Hobby Lobby, the Divine Right of Sperm, and Religion v. Religion (Hobby Lobby 02)

If I understand it correctly, some human persons hold a religious belief that they must never do anything, directly or indirectly, that could interfere with any sperm's ability to produce a human being.  Let's call that a belief in the Divine Right of Sperm*.

This belief is apparently the one held by the human persons doing business as Hobby Lobby. I mention human persons because the Supreme Court has not yet stated that corporate persons have the ability to hold religious beliefs, or, in the language of the First Amendment, to exercise any religion.  But after Citizens United, maybe they will do that soon.


Some of Hobby Lobby's employees might have a religious belief that they should not harm other human beings.  Consider, then, a mother of five whose spouse is too ill to have a paying job.  Or a childless husband and wife who are the sole support of their parents and siblings. These people might, as a matter of their religious beliefs, use contraception so as not to jeopardize the lives of those dependent on them.  Now we have religion v. religion.  What in the Constitution says that the employer's religion wins?

Maybe employers who believe in the Divine Right of Sperm should be allowed to refuse to hire women at all.  Otherwise, the employers would be complicit in violating some sperms' rights from time to time.  Or should these employers be free to make sure that any female jobseeker is menopausal, celibate or gay?  And what about married women who swear they rely on the rhythm method?  God made women fertile at certain times of the month.  The divine right of sperm is in conflict with the rhythm method.

Can these employers also refuse to hire men who have had a vasectomy?  Can it refuse to hire men who will not promise to sign an oath never to use condoms?

But wait, you say.  Hobby Lobby does not care how the employees spend their wages.  Hobby Lobby objects that the Affordable Health Care forces the business to pay for contraception using the business's MONEY, thus leaving less money for the human owners with the religious beliefs.   Well, I guess that means Hobby Lobby accepts some limits to both the Divine Right of Sperm and to the human owners' willingness to "follow the money" to protect that right.

I admit that government forces businesses to use money in ways that might violate the human owners' religious beliefs besides the one about contraception. That is because it is a government of ALL the people.  For example, a business violates the law if it discriminates on the basis of religion. That means it must occasionally use its MONEY to pay wages to employees whose religious beliefs differ from those of the business's owners.  Does the First Amendment religion's clause trump all nondiscrimination laws?  Not so far.


I say the "religion clause" to remind myself of the words of the First Amendment."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."  That is not the same as "Congress shall guarantee every human person total freedom regarding religion."  The Constitution does not permit one human being's religious beliefs to trump another's and it does not permit one human being's religious beliefs to trump other rights that other human beings have under our laws.

***

* The Divine Right of Sperm:  I find only one hit for this phrase today:  here.  It concerns gender discrimination: the sole right of bearers of a Y chromosome to be bureaucrats in Europe.  I am talking about the right of the little wiggly things themselves, not of the human being carrying them around.

typo corr/minor rev 1/10/14 rjm

Employers' Religious Beliefs - What about Death to Infidels? (Hobby Lobby 01)

The Hobby Lobby case presents an interesting question.  Suppose an employer's religion declares death to infidels.  Can the employer refuse to pay for ALL medical insurance for non-believers?  After all, if those workers become hurt or ill yet still refuse to embrace the employer's religion, letting them die is what the religion dictates.

Citizens United and Hobby Lobby (Con Law - Nov 2013)

(Today I wanted to write about Hobby Lobby, see next posts, but realized that I should first post what I have been saying about Citizens United ever since that case was decided.  I had written briefly at the time of the oral argument, but not since.)

Unlike natural persons (that is, human beings), corporate persons can neither vote in elections nor go to jail.  Corporate persons also lack vocal chords and body parts that can hold pens, tap keyboards or touch touchscreens.  But because 'money talks,' corporations can speak.  Moneytalk has been granted First Amendment protection for a long time.  What was new about Citizens United?

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court granted corporate persons the right to speak
   - about elections,
   - where the penalty for violating the law is going to jail.
Weird, eh?

Citizens United also ensured that the human persons hiding behind that corporate veil of a corporate person have the right to speak anonymously.  That is a right not actually conferred by the First Amendment.  It seems doubtful that the Founders intended it.  After all, the classic example of free speech is Hyde Park Corner.  As far as I know, the right to stand on a soapbox never included the right to put a bag over your head and disguise your voice.  In the late18th century, what were the chances that nobody would recognize you when you spoke out in the town square -- and that you'd actually want to remain anonymous?  Not so good, I would guess, and becoming worse with each successive rant.

Also:  anonymous speakers who could maintain that anonymity would not need the First Amendment to keep the government from throwing them in jail or beheading them as long as they could run fast.

***

If we are going to talk about the First Amendment, we should look at the words. FYI regarding Hobby Lobby: The phrase 'freedom of religion' does not appear.

1.  Block Format:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2.  Reformatted for ease of reading, to show what ideas are parallel and to see the overall structure of the sentence.  There are three verbs (-ing words). The first two concern religion:  respecting and prohibiting.  The third -- abridging -- concerns two freedoms -- speech and press -- and two rights -- to assemble and to petition.

Congress shall make no law
     - respecting an establishment of religion,
or
     - prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or
     - abridging
        -- the freedom
             --- of speech,
             or
             --- of the press;
        or
        -- the right of the people
             --- peaceably to assemble,
             and
             --- to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

typos corr 1/10/14