Do Corporations Have the Right to Inflict Religious Views on Employees?
Posted: July 28, 2012 Filed under: Affordable Care Act, Affordable Care Act (ACA), religious extremists, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights 16 CommentsHere we go again with the christoban and their desire to force us all to conform with their narrow interpretations of human life. Will a court grant a nonreligious corporation the 
right to inflict its religious views on its employees based on the owner’s “freedom of religion”?
The U.S. District Court for Colorado on Friday blocked the Obama administration from requiring an air-conditioning company in Colorado to provide no co-pay contraceptives to its employees, as the Affordable Care Act directs.
It was, as Sam Baker points out, the first time a federal court has ruled against that provision of the health-care law.
It’s not yet, however, exactly a victory for the contraceptive mandate’s opponents: The injunction is specific to that one company, and it holds only until the judge can reach a verdict on the case’s merits. Still, it could mark the start of a long period of litigation involving one of the health-care law’s most polarizing provisions.
Hercules v. Sebelius is a case brought by Hercules Industries, a Colorado-based air-conditioning company. The four siblings who own the business say they oppose contraceptives — such medications are not included in their current health coverage plan — and “seek to run Hercules in a manner that reflects their sincerely-held religious beliefs.”
The health-care law’s required coverage of contraceptives without co-pay is slated to come into effect next week, on Aug. 1. Religious institutions that primarily serve individuals of their own faith got a one-year reprieve. Hercules, as an air-conditioning company, did not fall into that category.
Hercules is challenging the birth control mandate as a First Amendment violation, inhibiting its ability to practice religion freely. The company also argues that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, a law from the 1990s that is meant to afford greater legal protection to religious institutions from federal requirements that “substantially burden” their ability to practice religion.
Obviously, an A/C company is not a church or church-affiliated corporation so it can’t get access to the run-around that the Obama administration set up for catholic-based colleges as an example. But what can of worms would this open? Does providing birth control for a few employees or their wives put a “substantial burden'”on the religious practice of the owners? Also, what other kinds of heinous practices would get protection should this argument pass muster with the courts? Firing an GLBT employee or a woman who doesn’t believe in submitting herself to a husband? How about a Jewish person that doesn’t want to go along with a christmas party?
The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the ruling.
“This is not religious freedom, this is discrimination,” said Sarah Lipton-Lubet, policy counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Real religious liberty gives everyone the right to make their own decisions about their own health, including whether and when to use birth control. It doesn’t give anyone the right to impose their beliefs on others.”
I’m sure these people would be screaming bloody murder to the courts if they were forced to recognize the beliefs and practices of other religions. Suppose I decided I could fire an employee based on them say, eating animal flesh or using an exterminator because it goes against the Buddhist belief of non-harming? My guess is that they scream about being placed under some form of Buddhist Shari’a.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
I hope the courts don’t rule on this in a political manner and just rule on the merits of the case. That said, Bumbles opened a can of worms not taking the Catholic church to task when they came with their own restrictions. And how much of this religious freedom is just sexism by another name? This is a great chance for the women’s organizations to rally and at LEAST make sure that non religious-based companies cannot deny contracepitive services to women….
Hillary 2012
Hi Rock. Good to see you. I think it’s terrible these folks are relying on the argument that their religion compels them to discriminate. This was the same argument used for slavery. The Mormons used it to argue for polygamy and child brides. We can’t appease every religion’s quirks when they are potentially dangerous and harmful to others.
So how do these hyper self righteous right wing nuts feel about Viagra?
Is there any privacy anymore — I mean — do the Insurance companies report back to the businesses and corporations with full access to medical records for creeps like the owners of this AC manufacturing company. Or does the company get a report from the Insurance company — X number of females on birth control?
At least this is showing that the goal is to eliminate access to birth control. They were trying to convince every one it was just abortion for awhile.
Word, Rock. Bush’s freaking EEOC ruled that employers who provide prescription coverage but refuse to provide BC coverage are in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Then Our Hero of the Conscience Clause decides to send a mash note to the Council of Bishops and create this superduper “religious exemption,” never for one second imagining what a can of worms is being opened by creating this giant fissure in settled federal policy? With friends like these.
Scary.
These religious fanatics are always pushing our laws to the limits.
Exactly. This is off topic but I think it is a good article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-obama-loses-the-election-heres-why/2012/07/27/gJQAkjMREX_print.html
I wanted to add, overall I wish I had written it.
You know,you would think all these very personal racist attacks on him would lead him to actually urge Democrats to be Democrats. He’s upping the rhetoric again but I really would like to see more than a series of symbolic votes on both sides. I really think with the hispanic, black and woman gap you would see them take the gloves off, finally! He needs to grown beyond no drama Obama. He’s got real racist attacks this time and they totally discredited the pointing to racism in this country by accusing Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro of being racists. Why do Democrats eat their own?
I agree the racist attacks are very real this time. My answer to Why can’t Democrats be democrats is Democrats lost so badly in the 80’s their answer was the DCCC. My answer kill the blue dogs and go back to FDR.
I knew this is exactly what would happen when Obama granted that religious conscience clause…oh I am pisssssssed off!
It is showing how unreasonable these people are.
I really hate these people…
I Work with metal — mixed media. What we do is texturize or pound the heck out of helpless copper or similar metal to turn it into beautiful jewelry. So when 0bowma gave a pass to the religious wing dings — I really had a nice pile of patterned copper. I was so pissed at him for throwing women under the bus — AGAIN.
WE knew this would happen. Little businesses owned by christofascists will jump on the me-too war on women bandwagon —
But as DAK says — now the pretense that these misogynistic christofascists were only against abortion or were just concerned about the health of women has been exposed. These patriarchal throwbacks to the dark ages want to ban all forms of birth control.
This is war — on women.
Oh, that sounds like a great way to get the frustration out. Wish I still danced Flamenco, then I could stomp my anger out on the floor!