfusions? Why can’t 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.

You can read his comments at: http://religiousliberty.tv/opinion-mandate-debate-hobby-lobbys-religious-freedom-claim-fails.html

The following comments are mine:

1) I remember a case long ago when a denominationally owned publisher claimed a religious exemption to pay females less than males for the same work. The Court disagreed.

2) If the corporate owners have a 1st Amendment protection for their religious beliefs that situation becomes interesting in a large corporation with a million stock holders who hold a hundred thousand different beliefs.

3) Those who wrote the Constitution and the 1st Amendment wanted to protect individuals. They never intended to shield a profit making business from the laws that regulated business activities.

4) People who have religious convictions as to how a business should be run should not engage in a business that violates those principles. E.G. One who has a conviction against alcoholic beverages should not apply to work at a bar that sells such.

[phkrause]

Exactly Gregory. your points very much.

[Jeannieb43]

Quote:

3) Those who wrote the Constitution and the 1st Amendment wanted to protect individuals. They never intended to shield a profit making business from the laws that regulated business activities.

True. But our rightwing Supremes have now changed the intent of the Founders by their decision in the Citizens United case. That decision is having far-reaching consequences.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jeannie, the Citizens United case is complex and its various aspects will probably take some years to flesh out. But, I will comment: From my perspective, the Citizens United case essentially said that a corporation has, as does an individual, have a right to "free speech," and that as a part of that right to free speech, a corporation has a right to make political contribution, as does a person. NOTE: As do people there may be some limitations to the right to make political contributions.

Actually, in general terms this decision is a reasonable one. A corporation should have the right to speak freely about matters that are related to the business interests of that corporation.

E.G. A corporation should have the freedom to speak about issues of corporate taxation, and many other issues, as corporate taxation affects the bottom line of the corporate profits. This should include certain rights to make contributions that support the corporate position it taxes.

Just because there is a specified 1st Amendment right does not mean those same rights are also transferred, in detail to other aspects of the 1st Amendment. IOW, the decision of the Supreme Court to grant free speech right to corporations does snot mean that the corporation has the same rights as an individual for religious freedom.

Hobby Lobby, as a corporation does not have the right to ordain clergy as its Articles of incorporation do not list such as a business activity. It does not have a Constitutional right to perform marriages. Hobby Lobby does not meet the requirements to send clergy into Federal chaplaincies.

Citizens United is a complex issue. But, it is not a problematic as some would make it out to be.

As a privately corporation, (I am making some assumptions as I write here.) it may be held by a dozen family members who may be united in their religious convictions. As a family they have a right to chose the type of business that they own. They have a right to decide not to sell alcoholic beverages in their stores, if they so choose.

But, to give them as a corporation 1st Amendment rights raises substantial issues. If Hobby Lobby were owned by stock holders, all of whom as individuals have probably very different religious beliefs, how would the corporation decide what religious beliefs to support?

For a number or reasons, some of which I have not listed here, I hope that the Supreme Court does not grant the request of Hobby Lobby. I do not consider this case to be a valid issue of 1st Amendment religious liberty.

[Jeannieb43]

Gregory, you and I are on the same page with this issue.

I only hope that the "swing voter" among the nine Supreme Court Justices will see it the same way we do. We can only hope and pray.