Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
ChloeB

Hobby Lobby attempts to refuse contraceptive

72 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in the latest challenge to the Obama health care overhaul.

This time the issue is whether for-profit corporations, citing religious objections, may refuse to provide some, or potentially all, contraceptive services in health plans offered to employees. It is a case that touches lots of hot-button issues.

In enacting the ACA, Congress required large employers to provide basic preventive care for employees. That turned out to include all 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

March 25, 2014

Under the law, religious nonprofits were exempted from this requirement, but for-profit corporations were not.

The lead plaintiff before the court is Hobby Lobby Inc., a chain of 500 arts and crafts stores with 13,000 employees. The owners are conservative Christians who object to certain methods of birth control — IUDs and morning-after pills — because they can interfere with the creation of life once an egg is fertilized.

"We believe that the principles that are taught scripturally is what we should operate our lives by ... and so we cannot be a part of taking life," explains Hobby Lobby President Steve Green.

"It's our rights that are being infringed upon to require us to do something against our conscience," adds CEO and founder David Green.

Shifting The Burden To Employees

The government, however, points to a long line of Supreme Court cases that take a contrary view, declaring that the court has never found a for-profit company to be a religious organization for purposes of federal law. Indeed, the Justice Department says in its briefs that the government would be unable to function if religious beliefs could be the basis for corporations' refusing to comply with generally applied laws — be they child labor laws, immunization laws, laws that mandate serving racially mixed groups or income tax laws that require everyone to pay, no matter how the government spends the money.

Furthermore, the government argues that Hobby Lobby, in claiming it is exempt from some requirements of the health care law, is shifting the burden to its employees.

"This is an earned benefit, not a freebie. And it's an earned benefit to which women contribute their share of the premium," said former Clinton administration Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who filed a brief siding with the government.

"Here the 13,000 employees of the Hobby Lobby corporate enterprise aren't and should not be expected to share the religious beliefs of the Greens. What you really have is one family attempting to utilize their economic leverage to impose their religious beliefs on others," Dellinger continued.

Read more here: http://www.npr.org/2014/03/25/293956170/hobby-lobby-contraceptive-case-goes-before-supreme-court

I couldn't find this topic anywhere, surprisingly. Curious about opinions on this, some people are saying, if you don't like go work somehwere else, but I don't think this is right and could have far-reaching consequences. This company is going to be using their contributions to employee insurance premiums as a tax deduction and they're not a non-profit religious organization and under the umbrella of those protections or rights granted churches.

Edited by ChloeB
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Companies and corporations aren't, cannot be, 'religious' (they are not citizens, even if they are ' legal persons/entities'), so cannot claim 'religious freedoms' even if the company is privately held.

The owner of the company cannot present his/her individual rights as being representative of the rights of the employees.

Edited by Leonardo
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are a for profit business and should have to offer the same medical benefits required by other business's period. I seriously doubt their employees share the same religious beliefs anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There probably has not been any threads because IMO its not that big a deal.

But I agree with Hobby Lobby, they have always been christian based, like Chic-Fila. And they are actually a fairly good company, at least in Ohio i know they start the pay of the workers at a lot higher then the minimum wage is.

We should not force them. But then again i disagree with alot of ACA anyways, like forcing people to have healthcare...

Edited by spartan max2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There probably has not been any threads because IMO its not that big a deal.

But I agree with Hobby Lobby, they have always been christian based, like Chic-Fila. And they are actually a fairly good company, at least in Ohio i know they start the pay of the workers at a lot higher then the minimum wage is.

We should not force them. But then again i disagree with alot of ACA anyways, like forcing people to have healthcare...

It went to the Supreme Court, I would say that's a big enough deal. Okay so don't force them and would you carry that same line of thought if the next business was owned by Jehovah's Witnesses and claimed they couldn't cover their employees to have blood transfusions because it was against their beliefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair that they don't offer it, as long as they don't go crying poor when the lefties of the world boycott Hobby Lobby.

And I suspect, it's the lefties who have the sort of hobbies Hobby Lobby cater to...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It went to the Supreme Court, I would say that's a big enough deal. Okay so don't force them and would you carry that same line of thought if the next business was owned by Jehovah's Witnesses and claimed they couldn't cover their employees to have blood transfusions because it was against their beliefs?

yes actually :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes actually :P

So someone in a life or death situation, you'd support them being refused coverage to get a blood transfusion to save their life because some business owner decided to dictate the healthcare options of employees of a corporation based on their personal religious beliefs? Well then what would be the alternatives, maybe Blue Cross and Blue Shield can start covering faith healing?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So someone in a life or death situation, you'd support them being refused coverage to get a blood transfusion to save their life because some business owner decided to dictate the healthcare options of employees of a corporation based on their personal religious beliefs? Well then what would be the alternatives, maybe Blue Cross and Blue Shield can start covering faith healing?

It is not a business's job to cover people. That is not why you start a business. Why should it be their responsibility? People can go out and buy insurance.

Why not just have the government issue all of it then? I dont see why we have to force a business to cover all of these things. Small business can barley afford to run as it is.

And if someone honestly does not believe in something they should not be forced to do it. It should not make a difference what the majority opinion is.

We should not attack companies like Hobby Lobby who voluntarily already treat their employees good.

Edited by spartan max2
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree with Spartan, The ownus should not be the employer. Specially for something as silly as contraception. This should be a personal choice.

The government should be the ones edcuating the public about safe sex, and set up family planning areas, that offer free condoms, and reductions on this like after morning pills, contraception pills.

Edited by The Id3al Experience
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The religious don't want their tax-payer dollars going towards government sponsored abortion or contraception either, however.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you cross that line and become an employer you have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. Like it or not.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There probably has not been any threads because IMO its not that big a deal.

But I agree with Hobby Lobby, they have always been christian based, like Chic-Fila. And they are actually a fairly good company, at least in Ohio i know they start the pay of the workers at a lot higher then the minimum wage is.

We should not force them. But then again i disagree with alot of ACA anyways, like forcing people to have healthcare...

I agree with Spartan, The ownus should not be the employer. Specially for something as silly as contraception. This should be a personal choice.

The government should be the ones edcuating the public about safe sex, and set up family planning areas, that offer free condoms, and reductions on this like after morning pills, contraception pills.

The owner(s) of Hobby Lobby rely on the federal govts' rule of law to provide an environment in which they may operate and make a profit. If they wish to continue to operate in this framework of law, the very least they should do is co-operate with those laws themselves.

Religious freedom as a right does not apply to for-profit companies and corporations because those institutions are not recognised religious institutions nor are they legal citizens, to whom the rights of citizens apply.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a business's job to cover people. That is not why you start a business. Why should it be their responsibility? People can go out and buy insurance.

Why not just have the government issue all of it then? I dont see why we have to force a business to cover all of these things. Small business can barley afford to run as it is.

And if someone honestly does not believe in something they should not be forced to do it. It should not make a difference what the majority opinion is.

We should not attack companies like Hobby Lobby who voluntarily already treat their employees good.

Would your opinion be the same if this were a Muslim owned business using their religoius beliefs to dictate what their employees had access to on their health coverage? I see And Then up there liking your posts, I'd be curious to see if he would be liking your same response to a Muslim owned business. My suspicion is the reactions would be different.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would your opinion be the same if this were a Muslim owned business using their religoius beliefs to dictate what their employees had access to on their health coverage? I see And Then up there liking your posts, I'd be curious to see if he would be liking your same response to a Muslim owned business. My suspicion is the reactions would be different.

Are you for real? lol.

Because my view on economics is more right wing then i must be against Muslims? Thats what it sounds like your implying. If so then that makes you the one being judgmental...

And yes my answer would be the same if it was a Muslim owned business :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The owner(s) of Hobby Lobby rely on the federal govts' rule of law to provide an environment in which they may operate and make a profit. If they wish to continue to operate in this framework of law, the very least they should do is co-operate with those laws themselves.

Religious freedom as a right does not apply to for-profit companies and corporations because those institutions are not recognised religious institutions nor are they legal citizens, to whom the rights of citizens apply.

My issue is that i dont believe coverage should be in the framework in the first place. Like with this example it leads to companies being forced to do things that the owners dont believe in.

My view my be biased because my dad owns a small business. But forcing coverage really puts a strain of small business's. Some cant even do it. Just another policy that insures big business has a monopoly because all the little companies cant cope.

Edited by spartan max2
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've been a Union member for over 30 years, and I've often wondered why the company I work for is paying MY health insurance. It's a nice perk, but it really should be MY responsibility.

We hear a lot about "heartless" corporations, and yet when a corporation (which is really just a group of people) reacts with passion to an ill-conceived government mandate, people still complain about them being heartless.

Hobby Lobby is objecting to abortifacients, which cause abortions. Their concern is for unborn children.

Edited by simplybill
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you for real? lol.

Because my view on economics is more right wing then i must be against Muslims? Thats what it sounds like your implying. If so then that makes you the one being judgmental...

And yes my answer would be the same if it was a Muslim owned business :tu:

LOL, I'm sorry, that was judgemental of me. It's just you sound like everyone where I live that's all for this and trust me, if it goes into anything Muslim, they do a total 180. I just had to ask.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owner(s) of Hobby Lobby rely on the federal govts' rule of law to provide an environment in which they may operate and make a profit. If they wish to continue to operate in this framework of law, the very least they should do is co-operate with those laws themselves.

Religious freedom as a right does not apply to for-profit companies and corporations because those institutions are not recognised religious institutions nor are they legal citizens, to whom the rights of citizens apply.

Don't get me wrong Leo, I agree, you take up business you follow the rules. But what logic is it that employers make sure your having save sex? This is just plain silly.

Employers should only be responsiable for there safety and welbeing during work hours. Which includes safe working environments with health and safety rules and procedures. This is it.

Im really just saying the law is silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Don't get me wrong Leo, I agree, you take up business you follow the rules. But what logic is it that employers make sure your having save sex? This is just plain silly.

Employers should only be responsiable for there safety and welbeing during work hours. Which includes safe working environments with health and safety rules and procedures. This is it.

Im really just saying the law is silly.

People who are on minimum and near-minimum wage (or single-income low wage) are eligible to claim various child and child-care benefits, the cost of which to the economy far outweighs the cost of free contraception.

Or is the argument that businesses (and business owners) do not have a responsibility to the economy in general, but should only be concerned with themselves?

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

People who are on minimum and near-minimum wage (or single-income low wage) are eligible to claim various child and child-care benefits, the cost of which to the economy far outweighs the cost of free contraception.

Or is the argument that businesses (and business owners) do not have a responsibility to the economy in general, but should only be concerned with themselves?

Shouldnt the Governement pay for contraception to stop or lower the cost of child benefits?

This doesnt sound like an employers problem to me?

Edited by The Id3al Experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldnt the Governement pay for contraception to stop or lower the cost of child benefits?

This doesnt sound like an employers problem to me?

There is no equivalent of the NHS (State-funded Healthcare) in the US*, for the reason that the public do not want govt "running their lives". Thus, it is incumbent upon the private citizen to take responsibility for the health of the nation, and economy, as a whole. If the private citizen will not take up that responsibility (and most wouldn't, being self-interested), then govt must legislate to make them. It would be negligent of govt to do otherwise.

* I am aware of Medicare and Medicaid, but these systems are limited to certain groups of people and do not constitute 'State Healthcare' as envisaged in the discussion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no equivalent of the NHS (State-funded Healthcare) in the US*, for the reason that the public do not want govt "running their lives".

Pardon me, but yes there is. We have state run health clinics and hospitals where people can get health care without it costing them a dime.

I started a thread about the availability of free health care in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The religious don't want their tax-payer dollars going towards government sponsored abortion or contraception either, however.

They probably don't want that but have little choice in the matter. Suppose I am a liberal who doesn't like my tax dollars going to support a war I consider unjust, or a conservative who doesn't like paying for food stamps for people who misuse them to buy alcohol and cigarettes, I still have to pay my taxes and have little say in how the dollars are spend once government gets a hold of them (other than trying to changes things at the ballot box and grass roots legislation).

On the other hand, if I take my capital and invest it in a business, I should have some control over what I should and should not have to do based on my Constitutional rights under the law. I am the one taking the risk, not the government; many businesses fail each year.

This is not some issue of discrimination by the business, and nowhere is contraception a Constitutional right that they are denying someone, nor is it difficult to obtain or even particularly expensive; birth control is available in every CVS, Walgreens, Health Clinic and so forth. Why should a business be mandated to provide something against their conscience? A Catholic school might be a for-profit organization with a long and clear history of being against birth control, should they also be forced by the government to provide the same for their employees?

I would say let the free market decide. If being provided birth control is the deciding issue about working somewhere, then businesses that provide it will attract more potential employees, and if Hobby Lobby is not offering it, then those who want it will look for a job elsewhere, it's not like you are forced to work there and then have to put up with what you may consider incomplete coverage.

As Rob Lowe recently said, "I want the government out of almost everything."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if men got pregnant then birth control would be constitutional right. Birth control is a womans health care issue and her body is hers and not her employer's or her husband's. How about if your boss coverts to being a Jehovah Wittiness and decides blood transfusion is against his religion, so you can't have one either. I'll never understand the need to control others by the standards of your favorite religious club. I run round in the woods on the full moon, but I don't think everybody should do it. (The fewer the better, really.)

1 person likes this

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.