Religion
Related: About this forumAll Corporations Go to Heaven
The Supreme Court will soon decide if CEOs can impose their religious convictions on the people who work for them.
By Dahlia Lithwick|Posted Thursday, Aug. 1, 2013, at 2:32 PM
Remember the big dustup last summer over the contraception mandate in President Obamas health reform initiative? It required companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance, including for contraception, as part of their employees 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 institutionschurches and ministries were always exemptand 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 corporationswhich already enjoy significant free-speech rightscan 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 companys 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 issuespecifically, the morning-after and week-after pillsabortifacients.
The appeals court looked carefully to the precedent created by Citizens Unitedthe 2010 case affording corporations free-speech rights when it came to election-related speechto 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 a long history of protecting corporations rights to free speech, there was no similar history of protection for the free exercise of religion. We simply cannot understand how a for-profit, secular corporationapart from its ownerscan exercise religion, he concluded. A holding to the contrary
would eviscerate the fundamental principle that a corporation is a legally distinct entity from its owners.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/do_corporations_have_religious_beliefs_the_supreme_court_will_need_to_decide.html
The 96 page decision:
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/131144p.pdf