Hobby Lobby

[Paulos23]

even though the law gives them an option that would meet the owners religious requirements.

What option?

In order to 'keep control of their employees' you would be forced to show HOW they do that, and you can't. They do have other options available to them. They have state and federal exchanges - so there is no 'control' here.

The federal government stated that they would work with companies on issues like that, and they should. They have given 'opt out' for loads of other circumstances, and they have to show now how this circumstance is different. Just because people don't agree with their views doesn't make it malicious. I swear the definition of tolerance today is hypocritical.

Claiming they want to 'control' their employees isn't going to fly in court. They also are not forced to give the employees the money to go on the exchange to get a policy that more suits their family, but if I were guessing they may do that anyway.

My goodness you would think this company is asking for the MOON here.

The control is some of these employees have no where else to go for employment. And if they are not a religious insitution or company serving a segment of the population then why claim that this is infringing on their religious values? They could just stop the insurance and have everyone go to the extange, instead they want to keep the insurance in their control and force their values on their employees where it has no effect on their business values.

They are asking for the moon here. If they could claim religious examption here on providing health insurance, then what is to stop another company claiming exemption in paying taxes or following FDA rules? Where does it stop?

Corporations are not people, they don't have religous beliefs. Individuals do. And while corporations are made up of individuals, what gives the right of one individual to force their religion on the other individuals in the corporation?

 

[HannahT]

The control is some of these employees have no where else to go for employment. And if they are not a religious insitution or company serving a segment of the population then why claim that this is infringing on their religious values? They could just stop the insurance and have everyone go to the extange, instead they want to keep the insurance in their control and force their values on their employees where it has no effect on their business values.

They are asking for the moon here. If they could claim religious examption here on providing health insurance, then what is to stop another company claiming exemption in paying taxes or following FDA rules? Where does it stop?

Corporations are not people, they don't have religous beliefs. Individuals do. And while corporations are made up of individuals, what gives the right of one individual to force their religion on the other individuals in the corporation?

Your first paragraph makes no sense at all. This has nothing to do with their 'employment'. Keeping their insurance is not FORCING their values on anyone. The employees can go on the exchange, keep their job. Problem solved if that was issue - and its NOT!

Your second paragraph? They are NOT asking for a 'examption here on providing health insurance'. They are asking for exemption of 4 types of birth control out of 20. They don't have an issue with the other 16. It sounds like you don't realize what the case is about. Your other two points have nothing to do with this, and I'm not even going to go there.

Your third paragraph - show me HOW they are 'forcing their religion' on other individuals? You can't, because they aren't. That is not what the case about either. So your points aren't relevant to the case at hand. They also don't follow logic of reality either. You may not agree with their stand on the 4 types of birth control they are against - but that doesn't mean YOU are forcing THEM to live by your beliefs...and it doesn't make it so the other way around either.

The case is pretty much about how you can hand exception to some 'companies' of certain classifications, and not others. It has nothing to do with 'forcing' individuals to believe as they believe.

You are missing the point of why this is court completely.

 

[Skaloop]

They should have taken this case IMO because otherwise, Hobby Lobby would be fined millions of dollars by a tyrannical anti-Christian government. There is no one who is fair-minded in the government and that is why they had to go this far.

Eric Holder is the anti-Christian mouthpiece for an anti-Christian Obama. He's not only a poor Attorney General, he's a poor attorney.

And Elena Kagan is simply a left-winger. She is a pro-Democrat, left wing apologist. Her comment was only an attempt to sway the court. Obama doesn't just choose liberals, he chooses extreme liberals.

Ah, yes, that anti-Christian government composed almost exclusively of Christians. You might as well be saying that the NFL is anti-football.

 

[HannahT]

Public as in open to the public. They sell to the public, not just to Christians. The benift is being able to attract more customers outside their religion, while pushing Christian theamed products on them.

Look, if they could get every employee to agree to work under Christian values and stated that not using contracepives what one of their values, I bet they wouldn't have as many employees as they have now.

And you know that in this econamy that even if you have a job, finding another one is still very hard. The 'choice' you state for some of them is the choice of starving and loosing a roof over their heads and working for a company that they don't agree with every value. So I find the choice arguement a bit week for those close to the poverty line.

You don't even know what this case is about do you?

They aren't asking their employees to NOT use contraceptives - or have the option to NOT allow them to have them. Hello?!

They already offer contraceptives - and did before this law was even a THOUGHT! Yes, on their CURRENT form of health insurance THEY offer contraceptives NOW! Yes, and they offered them BEFORE Obamacare too!

This is the issue with the current media - they don't report things properly. They give people the wrong impression of things. I don't know WHERE people are getting the impression that they are not offering - or do not want to offer contraceptives.

They are asking for exception of 4 types of birth control (like the morning after pill), and will STILL offer the 16 other types of birth control.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This would have never been an issue if medical insurance had continued to be treated as an employment perk rather than some inalienable right.

This!

 

[Skaloop]

I'm not preventing women from seeking that treatment. If they can pay for it, they can get the treatment. The way you phrase it, however, you are claiming a right - an entitlement - to take my money and use it to pay for someone else's treatment even if I think that treatment is immoral.

You think a woman trying to increase her fertility is immoral? You think a woman trying to reduce incapacitating menstrual pain is immoral?

If my money is involved, I have a right to participate in the decision for how it is spent - unless you're going to deny me that right.

How much involvement, and to what specificity? I mean, you (I expect) are OK with your money going towards road repairs. Does that mean you get a say in each and every specific bit of road repair work that is done? Even the bits that don't affect you in any way?

Similarly, I expect (and would hope) that you are OK with some of your money going towards maintaining the health of others. But how specific is your involvement? Do you get to review every procedure and medication that is administered to ensure it fits with your morality?

Do you have an objection to your dollars being used to provide antibiotics such as penicillin, even though one of the uses of penicillin is treatment of syphilis, an STD often caused by immoral sex?

It was. Pluralism is certain to always have this conflict. You seem to think employers are not the right people to offer health care benefits (and I agree), so who would you offer as the alternative? In reality, it's not employers anymore, but government working through employers. So, I don't see (secular) government as a solution either. IMO churches would be the better option. I haven't studied the history of church hospitals, but they used to be the major caregiver in western nations.

Would churches do it for free, out of Christian charity for their fellow humans, funded by donations from similarly philanthropic Christians? Current health care spending would equate to a bit over a thousand bucks per Christian per year. If the church can do it more efficiently, then that cost would come down. If they could do it at the cost of a country like Japan, they could cut that in half. Do you think that American Christians would be up for donating five or six hundred bucks annually to hospitals in order to make health care available to all? It's less than the expected tithing for most people, and certainly any lack of charity by the less fortunate would be made up for by the generosity of the well-to-do Christians.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You know what, even though I am pro choice, I am fine with companies refusing to insure birth control. But only if they stop ensuring penis pumps and (in some insurance companies) Viagra, and similar such products, because if birth control doesn't have enough justification for people to cover it when it is often used to treat medical conditions beyond just preventing pregnancy, products like Viagra sure aren't justified for coverage.

 

[Resha Caner]

Public as in open to the public. They sell to the public, not just to Christians. The benift is being able to attract more customers outside their religion, while pushing Christian theamed products on them.

AFAIK that's not what "public company" usually means in business-speak. Regardless, I don't see why selling to the public suddenly obligates them to forego their religious convictions.

Look, if they could get every employee to agree to work under Christian values and stated that not using contracepives what one of their values, I bet they wouldn't have as many employees as they have now.

Maybe not. Would you be OK with them taking that approach?

And you know that in this econamy that even if you have a job, finding another one is still very hard. The 'choice' you state for some of them is the choice of starving and loosing a roof over their heads and working for a company that they don't agree with every value. So I find the choice arguement a bit week for those close to the poverty line.

And? Hobby Lobby is obligated to hire people since the economy is bad? I don't see how that's a good idea. That's what charities are for.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm unsure what side the court is going to come down on this one, but it is going to be interesting.

With that said, I don't have a big issue with Hobby Lobby refusing to pay for these things with this caveat; I believe companies should be compelled to notify employees and the general public, what their stance is on these matters, so people are rightfully notified.

Very similar to the issues we have going on with owners of public businesses refusing to service people with products associated with gay weddings. To me, it is clear discrimination, but I have no issue with the refusal, as long as that public business notifies the public they rely on for business, their stance on these issues.

I call this the; "no shoes, no shirt, no service" notification. If you want to refuse, fine, but notify people ahead of time.

 

[Resha Caner]

You think a woman trying to increase her fertility is immoral? You think a woman trying to reduce incapacitating menstrual pain is immoral?

That's not what I said, and you know that's not the issue.

How much involvement, and to what specificity? I mean, you (I expect) are OK with your money going towards road repairs. Does that mean you get a say in each and every specific bit of road repair work that is done? Even the bits that don't affect you in any way?

Similarly, I expect (and would hope) that you are OK with some of your money going towards maintaining the health of others. But how specific is your involvement? Do you get to review every procedure and medication that is administered to ensure it fits with your morality?

Yes, I should be allowed to voice my opinion, and work through the legal channels available to me. Is there a reason specific health issues are not open for discussion?

I don't intend to review every drug and every procedure. There is always a point where things need to be handed off to others to be managed. I'm not only OK with my money going to help others with health issues, I want to do it. But if I become aware of something that needs to be addressed, I intend to address it. And the Federal government is not the right vehicle for doing this.

Would churches do it for free, out of Christian charity for their fellow humans, funded by donations from similarly philanthropic Christians?

We already do. My church has a food pantry, a parish nurse, counseling services, etc. I help fund that ministry.

 

[Resha Caner]

You know what, even though I am pro choice, I am fine with companies refusing to insure birth control. But only if they stop ensuring penis pumps and (in some insurance companies) Viagra, and similar such products, because if birth control doesn't have enough justification for people to cover it when it is often used to treat medical conditions beyond just preventing pregnancy, products like Viagra sure aren't justified for coverage.

I've got no problem with what you said.

 

[Resha Caner]

I call this the; "no shoes, no shirt, no service" notification. If you want to refuse, fine, but notify people ahead of time.

I would be OK with that. It actually seems like a reasonable idea. And people who don't like the position a company takes would have a right to picket ... as long as they stay 35 feet away from all entrances.

 

[Paulos23]

AFAIK that's not what "public company" usually means in business-speak. Regardless, I don't see why selling to the public suddenly obligates them to forego their religious convictions.

And I don't see why the religious convictions of the owners needs to be put on the employees.

Maybe not. Would you be OK with them taking that approach?

If they where upfrount with it, yes. I have been interview by many companies that like to have 'christian' values that turn out to not be christian and did not make sence to me from an employee standpoint. But they where trying to be steathy about it. I was in a possition to pass on their offers.

And? Hobby Lobby is obligated to hire people since the economy is bad? I don't see how that's a good idea. That's what charities are for.

I was talking mostly about the ones that are employeed with them now, but also in small towns sometimes a store like that is the only stable employment around for some people.

 

[Skaloop]

That's not what I said, and you know that's not the issue.

It is what you said, in that you object to the provision of birth control because you consider it immoral even though it is used in relation to things that I doubt you consider immoral.

Yes, I should be allowed to voice my opinion, and work through the legal channels available to me. Is there a reason specific health issues are not open for discussion?

That's not what I said.

I don't intend to review every drug and every procedure. There is always a point where things need to be handed off to others to be managed. I'm not only OK with my money going to help others with health issues, I want to do it. But if I become aware of something that needs to be addressed, I intend to address it. And the Federal government is not the right vehicle for doing this.

But you are pushing to deny people access to certain things that will address their health issues, so no, you don't "want" to do it.

We already do. My church has a food pantry, a parish nurse, counseling services, etc. I help fund that ministry.

I'm not talking about a hot meal and a nurse to give out band-aids. I'm talking about fully functional and specialized hospitals that deal with a broad spectrum of health, medical, and emergency issues for any and all who require it. Does your ministry provide chemotherapy for people with cancer? Does it provide ongoing care and medication for people with HIV? Does it perform life-saving surgery on people injured in a car accident and near death? Does it perform ultrasounds on pregnant women to assess the health of the fetus? Does it provide prescriptions? Can a person get an MRI at your church? Does your ministry provide ongoing palliative care?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've got no problem with what you said.

Glad we agree.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

But you are pushing to deny people access to certain things that will address their health issues, so no, you don't "want" to do it.

There is no denial of access here.

If I'm employed by Hobby Lobby, I can still get an IUD if I so choose. It's just not paid for.

My company provides eye insurance but it chose eye insurance that doesn't cover contact lenses for expense purposes.

Does that mean they're denying me access to contact lenses?

 

[Supreme]

I reckon the Supreme Court will actually rule in Hobby Lobby's favour here. It just demonstrates, if nothing else, the shambolic practice of tying access to medical care with your employment. Stuff like this would never happen here, but our employers don't (except in rare cases) pay our medical bills.

 

[Skaloop]

There is no denial of access here.

If I'm employed by Hobby Lobby, I can still get an IUD if I so choose. It's just not paid for.

My company provides eye insurance but it chose eye insurance that doesn't cover contact lenses for expense purposes.

Does that mean they're denying me access to contact lenses?

Yes, "deny access" was the wrong wording. But you get my gist, right?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I reckon the Supreme Court will actually rule in Hobby Lobby's favour here. It just demonstrates, if nothing else, the shambolic practice of tying access to medical care with your employment. Stuff like this would never happen here, but our employers don't (except in rare cases) pay our medical bills.

Fair enough, but I wonder if that will mark a bad trend.

 

[Resha Caner]

If they where upfrount with it, yes.

I agree they would need to be upfront about it.

And I don't see why the religious convictions of the owners needs to be put on the employees.

Shrug. It seems we agree on the above principle. Know the company you work for and what they expect. Now we're just negotiating about where you draw the line. Companies always enforce morals: be on time, don't cheat or lie, etc.