Can't stress this too often, apparently, since it doesn't seem to take hold:
The alleged burden here is *not *about the expenditure of money; it's about the choices. See http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/02/hobby-lobby-part-viii-hobby-lobbys.html On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Daniel J. Greenwood < daniel.greenw...@hofstra.edu> wrote: > Even if the Greens are shareholders or beneficiaries of a trust that > holds the shares, they aren’t buying anything. The funds used to purchase > the insurance belong either to the corporation or its employees, depending > on whether one is thinking about the moment before or after the employment > contract (assuming that employment is at will, and subject to renegotiation > at any moment, either view is plausible). Similarly, if the corporation > fails to purchase the insurance, the corporation, not the Greens, will be > required to pay an assessment to partially offset the exchange subsidies. > > > > The corporation’s money is not the Greens’ money. Corporate funds do not > belong to shareholders, let alone beneficiaries of a trust that owns shares > (if they are the trust’s beneficiaries). To act otherwise is a gross > violation of ordinary corporate law – basically, theft. Shareholders have > no claim to corporate assets unless the directors properly declare a > dividend or dissolve the firm, and directors may take either of those > actions only in furtherance of the corporation’s interests and after > assuring that other, more senior, claimants to corporate assets (such as > the employees and the IRS) have had their claims met. > > > > Surely Freedom of Religion does not extend to protecting religiously > motivated expropriation. (And if it does, we can expect some interesting > revelations in the near future.) > > > > The issue here is the rights of the corporation, not its directors or > shareholders or beneficiaries of a trust holding shares. The human beings > have too attenuated a claim on the corporation’s assets for their rights to > be at issue when it spends, or is compelled to spend, money. > > > > *From:* Marty Lederman [mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:05 PM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: "Divisiveness" > > > > I agree with Mark's correction that the complaint of the Greens is not > that their employees' use of contraceptive burdens their religion. > > But it's also not that they have to "buy insurance that specifically > covers the drugs." For thing, the law doesn't require HL to offer an > employee health insurance plan at all. For another, the Greens aren't > shareholders, and therefore aren't "buying" anything. Hobby Lobby, Inc. > --as opposed to the Greens-- is contracting for an insurance plan -- but of > course that plan is not made available to their employees gratis; it is a > part of their compensation package, provided in exchange for their labor, > just like wages. > > The nature of the way in which the Greens are alleged to be required to > act in violation of any religious obligations, therefore, is not at all > obvious. > > >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
