Abstract
Recent judicial rulings and changes in federal and state legislation have given for-profit corporations a growing list of rights and constitutional protections, including the right to practice religion free from many types of federal or state restriction. In this paper, we highlight the implications of these developments using Rawls’ (A theory of justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1971) Theory of Justice to explore the consequences of for-profit corporate religious freedom for consumers and employees. We identify preliminary principles to spark a discussion as to how expanding religious freedom for businesses and fair access to goods and services can coexist in the for-profit marketplace.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We use the term “corporate religious practice,” as shorthand for owners of a for-profit firm practicing their religion in the internal (e.g., hiring, employee insurance, promotions) and market-facing (e.g., products and services offered, consumer groups the firm refuses to serve) workings of the firm. We do not take any stand regarding the moral agency of a firm by using the term “corporate religious practice.”
Business philosophers have for several decades hotly debated whether or not firms have the ability to make decisions leaving them responsible for their actions. Much is written on the question of whether or not firms have moral agency. However, given the current legal environment, it is clear that owners of for-profit firms currently have the right to practice a religion both in operations and in interactions with the buying public. Thus, in discussing a “for-profit firm’s rights to practice its religion,” we do not intend to make a statement about moral agency; rather, our intent is to reflect the current state of these rights within the US.
Rawls conceptualization of self-respect is highly tied to the Aristotelian Principle (Moriarty 2009). Later works by Rawls focused more on the social basis of self-respect, rather than the feelings of self-respect (Moriarty 2009). However, Rawls posits the two are related. Additionally, philosophers have made clearer distinctions between self-respect and self-esteem, which are used somewhat interchangeably in Theory of Justice (e.g., Sachs 1981). We will not delve into these distinctions as such as discussion would stray too far from the purpose of our work—to examine the impact of for-profit firm’s owners practicing religion in the open marketplace. Because Rawls hypothesized relationships between one’s internalized self-respect and recognition respect, we have chosen to examine both in our discussion.
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this insight.
In our study of A Theory of Justice and scholarly writings of Rawls’ theory, we did not find any discussion of moral agency concerning society’s institutions (governments, firms, organizations) within the context of a Rawlsian perspective. Business philosophers however, debate whether corporations have the capacity to take responsibility for morally right and wrong decisions. Some readers may question whether for-profit firms are moral agents with the capacity and the moral basis to make religious decisions. Fortunately, there is a large literature focusing on corporate moral agency to help address this concern. We will not, herein, join that debate, given our focus is on evaluating the morality of corporate owners’ religious practice rights, a right currently upheld and in practice in the US.
Patterned after Marriott and CVS, respectively.
Prior to June 1978, men of African descent were forbidden to be ordained as priests of Mormon Church based on Brigham Young’s belief that God cursed some with dark skin as punishment for Cain murdering his brother, Abel. Relatedly, others believed that the ancestors of individuals with dark skin supported Lucifer when he rebelled against God. In June 1978, the Mormon Church rescinded the ban on black males serving as priests (Turner 2012).
Note that these positions are not universally held by practitioners, and we are not claiming that they are even widely held. Yet, current legislation does not require that the religious beliefs be universal or formally part of a religion. Indeed, the RFRA, the basis for Hobby Lobby’s exemption from the ACA birth control mandate, only requires a “sincerely held religious belief,” but not necessarily a mainstream belief nor one based on prevailing scientific consensus.
The authors subscribe to the prevailing scientific view that homosexuality is not a choice. For additional information on the scientific basis of that claim, please see the American Psychological Association web site for a detailed discussion (2018).
A final reminder that not all members of evangelical Protestant churches believe in hell. This belief could be part of many Christian faith communities, but certainly not universally held.
We emphasize that all Americans who identify as evangelical Protestant may not hold the same beliefs as expressed in Hobby Lobby or in the Mississippi RFRA.
Note that Marriott, the largest market share holder in the US has more than 30 branded products (Marriott 2018).
This does not preclude a firm from refusing to serve customers because they are difficult, non-compliant, too time-consuming, or unprofitable. Discrimination is legally permissible for any reason except race, religion, gender, national origin, age, or sexual orientation (in some states). Relying on our analysis of Rawls’ Theory of Justice, we conclude that discrimination based on who a person is, e.g., members of the LGBTQ community, is unjust under all circumstances, even if the class of individual is not expressly protected by law.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2018). Past anti-LGBT religious exemption legislation across the country, June 20. http://www.aclu.org/other/past-anti-lgbt-religious-exemption-legislation-across-country?.
American Psychological Association. (2018). Sexual orientation and gender identity. http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx.
Anderson, R. T., & Girgis, S. (2017). Against the new puritanism: Empowering all, encumbering none. In J. Corvino, R. T. Anderson & S. Girgis (Eds.), (auths.) Debating religious liberty and discrimination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle. (350 B.C.E.). Nicomachean ethics, Greece.
Biery, M. E. (2013). 4 Things you don’t know about private companies. Forbes, May 26. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2013/05/26/4-things-you-dont-know-about-private-companies/#14ff01cb291a.
Blanc, S., & Al-Amoudi, I. (2013). Corporate institutions in a weakened welfare state: A Rawlsian perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(4), 497–525.
Browne, S. P., & LaLumia, S. (2014). The effects of contraception on female poverty. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(Summer), 602–622.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), 573 U.S.___.
Catholic Health Association of the United States. (2018). U.S. Catholic Health Care: The nation’s largest group of not-for-profit health care providers. http://www.chausa.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/cha_2018_miniprofile7aa087f4dff26ff58685ff00005b1bf3.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), 558 U.S. 310.
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), 521 U.S. 507.
Corvino, J. (2017). Religious liberty, not religious privilege. In J. Corvino, R. T. Anderson & S. Girgis (Eds.), Debating religious liberty and discrimination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Corvino, J., Anderson, R. T., & Girgis, S. (2017). Debating religious liberty and discrimination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Darwall, S. L. (1977). Two kinds of respect. Ethics, 88(1), 36–49.
Demuijnck, G. (2009). Non-discrimination in human resources management as a moral obligation. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 83–101.
Desai, S. D., & Kouchaki, M. (2017). Moral symbols: A necklace of garlic against unethical requests. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 7–28.
Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Doom, N. (2009). Applying Rawlsian approaches to resolve ethical issues: Inventory and setting of a research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 127–143.
Doppelt, G. (2009). The place of self-respect in a theory of justice. Inquiry, 52(2), 127–154.
Edgren, J. A. (1995). On the relevance of John Rawls’s theory of justice to welfare economics. Review of Social Economy, 53(3), 332–349.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), 494 U.S. 872.
Epps, G. (2016). The strange career of free exercise. Atlantic Monthly, April 4. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/the-strange-career-of-free-exercise/476712/.
Faiver, C. M., O’Brien, E. M., & Ingersoll, R. E. (2000). Religion, guilt and mental health. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(2), 155–161.
Farber, H. S. (2017). Employment, hours, and earnings consequences of job loss: US evidence from the displaced workers survey. Journal of Labor Economics, 35(1), 235–272.
Fia, M., & Sacconi, L. (2018). Justice and corporate governance: New insights from Rawlsian social contract and Sen’s capabilities approach. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3939-6.
Finch, J. B. (1887). In C. A. McCully (Eds.), The people versus liquor traffic: Speeches of John B. Finch delivered in the prohibition campaigns of the United States and Canada. New York: Funk and Wagnalls.
Finer, L. B., & Zolna, M. R. (2014). Shifts in intended and unintended pregnancies in the United States, 2001–2008. American Journal of Public Health, 104(1), S43–S48.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), 435 U.S. 765.
Fitzgerald, M. P., & Donovan, K. R. (2018). Consumer responses to for-profit firms exercising religious freedom in the marketplace. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 37(1), 39–54.
Florida Star v. B. J. F. (1989), 491 U.S. 524.
Freeman, S. (2007). Rawls. New York: Routledge.
Gans, D. H. (2013). The next big test of corporate personhood. Constitutional Accountability Center, July 30. http://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/the-next-big-test-of-corporate-personhood/.
Gans, D. H., & Kendall, D. T. (2011). A capitalist joker: The strange origins, disturbing past, and uncertain future of corporate personhood in American Law. Constitutional Accountability Center. http://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/A_Capitalist_Joker.pdf.
Goh, J., Pfeffer, J., & Zenios, S. (2015). The relationship between workplace stressors and mortality and health costs in the United States. Management Science, 62(2), 608–628.
Hasnas, J. (2016). Should corporations have the right to vote? A paradox in the theory of corporate moral agency. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 657–670.
Hoy, M. G., & Andrews, J. C. (2004). Adherence of prime-time televised advertising disclosures to the “Clear and Conspicuous” standard: 1990 Versus 2002. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 23(2), 170–182.
Institute of Medicine. (1995). The best intentions: Unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Jackson, M. W. (1979). The least advantaged class in Rawls’s theory. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 12(4), 727–746.
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952), 343 U.S. 495.
Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork on the metaphysics of morals. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1njjwt
Koppleman, A. (2016). A free speech response to the gay rights/religious liberty conflict. Northwestern University Law Review, 110(5), 1125–1167.
Kosova, E. (2017). How much do different kinds of birth control cost without insurance? National Women’s Health Network, November 17. http://nwhn.org/much-different-kinds-birth-control-cost-without-insurance/.
Levy, G., & Neubauser, A. (2017). Birth control mandate narrowed, religious free rules expanded. US News and World Report, October 6. http://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-10-06/trump-administration-narrows-birth-control-mandate-expand-religious-freedom-rules.
Lindblom, L. (2011). The structure of a Rawlsian theory of just work. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(4), 577–599.
Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977), 431 U.S. 85.
Mallory, C., Brown, T. N. T., Russell, S., & Sears, B. (2017). The impact of stigma and discrimination against LGBT people in Texas. Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law, April. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Texas-Impact-of-Stigma-and-Discrimination-Report-April-2017.pdf.
Mandle, J. (2009). Rawls’s a theory of justice: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Manson, J. (2012). What an abortifacient is—And what it isn’t. National Catholic Reporter, February 20. http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/what-abortifacient-and-what-it-isnt.
Marriott. (2018). Explore our brands. http://www.marriott.com/marriott-brands.mi.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), 584 U.S.___.
Mayo Clinic. (2018). Heart disease. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease/symptoms-causes/syc-20353118.
McClurg, L., & Lopez, A. (2018). Birth control apps find a big market in ‘Contraception Deserts’. National Public Radio, March 26. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/26/595387963/birth-control-apps-find-a-big-market-in-contraception-deserts.
Moriarty, J. (2009). Rawls, self-respect, and the opportunity for meaningful work. Social Theory and Practice, 35(3), 441–459.
Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. New York: Times Books.
Murphy, A. (2017). America’s largest private companies. Forbes, August 9. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamurphy/2017/08/09/americas-largest-private-companies-2/#723d82e2247c.
Narramore, B., & Counts, B. (1974). Guilt and freedom. Santa Ana, CA: Vision House.
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), 403 U.S. 713.
Nurx. (2018). Birth control delivered. http://www.nurx.com.
Oreopoulos, P., Page, M., & Stevens, A. H. (2008). The intergenerational effects of worker displacement. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(3), 455–483.
Pope Paul VI. (1968). Humanae Vitae (July 25). https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html.
Qato, D. M., Daviglus, M. L., Wilder, J., Lee, T., Qato, D., & Lambert, B. (2014). “Pharmacy Deserts” are prevalent in Chicago’s predominantly minority communities, raising medication access concerns. Health Affairs, 33(11), 1958–1965.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reeve, W. P. (2015). Religion of a different color: Race and the Mormon struggle for whiteness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sachs, D. (1981). How to distinguish self-respect from self-esteem. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(4), 346–360.
Schaller, J., & Stevens, A. H. (2015). Short-run effects of job loss on health conditions, health insurance and health care utilization. Journal of Health Economics, 43, 190–203.
Secura, G. M., Madden, T., McNicholas, C., Mullersman, J., Buckel, C. M., Zhao, Q., & Peipert, J. F. (2014). Provision of no-cost, long-acting contraception and teenage pregnancy. New England Journal of Medicine, 371, 1316–1323.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963), 374 U.S. 398.
Smedegaard, L., Nume, A. K., Charlot, M., Kragholm, K., Gislason, G., & Hansen, P. R. (2017). Return to work and risk of subsequent detachment from employment after myocardial infarction: Insights from Danish Nationwide Registries. Journal of the American Heart Association, 6, e006486. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.006486.
Spinello, R. (1992). Ethics, pricing and the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(8), 617–626.
Stevens, A. H., & Schaller, J. (2011). Short-run effects of parental job loss on children’s academic achievement. Economics of Education Review, 30(2), 289–299.
Stewart, D. W., & Martin, I. (2004). Advertising disclosures: Clear and conspicuous or understood and used? Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 23(2), 183–192.
Sullivan, D., & Von Wachter, T. (2009). Job displacement and mortality: An analysis using administrative data. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3), 1265–1306.
Tatham, K. C., & Patel, K. P. (2014). Suitability of common drugs for patients who avoid animal products. British Medical Journal. http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g401.
Terlep, S., & Stevens, L. (2018). Amazon shakes up pharmacy business. Wall Street Journal, June 29, B1.
Turner, J. G. (2012). Why race is still a problem for Mormons. New York Times, August 18. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/opinion/sunday/racism-and-the-mormon-church.html.
Ungar, L. (2018). What states aren’t doing to save new mother’s lives. USA Today, September 20. http://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/deadly-deliveries/2018/09/19/maternal-death-rate-state-medical-deadly-deliveries/547050002/.
United States Department of the Treasury. (2015). Coverage of certain preventive services under the Affordable Care Act, July, 14. https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-17076.pdf.
Valentinov, V. (2017). The Rawlsian critique of utilitarianism: A Luhmannian interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(1), 25–35.
Waligore, T. (2016). Rawls, self-respect, and assurance: How past injustices changes what publicly counts as justice. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 15(1), 42–66.
Winkler, A. (2018a). We the corporations: How American businesses won their civil rights. New York: LiveRight Publishing Corporation.
Winkler, A. (2018b). “Corporations Are People” is built on an incredible 19th-century lie. The Atlantic Monthly, March 5. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/corporations-people-adam-winkler/554852/.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886), 118 US 394.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Joseph Levin and Elizabeth Gratz for their assistance with this paper, and West Virginia University for supporting sabbatical leave for the lead author.
Funding
This study was not funded by any grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fitzgerald, M.P., Langenderfer, J. & Fitzgerald, M.L. Is It Ethical for For-profit Firms to Practice a Religion? A Rawlsian Thought Experiment. J Bus Ethics 166, 159–174 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04136-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04136-5