CAC's David Gans discussed the Hobby Lobby case on the Michael Signiorile Show.
You are here
But the firebrand justice [Scalia], who rejected the religious liberty claims of the workers in Smith, appeared sympathetic on Tuesday to the religious liberty claims of the business owners in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. To consider that contrast, Salon called up attorney David Gans of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, the author of a brief supporting the Obamacare mandate.
As David H. Gans recently noted at Slate, “Not one Fortune 500 company filed a brief in the case. Apart from a few isolated briefs from companies just like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, the U.S. business community offered no support for the claim that secular, for-profit corporations are persons that can exercise religion.”
David Gans, director of the human rights and citizenship programme at the Constitutional Accountability Center, said if the court granted businesses a right to religion, it could set a "dangerous precedent." "The supreme court has never given businesses the right to exercise religion" said Gans, the author of the centre's amicus brief, one of two dozen filed in support of the government. "If it succeeds we will see waves of claims that businesses should be exempt from civil rights protection."
“Hobby Lobby's female employees should not have to leave their rights at the workplace door. They are entitled to receive certain preventive care health benefits under the law and were not hired with the understanding or requirement that they act in accordance with their employer's owners personal religious beliefs,” says Elizabeth Wydra, the Chief Counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive think tank and law firm that filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the ACA in both the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases.
The two cases, however, have implications that go well beyond the so-called "wars" on women or religion. If Hobby Lobby and Conestoga prevail, it would prompt "a fundamental shift in the understanding of the First Amendment," David Gans, the civil rights director for the Constitutional Accountability Center, told CBS News.
The case encompasses some of the most politically divisive themes and issues of the 2012 election -- Obamacare, the left's "war on religion," the right's "war on women," and the notion of corporate personhood. It also has far-reaching implications. If Hobby Lobby and Conestoga prevail, it would prompt "a fundamental shift in the understanding of the First Amendment," David Gans, the civil rights director for the Constitutional Accountability Center, told CBS News.
As CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans said in a statement, “Employees should not have to check their personal liberty and human dignity at the workplace door.”
CAC's Elizabeth Wydra appeared on NBC affiliates across the country to discuss the implications for gay and lesbian Americans were Hobby Lobby to prevail at the Supreme Court.
CAC's Elizabeth Wydra joined Nightly Business Report to discuss the Hobby Lobby case at the Supreme Court, and the lack of institutional corporate support for the company's claim.
"Chief Justice Roberts has often spoken about how important it is for the justices to maintain the legitimacy of the Court--by limiting divisive rulings, moving the law incrementally, and trying to stay above politics," Donnelly goes on. A vote against ObamaCare would mean "a radical departure from well-settled precedent"--the subheadline says it would be Roberts's "most radical decision"
"At stake in this lawsuit is whether corporate chief executives are entitled to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and deny important federal rights to those employees," wrote David H. Gans, director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center in a recent op-ed in The Los Angeles Times.