Corporations and Religion

On Friday, the Philadelphia-based US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that “for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise….”

The case centered on a complaint concerning the HHS/Obamacare contraceptives mandate brought by Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp,

a manufacturer of wood cabinets based in East Earl, PA, and its owners…Mennonite Christians [who] say the requirement violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which guards against laws that substantially burden that right.

The majority held that

while there is a history of the courts protecting the rights of for-profit companies to engage in speech, the same can’t be said for religious rights.

“Even if we were to disregard the lack of historical recognition of the right, we simply cannot understand how a for-profit, secular corporation—apart from its owners—can exercise religion[.]”

Judge Kent A Jordan dissented, noting that Supreme Court decisions, in fact, have recognized corporations’ right of free exercise of religion.  Further,

The government takes us down a rabbit hole where religious rights are determined by the tax code, with non-profit corporations able to express religious sentiments while for-profit corporations and their owners are told that business is business and faith is irrelevant.

It is the profitmaking character of the corporation, not the corporate form itself, that the Majority treats as decisively disqualifying Conestoga from seeking the protections of the First Amendment or RFRA.  That argument treats the line between profit-motivated and non-profit entities as much brighter than it actually is, since for-profit corporations pursue non-profit goals on a regular basis.

[I]t said that…any harm to the Hahns’ religious liberty is “too attenuated to be substantial” because it is Conestoga, not they, that must face the Mandate.

Charles Proctor, who was among those representing Conestoga, asked an important question:

How do you parse separate those three sentences in the First Amendment?  They are only separated by a semicolon. In my opinion, you can’t.

The answer is plain: in fact, they aren’t three sentences; they’re one sentence, and the clauses are “not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon[.]”

Moreover, too many on the Third Circuit plainly do not understand the concepts of ownership or property.  Companies are nothing more than agents of their owners.  Religious rights—and free speech rights and any other rights—denied men’s agents are rights denied the agents’ owners by constricting those owners’ capacity to act through their agents.

It’s also clear, on a point not raised in the WSJ Law Blog article, that the contraceptive mandate also violates the Establishment Clause by placing the government’s determination of appropriate religious behavior above the agent company’s—or individual’s.

The full appellate opinion can be seen here.

Education the Obama Way

In President Barack Obama’s shiny object speech at the University of Central Missouri last week, he talked some about our education system, the obstructiveness of Evil Republicans in not letting Obama have his way on education-related matters, and the politics of the matter.  He also said this:

Our kids don’t care about politics.

Isn’t that a terrible indictment of the Obama Education System?

Bunny Huggers

…or seal huggers.

Mark Hodgdon was scuba diving around 1:30 pm when he found a stranded baby seal covered in bite marks.

“As I got a little [bit] closer, he just swam closer to me and jumped right up on my shoulder,” said Hodgdon.

…implying that the baby seal’s distress might have been more exhaustion than serious injury.

However.

After Hodgdon and his fiancé (who was with him during this) got the seal to shore and called the New England Aquarium for assistance, when the Aquarium’s volunteer arrived, he refused to lift a finger to help the seal.

In fairness to the Aquarium, this is driven by our bunny hugger laws that make it a crime even to touch baby seals.

Touching the seal was a violation of the Federal Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the couple could face a $5,000 fine.  Aquarium officials say even though their intentions were good, if you see a seal you should not approach it.

No, instead,

Anyone who thinks a seal is in distress is asked to call the US Coast Guard or emergency officials and stay nearby so it can be found.

This, on the heels of the Kennedy brothers’ rescue of a leatherback turtle that was tangled in a buoy line.  Rescuing that member of an endangered species was a violation of the Endangered Species Act.

Remember: when the shark comes, and seconds count, the do-nothing authorities will be only hours away.  And expect you to pay the vig if you lift a finger to intervene in the interim.  It’s the law.

Some Thoughts on President Obama’s Remarks on the Zimmerman/Martin Case

I’ll leave aside President Barack Obama’s segue into his hobby horses of gun violence, the role of government in self defense (which is, of necessity, first and foremost a personal matter), and how government should manage how we think about things.  I’ll just comment on his remarks about race and the Zimmerman acquittal.

The following excerpts what I believe to be the relevant parts of his speech [emphasis added] (the full transcript of which can be found here, via The Washington Post).

Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.  And when you think about why, in the African-American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that—that doesn’t go away.

There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store.  That includes me.

And there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars.  That happens to me, at least before I was a senator.  There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.  That happens often.

And you know, I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.  And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration.

We need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys?

…figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African-American men feel that they’re a full part of this society[.]

Is this following, door locking, elevator nervousness, etc occurring at the same rate today that it was 35 years ago, with no improvement?  Locks, mechanically, are a whole lot quieter today than they were 35 years ago, and many (most?) cars today lock their doors as soon as they’re put into gear or start moving the first time; I have to wonder whether lock-clicking even is audible on today’s streets.  Regardless, is this behavior really occurring today unabated?  I’ve not seen any of this in the (very thoroughly integrated) stores, or elevators, or streets—or restaurants or any other public spaces—I frequent; although I certainly did see much of this 35 years ago.  But then, I’m just a pasty white guy….

Obama speaks of the inescapability of a history of 35 years and more ago.  He talks of the inescapability of a history of nearly two generations—and more—ago, as though today’s children still are trapped in the past of their grandfathers.  Yet, what’s also, if not more so, inescapable is that men also can bring to bear the fact of great improvement in relations over these 35 years.  It’s also inescapable that blacks can—and do—recognize that not every ruling—legal, economic, or otherwise—that goes against a black man or in favor of a white or Hispanic man must, perforce, have been a racial ruling and not an honest one.  For Obama to suggest otherwise is to demean the intelligence and maturity of the “black community.”  Indeed, adding to frustration levels on this matter is his, and his liberal confreres’, insistence on wallowing in that history (which roughly coincides with the last time Obama actually was in the world before entering the cloisters of legal academe and politics) as though it were the present, rather than moving forward.

No, the history of blacks and of black treatment is not the present.  Certainly there remains racism—but today is radically different from the general history of 35 years ago that Obama insinuates remains the present.  Yes, he did pay lip service to change with his stock phrases concerning progress made; he offered them as an afterthought at the end of his remarks.

Regardless of any of the foregoing, though, is the appropriate response to following, to door-locking, to nervous purse-clutching to attack the one behaving inappropriately, to “ground and pound” that one?  Is Obama suggesting that 35 years ago—or today—he could have been the one assaulting a man whose behavior offended him?

Then Obama asked that we think about how to bolster and reinforce African-American boys.  How about, instead, thinking about how to bolster and reinforce American boys?  And American girls?  (This, though, is not done by government involvement with our children, rather by government working to protect the economic and moral environment so as to let local communities bolster and reinforce families.)

Along these lines, on the subject of his last question quoted above: one way—the best way—to help “African-American men” feel they’re a full part of “this society” would be to stop holding them separate from society and to stop singling them out for special treatment (vis., “African-American men” instead of American men (who happen to be black), or making exceptions for them because of a history that is increasingly less related to the present, or affirmative action programs).  Let them actually be a full part of society.

Finally, what does our President see when he looks out over the audience at any of his speeches?  A sea of Americans, who happen to have a variety of ethnic heritages?  Or a collection of distinct ethnic identities who happen to have American citizenship?

What Was He Thinking?

Attorney General Eric Holder said this at the annual NAACP convention on Tuesday:

There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if—and the “if” is important—no safe retreat is available.   But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat.

Say what!?  What age-old requirement?  Whence this?  Has he never read John Locke?  Does he think Locke wrong?  If so, based on what?

Has he never read US law?  Does he think US law is wrong?  Oh, wait….

What logic of his underlies this outlandish claim?

If we retreat when we have the means to resist, all we do is reward the criminal for his crime.  Our right to our lives and our property create in us no obligation at all to retreat, or to cede them to another solely on the basis that another wants them more than do we.

On the other hand, if “we” have a duty to retreat when threatened, surely “we” includes that threatener: he has a duty to retreat if we threaten him.