Hullabaloo

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

 
Conservatives will fight for your freedom --- to starve

by digby

I've been wondering where all those conservative alleged protectors of individual rights have been as institutions claimed the Bill of Right for themselves. And I haven't seen many of them standing up for the individual against these claims that an employers' religious liberty trumps the religious liberty of their employees.

A judge did just that this week:

Like the many copycat lawsuits asserting similar legal claims, the plaintiffs in this suit argued that the birth control rules substantially burden their faith by requiring them to pay for employee health benefits which might then in turn be used to pay for birth control. As Judge Jackson’s opinions explains, however, this argument proves too much:

The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [an employer's health] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. . . . [Federal religious freedom law] is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others.

[It] does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own. . . .
[T]he health care plan will offend plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an [] employee (or covered family member) makes an independent decision to use the plan to cover counseling related to or the purchase of contraceptives. Already, [plaintiffs] pay salaries to their employees—money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees.

A key insight in this opinion is that religious plaintiffs can hardly claim they refuse to provide a benefit to their employees that those employees could later use to purchase birth control, because they are already providing those employees with a benefit they can use to purchase birth control — money. An employer cannot assert a religious objection to how their employees choose to use their own benefits or their own money, because religious freedom is not a license to “force one’s religious practices upon others.”

There is a school of thought (and its quite a large one) that says employers pretty much own their employees and if the employees don't like it they can just exercise their freedom to quit. And starve. Especially if there is no safety net.

My suspicion is that the same argument will be made here: if these feminazis want to practice their witchcraft religion and whore themselves without paying the consequences, they've got the freedom to quit their jobs. (I've got their religion liberty for 'em, right here...)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Frankly, I could see some appellate wingnut arguing that now that he's thought about it, an employer does have the right to object to how their employees use their benefits and pay. It's really the natural next step of their civil rights for corporations, religious institutions and wealthy employers movement. They shall overcome.

.

digby 10/02/2012 06:00:00 PM