@Happy Valley Heretic:"So Employees are using 'Their wages'
not the companies."Too funny!! It's not employee wages
else it would be taxed... and it ain't."Birth control is
not 'killing a child developing in the womb'..."Abortion is."...and is not part of ACA."What?
Of course it is... or will be when Obamacare is fully implemented starting next
Neanderthal said:"We're maintaining a fund to cover
employee healthcare needs but it will not cover things like flying to Hawaii or
the Caymans to see a doctor, things that are unlawful/illegal such as
purchase/use of marijuana/cocaine, and things against our (Hobby Lobby
proprietors) religion such as killing a child developing in the womb
(abortion)... But if you'd like to do these things with the wages we pay
to, go for it."Insurance is Not a gift from your employer, as
someone already pointed out it is part of a compensation package which includes
your wages and any other compensation, So Employees are using "Their
wages" not the companies. What the company pays towards your premiums
is part of your wages. To entice corporations to treat employees like humans the
government gives them tax incentives to do so, this does not make their
contribution theirs.Birth control is not "killing a child
developing in the womb" no matter what your fanatical belief system may be,
and is not part of ACA.
Granny, you're not forced to pay for maternity for yourself. You're
entering a very large risk pool, and many of its members do need it.
@Way of the Warrior--No, no. It's more like Hobby Lobby
saying..."We're maintaining a fund to cover employee
healthcare needs but it will not cover things like flying to Hawaii or the
Caymans to see a doctor, things that are unlawful/illegal such as purchase/use
of marijuana/cocaine, and things against our (Hobby Lobby proprietors) religion
such as killing a child developing in the womb (abortion)... But if you'd
like to do these things with the wages we pay to, go for it.""We don't have the time to personally manage this fund so we've
elected to turn it over to a separate company call GEICO to manage."
Following Hobby Lobby's logic, I don't want to provide my employees
with money because they'll just buy alcohol with it and drinking alcohol is
against my religious beliefs. Forcing me to pay my employees money so they can
buy alcohol is a violation of my religious rights!
How far down the chain of financial connections does moral responsibility go?
The contraceptive mandate in the ACA does not require Hobby Lobby or its
employees to use contraceptives. It only requires them to make contraceptive
coverage available in their insurance plans. Their premiums are commingled with
those of all the other policy holders. The company never pays directly for any
of the products it finds objectionable-- the insurer does. Hobby Lobby only
acts as a passive intermediary to facilitate its employee's choice to
purchase the insured products. It does not actively participate in the purchase
nor directly fund the purchase nor use the product.What are the
reasonable limits on moral culpability in dilute financial transactions? Is
Hobby Lobby consistent in its application of its faith principles? Does the
Hobby Lobby pension plan invest in pharmaceutical stocks that manufacture
contraceptives? What about diversified mutual funds that include
pharmaceuticals? What about purchase of products from or investments in
companies that offer contraceptive coverage in their employee plans? They are
still financially linked and Hobby Lobby shares responsibility in objectionable
activity. To be consistent, the company would have to sever financial ties with
any other party that facilitates contraceptive use.
@dan76:"From your monicker, one must assume you've had children
and subsequently grandchildren. Why then were childless members of society
required to pay school district taxes to support your kin's
education?"I'll answer for granny... the country provides
education for the masses to ensure that freedom is preserved. Even though
granny has no children she enjoys the freedom that an educated citizenry
provides/ensures.@Blue:"Corporations are not people - they
are collections of assets operating under the protection of law. Can a
corporation have a religion? Only if my computer can, also."A
corporation is a 'person' created by law. The reason being so that it
can (among other things) sue and be sued separate and apart from its owner(s)...
and to protect the owner(s) from such action. Think of a corporation with say
100,000 owners (stockholders). Can you imagine the confusion/complication if
100,000 owners wanted to sue someone for some legal infraction rather than just
one 'person' doing the suing? You obviously need a class in corporate
@Tyler D:"Since the law – which simply mandates that insurance,
part of all employee’s paid compensation, cover things people
want..."If the employer is paying the insurance premium...
he/she is also paying for insurance coverage. Take out contraceptives, etc.,
and the premium should reduce. Thus, the employer is paying for these services
contrary to their religious rights. If the premium does not reduce, the
employer is being scammed."...Hobby Lobby et al should lose
their case in a 9-0 decision."You got that backwards.@Stalwart Sentinel:"...so I bet you can prove to me where the laws
of the United States grant corporations a will, conscience, and
religion."You're a little confused, Stalwart... Companies
(i.e., corporations) are not people... they're persons created by law to
conduct certain commercial, etc., activities. People have a will, can have
religion and conscience. Persons, created by law, do not."I'm sorry but the owners of the companies are not special..."Everyone is special... Including you."... they do not
have a legally-recognized right to exert their personal morality through their
company."They do if they are paying the bill, the effect of
which reduced their take on the company.
I don't think a religious believer should have special rights with regard
to health insurance they offer their employees. What if a religious believer
doesn't believe in a vaccination? What about blood transfusions? How far
to do we extend such special rights beyond health insurance? Should an
employer who believes in prayer over medicine receive special rights and be
exempt from having first aid kits in their work place? It's time we stop
giving religious believers special rights.At any rate, this is about
control. It's about a religious person who wants to control the sexual
lives of women in the name of religion. It's about controlling women.
Yes, of course they can purchase birth control elsewhere, but it is obnoxious
for religious folks to expect special rights with respect to a reasonable law
that mandates birth control.
Bottom line is this– the majority of items sold at Hobby Lobby come from
China, so they already accept abortion in order to save a few dollars. They are
willing to look the other way in order to increase their bottom line, this is
about control of their employees plain and simple.
re: Tyler D:"Either way, we need to decouple medical insurance from
jobs."Tyler, Hobby Lobby and any other employer already has that
ability....reduce hours below the bar of being required to provide insurance.
Hire 80 part-timers to replace 40 full timers. Problem solved from a company
perspective. But is that what we really want?
A lot of hot issues that people care for or don't care for can be disguised
under freedom of religion. I have always wondered who's right
trumps who's. A religious person could easily claim they do not want to
serve black people because it is against their religious beliefs but a black
person could claim their civil rights and the 14th amendment was violated. Who
re: BlueThat was a pretty good post. I liked it even though I
suspect we disagree on the issue. Regarding - "Waiting to see a corporation
listed as the mother/father of a child."Do some research on
where the mother/father of a child falls on the legal priority over said child.
I believe you will be surprised how far down the list they are. Perhaps the day
of seeing a corporation (legal firm?) listed as the mother/father....or at least
legal guardian...of a child isn't all that distant.
Bottom line is this– the majority of items sold at Hobby Lobby come from
China, so they already condone abortion.They are willing to look the other
way in order to increase their bottom line, this is about control of their
employees plain and simple.
@RedWings – “I would want a say in where all of that money is
going....”OK…But if we say an employer
should have full control of the insurance policy (a point I’m only
conceding for the sake of argument), wouldn’t that open up a totally
unmanageable can of worms?I can imagine all sorts of scenarios where
employers or not completely up front about what their insurance doesn’t
cover leaving the employee in the lurch if/when they need those services (a
blood transfusion for a Christian Scientist company employee). Or
even if they are up front, the employee taking the job (and risk) because, maybe
they’re the only good employer in town, only later when the need arises to
be left on their own.If the SC rules this way (highly doubtful I
believe given past precedents) perhaps the best solution would be to allow those
employers to completely opt out of providing insurance and paying a wage that
would allow their employees to purchase their own (more expensive without the
large group discount) policy. Either way, we need to decouple
medical insurance from jobs.
Some people base their objection to contraception on the notion that life begin
at conception, other people have different starting points. Some people believe
that individuals existed in heaven long before life. If life is eternal does it
have a starting point?
RedWings You state, "the courts have already said that
"corporations are people" in the political sphere. What makes the
religious sphere different?" That is actually not true, the SCOTUS did not
say that. I assume you are referring to Citizens United which held that
corporations could make political expenditures under the free speech right
granted in the 1st Amendment. As noted above by others, one example to rebut
your assertion is that corporations cannot vote so they are not people in the
political sphere; neither could a corporation run or hold political office. The
same is true in the religious sphere. You also say, "[a]
business owner has the right to operate his or her business" which is only
partly accurate. The correct phrase is: a business owner has the right to
operate his or her business in compliance with the law. The law trumps a
business owner's "right" to operate his/her business as he/she
pleases - which is why Hobby Lobby et al are breaking the law.lost
in DC If you want to claim that a corporation is an extension of the
owner, prove it via statute or case law. Your entire argument depends on it.
If the Supreme Court believes that corporations are people, It seems likely that
the court will rule that corporations can impose their religious belief upon
their employees. The sad part about that is that it adds to the chains that
bind employees to their master employers in the slavery of employment. People of the American religion of secularism will see this as a step
toward a religious government. And if you think wars between economic forces
are bad just wait until the afterlife is added to the booty.
from secular laws.
Liberals need to take their Hobby Lobby business over to the Quilted Bear. That
will show em.
@lost in DC probably because until recently those of faith have not tried
to extend their right to free exercise thereof so far beyond ecclesiastical
duties and practices into every realm of their secular lives. The courts have
long held that when churches are acting outside their ecclesiastical duties and
engaging is secular commerce they are not immune form secular laws.
lost in DC"Tater, why do liberals ignore “the free
exercise thereof” part of the 1st amendment?"No one is
preventing anyone from exercising their religious beliefs. Forcing others to
share those beliefs is the issue at hand.
MountanmanHayden, IDIf you guys want birth control pills, pay
for them yourselves! Stop trying to force other people to be responsible for
your body and what you choose to put into it or do with it!Thank you
for your position, now I'm sure that it also means that those of us that
can't get pregnant shouldn't have to pay for those that do. Glad to
see you are with us.
Ranch & Tyler D:I work in human resources. Most companies pay a
large part of the premium (up to 85%). Employees pay the other part. In my
case, I will pay about $220 per month next year and my employer will pay about
$1,150 in premium for me and my family.Also, most plans are
"self-insured". This means that the employer, not the insurance
company, pays the claims (until they hit a pre-set amount). For example, I go
to the pharmacy and pay $35 for a prescription. The total cost of that
medication under the insurance plan is $100. Guess who covers the other $65?
My employer, not the insurance company.Most employers pay huge
amounts in medical benefits. As a business owner (public or private), I would
want a say in where all of that money is going....
@lost in DC – “No employer is paying for anything –
right.”Look up the word ‘compensation.’ The only
thing your employer is paying for is your time… after that, however you
choose to spend your earned compensation is up to you (including on premiums to
pay for the large group policy your employer offers – again, as
compensation).The employer only pays (for himself) if he is a policy
participant. But to say that he can then dictate policy coverage for everyone is
no different than saying so can every other premium payer… in which case
we would have no large group market due to anarchy.@lost in DC
– “why do liberals ignore “the free exercise thereof”
part of the 1st amendment?”Perhaps for the same reason
conservatives ignore the “congress shall make no law respecting”
part. Also, as the SC has always affirmed (e.g., Scalia in Employment Division v
Smith), free exercise does not mean religious people can ignore civil law (i.e.,
be laws unto themselves).But nice to hear from you again…
I’ve missed your ad hominems and factually challenged statements
masquerading as arguments.
@lost in DC;Does your employer pay your premiums? I know that my
premiums, deducted from each paycheck, amount to hundreds of dollars every
month. People who pay their premiums should be able to decide on
whether or not they want a plan that provides for THEIR needs, NOT the
"religious views" of their employer.
Most religions have their own set of unique restrictions that their want their
adherents to follow. For the most part, this is the thorn that comes with the
rose of encouragement to be better people and hope for a happy next life.Its hard enough to live by all the restrictions that one's own
religion imposes, lets hope the Supreme Court doesn't allow employers to
attempt to impose their religious restrictions on their employees.If
this happens, better hope your company isn't purchased by Christian
Scientists which don't believe in going to doctors .. AT ALL.. .
Waiting to see a corporation get baptized.Waiting to see a
corporation be given Last Rights by a priest.Waiting to see a
corporation register to vote.Waiting to see a corporation be
executed for a capital crime.Waiting to see a corporation listed as
the mother/father of a child.Corporations are not people - they are
collections of assets operating under the protection of law. Can a corporation
have a religion? Only if my computer can, also.
Tyler D,No employer is paying for anything – right. Just like your
argument that CO2 is toxic.Pagan,You are arguing against the
administration. What changed your mind? The administration is forcing their
amorality on others. That definitely is NOT freedom.Sentinel,The OWNERS of those companies do. Those companies do not exist in a
vacuum.Granny,You have no rights, didn’t you know
that?Dan76,Do you truly believe granny is not now paying
property taxes to support someone else’s kids' school?Tater, why do liberals ignore “the free exercise thereof”
part of the 1st amendment?Ranch,The employer pays – take
your argument up with Tyler.
@CI & Moutanman;It isn't "free stuff" when the
employee PAYS the premiums.
"The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the company on its
claims under the 1993 law and the Constitution, saying "for profit, secular
corporations cannot engage in religious exercise."This sounds
like a rational and non-sectarian decision. Churches and religions that are in
the business of business should not be allowed multitudes of different laws
pertaining to their particular beliefs. Business has one set of standards,
religions have others.Would this or any other business be able to
tell their employees how they could spend their paychecks? Health coverage is a
benefit, as is the paycheck. They should not dictate how an employee uses
benefits or pay.
To Granny;From your monicker, one must assume you've had
children and subsequently grandchildren. Why then were childless members of
society required to pay school district taxes to support your kin's
Stalwart Sentinel - But the courts have already said that "corporations are
people" in the political sphere. What makes the religious sphere
different?A business owner has the right to operate his or her
business. If employees want these types of contraceptives, go work where they
are offered. If these companies cannot attract employees becasue of their
policies, then they will need to adjust or go out of business. This is called
freedom of choice and it used to be a desirable thing in out country.Today, there is still a choice as long as a person's choice happens to
agree with the far left. If it does not, then the person is a bigot and not
deserving of freedom....
As a 60+ woman too young for Medicare, imagine my frustration that I am required
to pay for MATERNITY CARE AND forced to sign up for PEDIATRIC DENTAL CARE in
order for my insurance policy to be compliant and avoid a penalty. I CHOSE not
to sign up for my own dental plan because it didn't make financial sense in
my case, but I am FORCED to pay for some other people's children dental
care.Can I say IMPEACH loudly enough?! Not only are the Democratic
sheep following their shepherd over the cliff...they have tied us all to them
and we are at the edge.
Bottom line, their body. Not yours. When you believe
that your moral platitudes can dictate another human beings body… well, we have 100,000 people in America who need an organ transplant. Right now. Put your kidney where your mouth is.
@bandersen – “Get the Federal government out of everything from
defining marriage…”Glad to know you’re against
DOMA and in favor of letting States decide for themselves whether or not to
sanction same-sex marriages… I wouldn’t have guessed.@Jim Cobabe – “countless millions of unborn babies are murdered
and unceremoniously discarded in dumpsters.”And what exactly
does that have to do with an insurance mandate meant to cover birth control and
things like the Plan B (so-called Morning After) pill?Even granting
that Plan B terminates a fertilized egg (the science suggests otherwise), is it
your contention that a fertilized egg is the same as a baby? Keep in
mind this egg (even at 3 days old) is so small that if placed in your hand you
would not be able to see it without a microscope. Needless to say it has no
organs, blood, bones or human features of any kind.Just something to
think about before you start tossing out gruesome & evocative statements
like the one above…
So, liberals want to force businesses to violate their owners consciences.
Let's say the Supremes agree: that Hobby Lobby has to pay to let women
murder their children. Then Hobby Lobby will likely drop all health insurance
for their employees. What then, liberals? Force Hobby Lobby to offer health
insurance if they want to stay in business? Why not--I mean, you
fascists are all gung ho about forcing Americans to pay the government a yearly
tax merely for the privilege of existing. After all, that is what America is
all about--if you breathe, you pay Obama his fine or else! George and Tom would
be so proud that at last their vision of an America run by a government that
demands you pay money to them for the privilege of breathing has finally come to
pass! It's what we fought the King for, right?
If you guys want birth control pills, pay for them yourselves! Stop trying to
force other people to be responsible for your body and what you choose to put
into it or do with it!
OBAMACARE Regulations might strip AFLEC of its ability to provide a variety of
supplemental coverages. Liberals may regulate them away. But if AFLEC survives,
it could continue to provide a variety of individual supplemental insurances
including a policy to cover women's reproductive health issues (including
child-murder, I mean abortion). If that was provided and allowed in the
regulations (not sure AFLEC would want to provide such a policy), then an
enterprising company could offer the product to employees/individuals without
employer subsidy as part of people's HSA or 125(a) programs or simply as a
separate individual coverage available on-line. It would have to exclude
pre-existing pregnancies from termination of life coverage of course. The point
is, the Supreme Court should find OBAMACARE a 13th Amendment violation.
Nevertheless, the private sector could fill the (sad-to-say) need and want
without forcing an employer mandate; thus relieving responsible companies like
Hobby Lobby to continue to control its OWN business destiny. The patrons of
Hobby Lobby who purchase goods and services nor Hobby Lobby's
Management's should be held by Marxists as responsible to pay for
irresponsible women to terminate an innocent human life against conscience.
How strong a parallel between the horrors of the bombs or the abortions which
destroy human life. What difference if death is delivered by high-tech drones
or high-tech pills? The devastation is the same. While a few hundred are
slaughtered by bombs, or a few thousand die from tropical storms, countless
millions of unborn babies are murdered and unceremoniously discarded in
If you use religion to force action upon others, you do not advocate freedom. You advocate a theocracy. What will happen then, when
someone else's religious beliefs, conflict then, with your own? We already have examples of this in Human history. The Crusades,
Jihads, Oaklahoma Bombing, 9/11. And the murder of doctors in
churches. 'George Tiller Killed: Abortion Doctor Shot At
Church' - Huffington Post - 05/31/09
another reason to come join the crowd that believes in Liberty. Get the Federal
government out of everything from defining marriage to providing health care to
the "do-gooders" seeking validation through government action. Liberty
is a wonderful feeling when defined by yourself, not a government bureaucrat or
an elected leader. How frustrating it must be for those who continue to seek a
Utopia through government fiat. Come join the ranks of those who understand
liberty and live it without the chains of government decree. How empty it must
feel to never be able to move forward in life without a government officer
telling you what to do or a handbook of instructions(Printed, of course, by the
#1 Morning after pills are not considered or classified by scientists as
abortifacients because they prevent ovulation and fertilization.#2
There is no evidence to date that Ella or Plan B prevent implantation of a
fertilized egg. When taken after ovulation, pregnancy occured at the same rate
as women who had not taken the morning after pills.#3 The Catholic
Health Assoc.: “HHS has now established an accommodation that will allow
our ministries to continue offering health-insurance plans for their employees
as they have always done,” read the opening statement accompanying the
trade group’s “memorandum,” which explains how the final rules
would work.“We are pleased that our members now have an
accommodation that will not require them to contract, provide, pay or refer for
Counter Intelligence - For-profit companies do not have a will, they
do not have a religion, and they do not have a conscience. But, you seem so
sure of yourself, so I bet you can prove to me where the laws of the United
States grant corporations a will, conscience, and religion. Please, show me
where those corporate rights exist under statutory or case law. I'll wait.
I'm sorry but the owners of the companies are not special,
they do not have a legally-recognized right to exert their personal morality
through their company. It's time for Christian exceptionalism to come to
an end in the United States.
Since the law – which simply mandates that insurance, part of all
employee’s paid compensation, cover things people want (i.e., no employer
is directly purchasing anything) – is a generally applicable law that does
not in any way target religious people, all prior precedents (including
Employment Division v Smith) suggest Hobby Lobby et al should lose their case in
a 9-0 decision.That said, given the fact that Scalia likely favors
Hobby Lobby’s position for purely political/religious reasons, it will be
interesting to watch the contortions & mental gymnastics he will perform to
twist the law (including doing a complete 180 on his opinion in the above
mentioned case) into the outcome he wants. Roberts and Kennedy will
likely decide the outcome…
@CII am not interested in yet another day of debating your victimhood but
I will remind you of an old saying, you cannot take the effect and make it the
cause. I do think it is very appropriate for the supreme court to
take up this issue because of the conflicting lower court rulings and the
question of constitutionality.
The 40 companies not just object to birth control. They object to providing
abortificants such as the "morning after" pill, which is contravention
to the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment prohibits public funding of
It is fascinating how politically correct bullies who claim to be traumatized by
public religious speech (which requires no more emotional effort than mere
tolerance of a different opinion) suddenly do not see a problem forcing someone
to violate their conscience or pay for things that violate their religion.It is fascinating that those who claim to be all about freedom of speech
suddenly claim that businesses have NO right to freedom of speech or religion
(but unions and associations do)It is fascinating how some people
claim to be victims when others do not pay for their free stuff and they cannot
seem to comprehend they are actually perpetrators for forcing others, against
their will, to do things that they can do themselves.The HHS mandate
is the epitome of politically correct bullying and hypocrisy