two opinion pieces i ran across highlight some of the problems that come out of this request to extend corporate personhood to include religious expression:
two opinion pieces i ran across highlight some of the problems that come out of this request to extend corporate personhood to include religious expression:
I find it quite interesting how the 2nd columnist highlights “religious beliefs,” as if they are somehow separate, but doesn’t talk about beliefs he (more than likely) agrees with.
I work for a secular company, and we have many rules that govern what I can do ethically regarding the company, and that applies to my time away from the job. I’m restricted from drug use, disparaging the company on social networks, speaking about protected aspects of company business, even taking work that might compete with the lines of work my company is in, and on the job, I’m restricted from activities that would be considered in any way discriminatory, including toward activities Christians would find sinful. This restricts both my behavior and my speech. One assumes that these restrictions are, in fact, in line with what the company’s policies (“beliefs”) are. And yet, I don’t find many of the types of articles above on company policies that restrict employees in this way.
Of course, I’m also free to take a job elsewhere, and that also applies to the employees of Hobby Lobby or Notre Dame, and that would restore my rights to do things not in line with my company’s policies. The truth is, employees of many jobs will have restrictions that apply away from the job. Of course, these can get quite intrusive and ridiculous, but as I understand it, that’s not the case with Hobby Lobby. They don’t require their employees to not use contraceptive methods they find wrong, but they do refuse to pay for it, something that seems entirely reasonable to me, but clearly not to the columnists you cite above.
Discussion
Newextension to corporate personhood problematic
two opinion pieces i ran across highlight some of the problems that come out of this request to extend corporate personhood to include religious expression:
NewCorporate personhood?
I find it quite interesting how the 2nd columnist highlights “religious beliefs,” as if they are somehow separate, but doesn’t talk about beliefs he (more than likely) agrees with.
I work for a secular company, and we have many rules that govern what I can do ethically regarding the company, and that applies to my time away from the job. I’m restricted from drug use, disparaging the company on social networks, speaking about protected aspects of company business, even taking work that might compete with the lines of work my company is in, and on the job, I’m restricted from activities that would be considered in any way discriminatory, including toward activities Christians would find sinful. This restricts both my behavior and my speech. One assumes that these restrictions are, in fact, in line with what the company’s policies (“beliefs”) are. And yet, I don’t find many of the types of articles above on company policies that restrict employees in this way.
Of course, I’m also free to take a job elsewhere, and that also applies to the employees of Hobby Lobby or Notre Dame, and that would restore my rights to do things not in line with my company’s policies. The truth is, employees of many jobs will have restrictions that apply away from the job. Of course, these can get quite intrusive and ridiculous, but as I understand it, that’s not the case with Hobby Lobby. They don’t require their employees to not use contraceptive methods they find wrong, but they do refuse to pay for it, something that seems entirely reasonable to me, but clearly not to the columnists you cite above.
Dave Barnhart