A liberal defense of the Hobby Lobby decision

[Quantum Windbag]

I doubt this isn't going to change the minds of anyone, but it is actually thought provoking.

Ideological blind spots: The left on Hobby Lobby

Liberal commentators have been up in arms since the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate violated the religious liberty of corporations owned by committed Christians, applying a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court’s five conservatives were in the majority, with a plaintive dissent from its four liberals.

Another conservative victory in the court’s ongoing culture wars, right?

Not so fast. Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby answered two questions, and each answer channels core liberal principles.

The first question was: Can for-profit corporations invoke religious liberty rights under RFRA? The court answered yes. HBO’s John Oliver nicely expressed the automatic liberal riposte, parodying the idea that corporations are people. It is very funny stuff.

It is not, however, especially thoughtful stuff. The court does not argue that corporations are just like real people. Rather, it argues that people often exercise faith collectively, in organizations. Allowing those organizations to assert religious-liberty rights protects the liberty of the persons acting within them. The obvious example is churches, usually legally organized as nonprofit corporations.

The real issue is not whether corporations of any type can ever claim protection under RFRA — sometimes they can. The issue is whether for-profit corporations can ever have enough of a religious purpose to claim that protection.

To me, as a professor of corporate law, liberal denial of this point sounds very odd. In my world, activists and liberal professors (like me) are constantly asserting that corporations can and should care about more than just shareholder profit. We sing the praises of corporate social responsibility.

Well, Hobby Lobby is a socially responsible corporation, judged by the deep religious beliefs of its owners. The court decisively rejects the notion that the sole purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make money for its shareholders. This fits perfectly with the expansive view of corporate purpose that liberal proponents of social responsibility usually advocate — except, apparently, when talking about this case.

...

What we have in Hobby Lobby is an opinion grounded in corporate social responsibility and respect for diverse points of view. The Supreme Court’s five conservatives have delivered a profoundly liberal opinion. Too bad so many liberals don’t seem to realize it.

Ideological blind spots: The left on Hobby Lobby | Star Tribune

 

[NYcarbineer]

"a plaintive dissent from its four liberals."

The comic arrogance of crowing about a one vote victory.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the problem.

Not one woman on the court went along with this insanity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The argument is absurd. The argument is effectively claiming that any action a corporation wishes to designate as 'social responsibility' should be exempt from the laws of the land that might be contrary to that designation.

That notion is of course appealing to the anarchist author of this thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"a plaintive dissent from its four liberals."

The comic arrogance of crowing about a one vote victory.

He wasn't crowing about anything, he was explaining, with actual logic and historical references, why you are wrong for putting on blinders regarding the Hobby Lobby decision.

But thanks for dismissing him as a partisan hack, even though he is profoundly liberal in hos approach to the decision. It helped to make his point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's the problem.

Not one woman on the court went along with this insanity.

Here is the problem you are a fucking sexist asshole.

Explain to me, in detail, using actual logic, why the gender of the judges matter. After you do that, feel free to explain why we should uphold Roe v Wade, since not one woman was in on that decision either.

I find it very interesting that the first two post in my thread were made by hacks who can't even bother to consider the possibility that they are wrong, even when presented with a liberal who actually thinks that the RFRA is a defense of everything liberals claim to stand for. Is it remotely possible that neither of you are actually not liberals?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The argument is absurd. The argument is effectively claiming that any action a corporation wishes to designate as 'social responsibility' should be exempt from the laws of the land that might be contrary to that designation.

That notion is of course appealing to the anarchist author of this thread.

Really?

Feel free to point out where he said that, because I actually read the entire thing, and all he said was that corporations care actuially capable of being csocially resonsible, which is something liberals have been advocating for years, and that, if the idiots with ideological blind spots actually got their way, that it would be illegal for coroprtations tto do that.

In other words, if you want a corporation to be able to contribute to LGBT awareness, and actually promote gay rights by hiring people who are openly gay, and even firing people who are bigoted assholes, you have to put up with corporations that exercise their social responsibility in ways you disagree with. That, in and of itself, is the heart of being a liberal, being tolerant of different viewpoints.

Feel free to show me how intolerant and bigoted you are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The argument is absurd. The argument is effectively claiming that any action a corporation wishes to designate as 'social responsibility' should be exempt from the laws of the land that might be contrary to that designation.

That notion is of course appealing to the anarchist author of this thread.

Really?

Feel free to point out where he said that, because I actually read the entire thing, and all he said was that corporations care actuially capable of being csocially resonsible, which is something liberals have been advocating for years, and that, if the idiots with ideological blind spots actually got their way, that it would be illegal for coroprtations tto do that.

In other words, if you want a corporation to be able to contribute to LGBT awareness, and actually promote gay rights by hiring people who are openly gay, and even firing people who are bigoted assholes, you have to put up with corporations that exercise their social responsibility in ways you disagree with. That, in and of itself, is the heart of being a liberal, being tolerant of different viewpoints.

Feel free to show me how intolerant and bigoted you are.

Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The argument is absurd. The argument is effectively claiming that any action a corporation wishes to designate as 'social responsibility' should be exempt from the laws of the land that might be contrary to that designation.

That notion is of course appealing to the anarchist author of this thread.

Really?

Feel free to point out where he said that, because I actually read the entire thing, and all he said was that corporations care actuially capable of being csocially resonsible, which is something liberals have been advocating for years, and that, if the idiots with ideological blind spots actually got their way, that it would be illegal for coroprtations tto do that.

In other words, if you want a corporation to be able to contribute to LGBT awareness, and actually promote gay rights by hiring people who are openly gay, and even firing people who are bigoted assholes, you have to put up with corporations that exercise their social responsibility in ways you disagree with. That, in and of itself, is the heart of being a liberal, being tolerant of different viewpoints.

Feel free to show me how intolerant and bigoted you are.

Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance.

At least you admit you are intolerant, we are making progress.