Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Hobby Lobby, et al vs. Its Employees

Next week, the Supreme Court will take up the next challenge to Obamacare - Hobby Lobby, et al versus the Contraception Mandate. At the center of the their argument lies one dangerous point - do corporations have religious rights? Hobby Lobby, et al argues that the contraception mandate violates their corporate religious conscience. If the Supreme Court were to rule in their favor, it would have wide-ranging consequences.

The right to free exercise of religion, enshrined in the first amendment, was created to ensure that the government or some sort of governmental entity (local, national, state, etc) does not favor or impose on its citizens one religion over another. It is the great equalizer when it comes to free expression of religious values. Corporations do not have the characteristics of an entity that would be able to express religious beliefs. As Davis Gans wrote in the LATimes this week - corporations do not express religious sentiments, no matter what form they come in. Corporations do not pray, they do not show devotion to a higher power and they do not have religious conscience. The major characteristics of a corporation, like limited liability and the going concern (unlimited life) make it characteristically (and legally) separate from the owner. To apply this religious protection to a secular, for-profit corporation would, as David put it, simply make no sense.

Beyond religious rights, the case will also tackle whether or not corporations have the right to impose their beliefs on their employees, and as a result restrict their access to federal programs that conflict with the owner's religious inclinations. Hobby Lobby, as Gans points out, is a large corporation that hires from all faiths, and to deny any employee access to contraceptives if access to such services do not conflict with that employees faith is, in my opinion, a violation of their rights.

If Hobby Lobby, et al. gets a favorable ruling, who would protect employees from being retaliated against for using services that are in conflict with the corporation's "religious conscience?" Could an employee be fired to not complying with religious-based directives from upper management? These questions must be considered when weighing the rights of Hobby Lobby's employees against the religious inclinations of the owners. Moreover, the Supreme Court should not extend religious rights to the corporation.