Skip to main content

View Diary: Hobby Lobby: Does RFRA violate the Establishment Clause? (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have no idea (14+ / 0-)

    what you are addressing by saying 'it' was the norm for most of American history.

    And conscience isn't the legal issue here, it is free exercise of religion.

    And again,  pressure from stockholders and consumers to change a corporate policy not mandated by federal law, is a whole different kettle of fish.   If the corporation adopts a policy to 'go green' with more efficient electronics, solar power, etc.,  they are not escaping compliance with a federal law.  If they tried to argue that they could produce organic milk because it was more 'green' without being inspected or meeting health regulations, etc. they would be shown no mercy by the courts.  The answer would be comply or else be shut down.

    •  Where they want to end up (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, Sylv, whl, eru, happymisanthropy

      With the privilege to discriminate against religious or irreligious minorities,  

      Conscience is well known euphemism for the space of religious or irreligious beliefs.

      I have no idea where you're going with this "pressure...not mandated by federal law" business.  I'm simply pointing out that a generally applicable law that strips limited liability from companies that act out of conscience may impact companies that do so in response to progressive pressure.  As it stands now, we've got a pretty sweet deal, laying out rules for employers with 15 or more people on the payroll in dealing with hires, fires, promotions, proselytization in the workplace, accommodation for religious minorities, etc.  The legal balance favors government intervention to promote  secularism in the workplace.  Why throw that away?

      •  Acting "out of conscience" to selectively (7+ / 0-)

        disregard a legal mandate in order to ensure that at least one subset of employees is not able to benefit equally from those laws/regulations/etc. seems rather different than acting "out of conscience" to voluntarily move the company into operating in an environmentally more responsible fashion, above and beyond current environmental regulations.

        In the first example, personal beliefs are thwarting laws, in the latter they are leading the company into a more image-conscious and potentially sustainable business model.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:23:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  the distinction (13+ / 0-)

        is that a corporation can adopt any number of positions for its investments, operations, etc., voluntarily, and act on those policies, voluntarily.  What it can't do is adopt a position contrary to law and claim that obedience to the law will conflict with its conscience.   So substitute conscience for free exercise of religion, and the same basic premise still should apply,  the corporation can't claim conscience as an objection to compliance with the law.  By now, I would think everyone at this blog is aware that a corporation has no conscience.  To the extent it adopts specific policies, its owners are definitely imposing their views or the veiws of their consumers to attract the continued patronage of the business by those consumers.  But it is the claim to be able to take those views a step further into avoiding the law based on belief, the exercise of religion when the corporation has no such beliefs, because it isn't human, any more than a whole punch machine has beliefs,  to avoid the law, is when the whole fiction of personhood should be stopped.  

        I do not see the movement to influence progressive policies, be it environmental or moral investments in other companies or countries that abuse civil rights,  at corporations incorporating the idea that corporations are exempt from the law.  Do you have an example of that?

      •  Where they want to end up (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy, JerryNA

        is the 1800's.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site