Can Corporations Impose Their Religious Beliefs On Their Workers?
2013-08-02 0:00

Red Ice Creations

Red Ice Creations: In many western nations, a corporation is recognized as a ípersoní under the law. However, according to Wikipedia: "Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections which would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the [US] Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis.
The question has been arising over whether a corporation can hold religious beliefs?
And can those beliefs be imposed on their workers?

Business Insider examines the issue ...


---
The Supreme Court Will Soon Decide Whether CEOs Can Impose Their Religious Beliefs On Their Workers
Bu Dahlia Lithwick | BusinessInsider

Remember the big dustup last summer over the contraception mandate in President Obamaís health reform initiative? It required companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance, including for contraception, as part of their employeesí health care plans. The constitutional question was whether employers with religious objections to providing coverage for birth control could be forced to do so under the new law.

The Obama administration tweaked the rules a few times to try to accommodate religious employers, first exempting some religious institutionsóchurches and ministries were always exemptóand then allowing companies that self-insure to use a separate insurance plan to pay and provide for the contraception. Still, religious employers objected, and lawsuits were filed, all 60 of them.

A year later, the courts have begun to weigh in, and the answer has slowly begun to emerge: maybe yes, maybe no. It all depends on whether corporationsówhich already enjoy significant free-speech rightsócan also invoke religious freedom rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

Last Friday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contraception mandate, rejecting a challenge from a Pennsylvania-based cabinetmaker who claimed that as a Mennonite he should not be compelled to provide contraceptive coverage to his 950 employees because the mandate violates the companyís rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The owner considers some of the contraception methods at issueóspecifically, the morning-after and week-after pillsóabortifacients.

The appeals court looked carefully to the precedent created by Citizens Unitedóthe 2010 case affording corporations free-speech rights when it came to election-related speechóto determine whether corporations also enjoy constitutionally protected religious freedom. Writing for the two judges in the majority, Judge Robert Cowen found that although there was ďa long history of protecting corporationsí rights to free speech,Ē there was no similar history of protection for the free exercise of religion. ďWe simply cannot understand how a for-profit, secular corporationóapart from its ownersócan exercise religion,Ē he concluded. ďA holding to the contrary Ö would eviscerate the fundamental principle that a corporation is a legally distinct entity from its owners.Ē

Cowan also flagged the absolute novelty of the claims, noting that there was almost no case law suggesting that corporations can hold religious beliefs. ďWe are not aware of any case preceding the commencement of litigation about the Mandate, in which a for-profit, secular corporation was itself found to have free exercise rights.Ē Finally he took pains to distinguish the corporation, Conestoga, from its legal owners. ďSince Conestoga is distinct from the Hahns, the Mandate does not actually require the Hahns to do anything. Ö It is Conestoga that must provide the funds to comply with the Mandateónot the Hahns.Ē

Judge Kent Jordan, dissenting at length in the case, said that for-profit, secular corporations can surely avail themselves of the protections of the religion clauses. ďTo recognize that religious convictions are a matter of individual experience cannot and does not refute the collective character of much religious belief and observance ... Religious opinions and faith are in this respect akin to political opinions and passions, which are held and exercised both individually and collectively.Ē

The 3rd Circuit decision creates a significant split between the appeals courts, because a few short weeks earlier, the Colorado-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., finding by a 5Ė3 margin that corporations can be persons entitled to assert religious rights. Hobby Lobby is a chain of crafts supply stores located in 41 states. The 10th Circuit upheld an injunction blocking the contraception requirement because it offended the company ownersí religious beliefs. The majority in the 3rd Circuit wrote that it "respectfully disagrees" with the 10th Circuit. A split of this nature makes Supreme Court review almost inevitable.

The Supreme Court has long held the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to prohibit governmental regulation of religious beliefs, but a long line of cases holds that not every regulation that inflects upon your religious beliefs is unconstitutional. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act bars the federal government from imposing a "substantial burden" on anyoneís "exercise of religion" unless it is "the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest."

[...]

Read the full article at: businessinsider.com



Why do corporations have the same rights as you?
By Josh Clark | HowStuffWorks

Thereís a term that describes a situation when a court makes something out of nothing: Itís called legal fiction. This jargon refers to the lawís ability to decree that something thatís not necessarily true is true. Itís somewhat like a person in a discussion agreeing to accept an opinion as fact for the sake of argument in order to move the discussion along. Legal fiction helps to move proceedings along.

A sterling example of legal fiction is whatís called corporate personhood. Think about it: A corporation isnít a person. Itís a business, a pool of investorsí money used to conduct transactions and hopefully make a profit. But in order to determine the legality of business proceedings, the legal fiction of treating a corporation as an artificial person was created.

This concept isnít new. In ancient Roman law, a corporation was considered a juristic person: a single, nonhuman entity that legally represented a group of many people [source: Sherman]. The idea makes sense; after all, a corporation is made up of peopleís financial contributions.

But a corporation is more superhuman than human. It can function beyond the natural limits of age that govern humans, and as such can produce dividends for its investors, whose stock certificates can be willed and passed down as part of their estates. A corporation doesnít die with its originator -- it can live indefinitely (so long as itís profitable). Nor does a corporation need the same things that an actual person does. Corporations donít require food or water, and they canít feel pain [source: Hartmann].

≠The laws that govern people take our hum≠an weaknesses into account. For example, our prison system is designed to incarcerate the human body. You canít imprison a corporation, though. So granting human treatment to nonhuman corporations is tricky: Itís like breathing life into a superhuman that canít feel pain and, after setting him free, hoping for the best.

It would make sense that in dealing with corporations, the United States would tread lightly and limit the power that these artificial persons have. This hasnít necessarily been the case, however. In fact, in the United States, corporations have the same protections under the Constitution that humans do.

[...]

Read the full article at: howstuffworks.com



Tune into Red Ice Radio:

Mary Croft - Natural Man vs. Artificial Person, Law, Money & Banking

Mary Croft - Birth, Man, Corporations & Law of the Sea

Adrian Salbuchi - Hour 1 - Argentine Corruption & World Government in South America

Scott Bartle - Hour 1 - Frequently Unanswered Questions of the "Australian Government"

Alex Newman - Hour 2 - The Socialist/Corporatist Hybrid System

Bill Still - Hour 1 - The Money Masters & The Secret of Oz

Dean Clifford - Hour 1 - Arrest, Victory & Natural Law

John Perkins - An Economic Hitman on Predatory Capitalism & Corporate Monopoly

John Harris - The Corporate World of the Mind

Stephan Kinsella - Hour 1 - Against Intellectual Property

Walter Block - Hour 1 - Libertarian Philosophy & Anarcho-capitalism




Related Articles
The Case Against Cronies: Libertarians Must Stand Up to Corporate Greed
Bradley Manning is off limits at SF Gay Pride parade, but corporate sleaze is embraced
Monsanto Protection Act Proves Corporations More Powerful Than US Government
Is your Government... I mean, Corporation listed here?
Taxation, Corporate Welfare and Corporate Crime
Federal Agencies, Corporations, Police Create the Many Faces of Big Brother
Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism


Latest News from our Front Page

Amid Russia tensions, US nuclear bombers to conduct military drills in Sweden
2015-05-28 4:23
The Pentagon is planning to send nuclear bombers to Sweden for a military exercise next month amid growing tensions with Russia over the Ukraine crisis. The warplanes, the B-52 Stratofortress, will participate in a naval exercise on June 13, Swedish general Karl Engelbrektson said. They are set to fly from the United States nonstop and simulate a drop of anti-ship mines near ...
'Netanyahu to US: Give 50% more money, we'll shut up'
2015-05-28 4:55
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is asking the United States to provide Tel Aviv 50 percent more money for weapons and ‚Äúwe‚Äôll shut up‚ÄĚ on Iran nuclear talks, an author and investigative journalist in Philadelphia says. Dave Lindorff made the remarks in a phone interview with Press TV on Wednesday while commenting on a report which says Israel has asked Washington ...
Britain To Outlaw "Hate" and "Extremism"
2015-05-28 1:53
UK home secretary Theresa May : "But what we're talking about is they key values that underline our society and are being undermined by the extremists. Values like democracy, a belief in democracy, a belief in the rule of law. A belief in tolerance ...eh... for other people. Equality and acceptance for other people's faith and religions. One of the great ...
Killer robots will leave humans 'utterly defenceless' warns professor
2015-05-28 1:08
Robots, called LAWS ‚Äď lethal autonomous weapons systems ‚Äď will be able to kill without human intervention. Killer robots which are being developed by the US military ‚Äėwill leave humans utterly defenceless‚Äė, an academic has warned. Two programmes commissioned by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are seeking to create drones which can track and kill targets even when ...
Here's how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill
2015-05-28 1:21
Critics of the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership are unlikely to be silenced by an analysis of the flood of money it took to push the pact over its latest hurdle. A decade in the making, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is reaching its climax and as Congress hotly debates the biggest trade deal in a generation, its backers have turned on the ...
More News »