Jump to content
goxfiles

Hobby Lobby Wins Supreme Court Case!

Recommended Posts

I hope people who are cheering for this realize that this opens an extremely dangerous door for allowing businesses to deny employees anything based on the business' "religious beliefs". This is not "common sense". This is not a "victory". This is not a "win". This is allowing businesses to potentially bypass anti-discrimination laws. They can deny medical coverage for single mothers because "sex outside of wedlock is a sin". They can use this as an excuse to avoid all kinds of obligations.

 

This extends far beyond contraception. This is dangerous. 

Implementing the slippery slope fallacy I see. There is no justifiable reason that a corporation should be forced to supply a specific form of contraceptive to its employees via it's health insurance policy.

 

"Women who work for the plaintiffs, Hobby Lobby, remain able to use their employer-provided insurance coverage to finance the most popular forms of contraception. They remain free to use their wages to finance the ones Hobby Lobby will not cover. They remain free to find other jobs, too, if they want employer-provided insurance coverage that includes the abortifacients to which Hobby Lobby objects. Congress remains free to enact a new law that requires employers to cover abortifacients and contraceptives and explicitly rules out any RFRA exemptions. It remains free, for that matter, to repeal RFRA altogether." -National Review

 

What Hobby Lobby will not cover are four contraceptive methods that its owners fear are abortifacients:

  1. Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”)
  2. Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
  3. Copper Intra-Uterine Device
  4. IUD with progestin

 

Edited by God-Sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Implementing the slippery slope fallacy I see. There is no justifiable reason that a corporation should be forced to supply a specific form of contraceptive to its employees via it's health insurance policy.

 

I think "there is no justifiable reason that a corporation should be forced to supply anything to its employees." Except, ya' know, wages. But only if it's a paid position to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't really matter what people deserve in this context. Don't business owners, being normal human beings, have the right to spend their money as they please?

Don't employees, being normal human beings, have the right to be able to live without their happiness, health, welfare and livelihoods being dictated by the capricious and often apathetic whims of those who don't live month to month?

 

We know how it pleases business owners to spend their money. We've seen it. Again, it was called the Industrial Revolution, and it was terrible. I don't understand why you think it'd be better to go back to that.

 

You're throwing employees under the bus for the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't employees, being normal human beings, have the right to be able to live without their happiness, health, welfare and livelihoods being dictated by the capricious and often apathetic whims of those who don't live month to month?

 

We know how it pleases business owners to spend their money. We've seen it. Again, it was called the Industrial Revolution, and it was terrible. I don't understand why you think it'd be better to go back to that.

 

You're throwing employees under the bus for the rich.

 

Let's frame this a different way: why should it be the business who is forced to pay for these things as opposed to, say, random people off the street, or charities, or the President, or really bad actors who were overpaid and now have tons of money? Why should hiring someone be the relationship which brings on obligations to stuff like health care?

 

[Also, to clarify, I'm not 100% sure what my views on this are these days, so I'm just arguing my tradition thus far.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's frame this a different way: why should it be the business who is forced to pay for these things as opposed to, say, random people off the street, or charities, or the President, or really bad actors who were overpaid and now have tons of money?

If America were a civilized society with universal healthcare like every other industrialized nation, they wouldn't have to. As it is, they owe their employees. Without those employees, there is no business. Shelves are not stocked, data is not input, floors are not swept, burgers are not flipped, assembly lines are not supervised, etc. etc.. Businesses should want to keep their employees happy and healthy. Both increase productivity and make sure that their employees don't take their chances in the job market and leave. If your business doesn't provide enough for your employee to survive, why should anyone seek employment there? If you can't even be bothered to treat your employees as if they're human, what makes you worthy of their time and work?

 

So it's in everyone's best interest if businesses aren't allowed to run based on a selfish rich man's dream of having a fountain made of solid gold in his five acre garden. The employee has a better life and the business runs better because the employee is happy and healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If America were a civilized society with universal healthcare like every other industrialized nation, they wouldn't have to. As it is, they owe their employees. Without those employees, there is no business. Shelves are not stocked, data is not input, floors are not swept, burgers are not flipped, assembly lines are not supervised, etc. etc.. Businesses should want to keep their employees happy and healthy. Both increase productivity and make sure that their employees don't take their chances in the job market and leave. If your business doesn't provide enough for your employee to survive, why should anyone seek employment there? If you can't even be bothered to treat your employees as if they're human, what makes you worthy of their time and work?

That's what the wages/salary is for. Why should this extend to healthcare?

Edited by God-Sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If America were a civilized society with universal healthcare like every other industrialized nation, they wouldn't have to. As it is, they owe their employees. Without those employees, there is no business. Shelves are not stocked, data is not input, floors are not swept, burgers are not flipped, assembly lines are not supervised, etc. etc.. Businesses should want to keep their employees happy and healthy. Both increase productivity and make sure that their employees don't take their chances in the job market and leave. If your business doesn't provide enough for your employee to survive, why should anyone seek employment there? If you can't even be bothered to treat your employees as if they're human, what makes you worthy of their time and work?

 

So it's in everyone's best interest if businesses aren't allowed to run based on a selfish rich man's dream of having a fountain made of solid gold in his five acre garden. The employee has a better life and the business runs better because the employee is happy and healthy.

 

Oh, I would agree that, practically speaking, a business ought to do these things for its employees. I think you could even make a decent moral argument. But I'm asking about a legal one.

 

And as well, is there any reason why a business shouldn't just pay employees enough for them to purchase their own health care or insurance independently? Though I don't agree with price control, including wages, I think that would be better than making employers directly support things against conscience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 U.S. Code § 7701

 

1) Person

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”

 

 

 

 

Hobby Lobby is so awful:

 

 

Arts and crafts giant Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. announced on Monday that effective immediately, the minimum wage for its full-time hourly employees at its stores and affiliate Hemisphere was increased to $14. The hourly wage for part-time employees was also increased to $9.50.

 

In a report on Thursday, founder and CEO of the company David Green said the decision was simply an acknowledgement of the hard work and dedication of his employees.

"We are very fortunate to be able to increase hourly wages for our employees, because we know our company would not be successful without the great work they do each day in our stores across the nation," said Green.

 

"We know that if we reward our employees for their hard work, we will be rewarded in turn with their loyalty and dedication to their job and to our customers," he added.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/hobby-lobby-raises-minimum-wage-to-14-for-full-time-employees-94233/

 

Also:

 

 

Imagine that a woman starts work at Hobby Lobby tomorrow morning — July 1. She joins Hobby Lobby’s health care plan. It includes access, copay-free, to the following categories of FDA-approved birth-control:

  1. Male condoms
  2. Female condoms
  3. Diaphragms with spermicide
  4. Sponges with spermicide
  5. Cervical caps with spermicide
  6. Spermicide alone
  7. Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
  8. Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
  9. Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
  10. Contraceptive patches
  11. Contraceptive rings
  12. Progestin injections
  13. Implantable rods
  14. Vasectomies
  15. Female sterilization surgeries
  16. Female sterilization implants

(This new woman at Hobby Lobby cannot use male condoms or a vasectomy, at least not directly. However, if she chose either contraceptive method, in conjunction with her husband, she would have access to it.)

Further, not only would she have access to these medicines and devices, but Hobby Lobby would fund them. That’s right: while White House press secretary Josh Earnest claims that it “jeopardizes the health of women,” Hobby Lobby’s health plan pays for 16 different kinds of contraceptives for its female employees!

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381637/hobby-lobby-actually-lavishes-contraception-coverage-its-employees-deroy-murdock

Edited by God-Sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what the wages/salary is for. Why should this extend to healthcare?

So, do you live in America? Because let me tell you something about America. You will not be capable of paying for medical care on your average salary. Especially if you're one of the many, many people on minimum wage.

 

Our prices for healthcare are obscene because medical care is treated like a luxury. A female rape victim will pay thousands of dollars (one rape victim posted a picture of her hospital bill on Reddit, showing that she paid over $4000. Another victim allegedly payed $6000) if she goes to the hospital after her rape. Prices for medication skyrocket with no warning, going from affordable to crippling for no discernible reason. 

 

 

There's an example of the last one, where this man's medication went from $50 a month to nearly $800 in one month with no warning. 1200% increase.

 

So no. In America, a wage is not for healthcare because healthcare cannot be paid for with a wage. Maybe, MAYBE your average doctor's appointment (and even that would be out of reach for a family on minimum wage). But prescription medications? Hospital stays? Chronic illnesses? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, do you live in America? Because let me tell you something about America. You will not be capable of paying for medical care on your average salary. Especially if you're one of the many, many people on minimum wage.

 

Our prices for healthcare are obscene because medical care is treated like a luxury. A female rape victim will pay thousands of dollars (one rape victim posted a picture of her hospital bill on Reddit, showing that she paid over $4000. Another victim allegedly payed $6000) if she goes to the hospital after her rape. Prices for medication skyrocket with no warning, going from affordable to crippling for no discernible reason. 

There's an example of the last one, where this man's medication went from $50 a month to nearly $800 in one month with no warning. 1200% increase.

 

So no. In America, a wage is not for healthcare because healthcare cannot be paid for with a wage. Maybe, MAYBE your average doctor's appointment (and even that would be out of reach for a family on minimum wage). But prescription medications? Hospital stays? Chronic illnesses? No.

Good post on the high cost of healthcare, but it still fails to answer why a business should have to pay for it. At least in respect to health issues outside of work place accidents due to unsafe working conditions. Like Caleb stated," why should it be the business who is forced to pay for these things as opposed to, say, random people off the street, or charities, or the President, or really bad actors who were overpaid and now have tons of money? Why should hiring someone be the relationship which brings on obligations to stuff like health care?"

Edited by God-Sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Healthcare is not a right.  I think that's the main point of contention between multiple parties on this issue.  Some people believe it is a right, while others don't.

 

I think companies that can afford it should have excellent health-care coverage for their employees.  Currently, my company can not afford this.  We have 3 million in liability, 1 million in auto, $75,000 in gear, and $500,000 for worker's compensation.  If I took on a healthcare plan we would go bankrupt.  The moment we can afford it, though, we'll buy it.

 

My big issue is the sense of entitlement some of you are espousing.  Benefits aren't rights, they are meant to provide an extra incentive for you to work at a job.  One of the enormous benefits my employees has is they get to choose their own hours - even our interns.  Most work-places have a 9-5 mentality.  Likewise, my employees can work half their hours from home if they choose.

 

Now, simply because I'm not offering a healthcare plan right now, does that mean I'm denying people healthcare coverage?  No, everyone is covered on different plans (some still on their parent's plans).  People can still go out and buy healthcare, or use our tax dollars with the new Obamacare system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Healthcare is not a right.  I think that's the main point of contention between multiple parties on this issue.  Some people believe it is a right, while others don't.

 

I think companies that can afford it should have excellent health-care coverage for their employees.  Currently, my company can not afford this.  We have 3 million in liability, 1 million in auto, $75,000 in gear, and $500,000 for worker's compensation.  If I took on a healthcare plan we would go bankrupt.  The moment we can afford it, though, we'll buy it.

 

My big issue is the sense of entitlement some of you are espousing.  Benefits aren't rights, they are meant to provide an extra incentive for you to work at a job.  One of the enormous benefits my employees has is they get to choose their own hours - even our interns.  Most work-places have a 9-5 mentality.  Likewise, my employees can work half their hours from home if they choose.

 

Now, simply because I'm not offering a healthcare plan right now, does that mean I'm denying people healthcare coverage?  No, everyone is covered on different plans (some still on their parent's plans).  People can still go out and buy healthcare, or use our tax dollars with the new Obamacare system.

You support a system that treats the sick and injured as if they're a money-making scheme. As if simply not being dead is a luxury that you should pay thousands upon thousands to receive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

You support a system that treats the sick and injured as if they're a money-making scheme. As if simply not being dead is a luxury that you should pay thousands upon thousands to receive.

 

What are you talking about?  Healthcare in general?  I support health insurance heavily because I was in a car accident a couple years ago and it messed up my nose real bad.  I had to have surgery to fix a deviated septum.  My car insurance paid for a new (used) car and covered all my medical expenses.  Because of insurance I was able to pay in roughly $5,300 since I started driving, and after my accident I was able to take out over $20,000. I thank God for insurance companies - that's almost like stealing money, hah!

 

At my company, I pay roughly $250 a month and can cover my employees up to HALF A MILLION in medical expenses if they get hurt on the job.  That's insane, and I'm thankful for it.

Edited by JAG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, do you live in America? Because let me tell you something about America. You will not be capable of paying for medical care on your average salary. Especially if you're one of the many, many people on minimum wage.

 

Our prices for healthcare are obscene because medical care is treated like a luxury. A female rape victim will pay thousands of dollars (one rape victim posted a picture of her hospital bill on Reddit, showing that she paid over $4000. Another victim allegedly payed $6000) if she goes to the hospital after her rape. Prices for medication skyrocket with no warning, going from affordable to crippling for no discernible reason. 

 

 

There's an example of the last one, where this man's medication went from $50 a month to nearly $800 in one month with no warning. 1200% increase.

 

So no. In America, a wage is not for healthcare because healthcare cannot be paid for with a wage. Maybe, MAYBE your average doctor's appointment (and even that would be out of reach for a family on minimum wage). But prescription medications? Hospital stays? Chronic illnesses? No.

 

Isn't this mostly the fault of insurance companies to begin with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chloe, just out of curiosity, what's your understanding of the Drug Development process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

Okay, my turn!

 

First off, Radical Edward, did you not say in the abortion thread that because the law deemed abortion as "not murder", it is indubitably not murder? With that logic, the law has now claimed that this is not Constitutional and wrong to force on corporations, has it not? If the government gives us a penultimate "trump card", can there be any quarrel against this decision?

 

As per my beliefs, contraceptives should not be given out like candy anyways, despite the clear wishes of "Obama Care". If we are to legalize this issue rather than point out the clear moral and religious issues it presents: some people do not wish to provide for or condone the issuing of contraceptives through their money or persons. I, a legal American citizen who could legally own a corporation here, firmly believe that if you want to sleep around outside of marriage, you risk the consequences. Yes, you can all go for my throats for being harsh on this, but premarital sex is as horrid and damaging as any act (to my entitled belief), and this view is backed by my religion. I do not wish to endorse or make access to this any freer, and believe that if we stopped giving out condoms like **** lollipops people would participate in it less.

 

That being said, let's say I own a job in the future, and am told that I have to give out contraceptives to teenage girls under my employment; which goes FIRMLY against my beliefs and my wishes. Legally confining me to an opinion and forcing me to endorse something against my moral and religious beliefs is not just an injustice against me but also entirely un-Constitutional. I oppose much of even "plan parenthood" (not it's support of impoverished mothers, but its like assignment of contraceptives), I feel very strongly about this issue; so where are MY rights in this hypothetical scenario? "I want my boss to give me free contraceptives against his will!" now reigns over: "I oppose issuing contraceptives to people who aren't married and should not be forced to endorse their assignment"?

 

As per the issue of: "Some women use them for medical reasons", then what in God's name means that job owners are the ones forced to issue it to them? Can we at least opt to make them go to a doctor and receive a notice that it is for a woman's medical reasons and not to defile her body, or will we begin passing out "medical marijuana" to our children without a doctor's issue as well? If this is medical than have it contained as such. Until then, job owners retain the Constitutional and legal right to deny support of something entirely immoral and sacrilegious to their personage. End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said, let's say I own a job in the future, and am told that I have to give out contraceptives to teenage girls under my employment; which goes FIRMLY against my beliefs and my wishes. Legally confining me to an opinion and forcing me to endorse something against my moral and religious beliefs is not just an injustice against me but also entirely un-Constitutional. I oppose much of even "plan parenthood" (not it's support of impoverished mothers, but its like assignment of contraceptives), I feel very strongly about this issue; so where are MY rights in this hypothetical scenario? "I want my boss to give me free contraceptives against his will!" now reigns over: "I oppose issuing contraceptives to people who aren't married and should not be forced to endorse their assignment"?

I agree with the above. A business owner should not have to forsake his faith because of government laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the above. A business owner should not have to forsake his faith because of government laws.

So do you extend this to all faiths, or just Christians?

 

For example, would you be alright with a Muslim business owner forcing women to wear burqas because it goes against his religion for women to not to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do you extend this to all faiths, or just Christians?

 

For example, would you be alright with a Muslim business owner forcing women to wear burqas because it goes against his religion for women to not to?

Why not? I don't think it's right, but it's his business, so conduct for his employees should be up to him so long as it's not criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? I don't think it's right, but it's his business, so conduct for his employees should be up to him so long as it's not criminal.

So the employer's religious rights supersede the employee's religious rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

So the employer's religious rights supersede the employee's religious rights?

No, they do not. But remind me again, what is the religion that sayeth: "Thou must be issued contraceptives at work"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? I don't think it's right, but it's his business, so conduct for his employees should be up to him so long as it's not criminal.

I would say it depends in the case of a burqa. Employers do have every set to set a uniform for their employees, but I would say there needs to be a balance. For example, he could require women to wear something modest, like a longer skirt or a long-sleeve shirt, but not necessarily a burqa.

You can protect the rights of the employer without trampling on the rights of the employees. If it would humiliate a woman to follow an employer's request than it should not be in place; in Western culture the burqa is viewed with hostility, so this would be the case. I think that not covering contraception is a bit different from requiring women to wear a burqa. That's an extreme example designed to ridicule our comparatively far more moderate opinion.

So the employer's religious rights supersede the employee's religious rights?

Not necessarily. See above. Edited by goxfiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they do not. But remind me again, what is the religion that sayeth: "Thou must be issued contraceptives at work"?

Remind me what religion that sayeth "Thou must attempt to force women to adhere to your ideals of what is acceptable in their sex lives regardless of their personal beliefs"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

Remind me what religion that sayeth "Thou must attempt to force women to adhere to your ideals of what is acceptable in their sex lives regardless of their personal beliefs"?

Not doing something isn't forcing it. If you aren't giving out free food, are you forcing hunger on impoverished children? Yet if you force a Muslim to give pork to impoverished children, is that not forceful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it depends in the case of a burqa. Employers do have every set to set a uniform for their employees, but I would say there needs to be a balance. For example, he could require women to wear something modest, like a longer skirt or a long-sleeve shirt, but not necessarily a burqa.

You can protect the rights of the employer without trampling on the rights of the employees. If it would humiliate a woman to follow an employer's request than it should not be in place; in Western culture the burqa is viewed with hostility, so this would be the case. I think that not covering contraception is a bit different from requiring women to wear a burqa. That's an extreme example designed to ridicule our comparatively far more moderate opinion.

Not necessarily. See above.

But the issue is that this decision opens the door for that. This has basically set a precedent for exactly that. 

 

If an employer can make dictates over their employees based on their religious beliefs, then a Muslim employer can force female employees to wear burquas. If an employer can deny coverage based on their religious beliefs, than employees can potentially be denied literally all coverage based on whether or not their employer believes in faith healing, or be denied coverage of anti-psychotic medications based on whether or not their employer is a Scientologist. Unmarried pregnant women can be denied all coverage based on the fact that fornication is a sin. Employers can enforce dietary restrictions; a Muslim employer could enforce Ramadan on all his or her employees.

 

That's what this opens the door for: Employers forcing their employees to follow their religion's dictates, regardless of whether or not their employees agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×