Oatmeal: "Requiring Hobbly Lobby to pay for insurance provisions that
permit abortion is essentially (from an Evangelical Christian's
perspective) forcing them to pay for an option to murder a child..."As I noted in my original (11/25 4:56 pm) post and as merich39
responded, the question hinges on how much "separation" there is between
funding or facilitating an action deemed immoral and performing the same act.
No one is forcing Hobby Lobby (or its employees) to use contraception, only to
create a condition where the option is available. It's the fungibility of
money issue. Hobby Lobby's premiums get mixed into the insurance pool
where it is impossible to say that their dollar paid for any particular pill.Many people in Utah object to liquor consumption on religious grounds,
yet the state government coerces them through compulsory taxation to subsidize
liquor retailing and facilitate consumption. Can they claim a religious
exemption from paying the fraction of their taxes that goes to the DABC? This
paper has taken an editorial stance supporting conscientious objectors being
exempted from military service (seeing a parallel to Hobby Lobby's case),
but does it support Quakers not paying taxes to run the Pentagon?
OatmealWoods Cross, UTI understand your perspective.
However, when the owner(s) of Hobby Lobby provide health insurance to their
employees, they have no idea who, if any, will use that insurance to obtain
contraceptives. The only way Hobby Lobby can be certain to not violate their
religious beliefs, in the public arena as a business owner, is to make sure none
of their employees insurance covers contraceptives. By the same logic, someone
whose religion prohibits participation in war should not have to pay Fed income
taxes nor provide the means for their employees to pay Fed income taxes as
certainly some of those taxes can and will be used to pay for wars. Again, once we've established a precedent that employers can be exempt
from laws based on religious objections, where does that end? Can an employer
refuse to follow any and all OSHA laws based on religious exemption? Can a
business refuse to follow child labor laws based on religious exemption? Once
that religious exemption door is cracked open, it will gradually be forced open
more and more a little bit at a time until it's wide open.
@Oatmeal;When the owners of Hobby Lobby applied for a license to
incorporate, the government gave them the license on condition that they obey
the laws of the state. If they don't want to obey the laws pertaining to
businesses, then they should simply close their doors and walk away.
Essentially, it's the same Mormon mantra: "if you don't like it
leave", but applied to business.
The concept of legal personhood raises some perplexing questions. Does a
corporation exist independently of the human beings that comprise it? Does
Hobby Lobby Inc. exist outside of David Green? Can Hobby Lobby Inc. (as
distinct from its stockholders or board of directors) be said to have religious
beliefs and practice a religion? What pew does Hobby Lobby Inc. sit in at
church?A cynical wag quipped that, "I'll believe that
corporations are people when Texas executes one." In that sense,
corporations have achieved the immortality that corporeal humans seek to achieve
through faith. The corporation is divorced and insulated from true
responsibility for its sins. It can be fined, but it can't be jailed or
executed. It can live forever. Bob Smith, human, defrauds his neighbor out of
$1000 and goes to jail. JP Morgan Chase Inc. defrauds people out of millions
and pays a fine, but its life and liberty are not curtailed. There is no
equivalent of jail. If corporations are people, how about treating them like
people? When they misbehave, take away their liberty, say, revoke its charter,
freeze all assets for a period of time, or suspend trading of shares on the
merich39:If Congress can pass a law that forces a behavior that
directly conflicts with a business owner's right to freely practice their
faith, does the First Amendment mean anything at all? Requiring Hobbly Lobby to
pay for insurance provisions that permit abortion is essentially (from an
Evangelical Christian's perspective) forcing them to pay for an option to
murder a child. Regardless of how an observer feels about abortion, it is a
violation of the business owner's freedom of conscience. They have to act
in a way that is in conflict with their conscience. The sad part is
that there are ways around this dilemma. Government can get out of the business
of mandating that one person select and purchase another's insurance.
Government can tax everyone and directly provide healthcare (single-payer), or
it can regulate a market where individuals select and pay for the insurance they
need. In either case, government would not use business owners as the
'Pagan: Can I see the $4 trillion check you wrote for the Iraq
War?' So now the $4 trillion dollars is make believe? Conservatives, mocking the war that killed 500,000 people in Iraq… that they started based on lies and falsehoods.
Do we really want to set a precedent where a business owner is able to claim
exemption from any particular law based on a religious objection? Today, that
religious objection might be provide health insurance that includes birth
control. Tomorrow, that religious objection might be providing handicapped
access to their business. What happens if someone raises a religious objection
to following OSHA laws or EPA laws? What if someone raises a religious
objection to following harassment laws? If you allow a religious
objection to following one law, where does this newly defined right of business
to claim exemption from laws stop?
@ Pursuit of KnowledgeLet’s go another route. What if there
were a gay-owned business whose main base of customers is from the GLBT
community? The owners (a gay couple) are strident gay-rights activists. They
are trying to get married in their state where it isn’t allowed. They
also know that a prospective employee is politically and religiously active
(after hours) in working to defeat same-sex marriage but wants to work at their
company. It is a good job. The company is the biggest employer in
town and has good benefits. He is the best-qualified candidate. He's a
CPA and will not solicit or proselyte his views when at work. His work history
indicates he will likely be a loyal, hard-working employee.How would
such a business owner feel about this? Is the company going to hire him? If
they don't, should they be forced to? Are they taking away his *freedom*
if they don't?Now let’s say he wants to work for a
gay-pride advocacy group. Same circumstances. Remember, he’s not on the
This is about FAIRNESS, not the special rights that some religious people claim
part of "freedom of religion"--- low income women, such as those
working retail, generally must take any job that will hire them, particularly
when they have children and need to work close to daycare, or no car to get to a
different job.--- the US Constitution and many laws say that all those
women need to be treated the same.--- the hypocrisy of the commenters is
illustrated by their acceptance of freely prescribed Viagra, or, worse "the
don't get pregnant" or "it's your problem"You
want to intrude into the life of families and damage the public interest, while
ignoring that religion must not be brought into the workplace.Moreover, it is conservative to prevent unwanted kids from burdening the
taxpayers.Pursuit_of_KnowledgeSALT LAKE CITY, UT@JPLet's take this a bit further. What if a business owner's religion
believes being gay is a sin and does not want to hire gays?--- In most
States, that unfairness is legal. Congress needs to pass ENDA.
The first amendment (among other amendments) does not require living or
breathing.In fact it only say what congress can NOT do. It can not
abridge speech or religious practice.It does not say what an
individual can do.it does not say what the people can do. It does not say what a business can do.Because ALL rights exist
already with the people and however they organize or assemble themselves.
The federal government coerces pacifist Quakers to engage in warfare against
their consciences. While they are allowed to opt out of direct military
service, they are not allowed to opt out of paying taxes (or that portion of
total taxes) that goes to support the military. The federal government coerces
observant kosher Jews and halal Muslims to subsidize unclean consumption against
their consciences. They are not compelled to eat swine or shellfish, but they
are not allowed to opt out of paying taxes (or that portion of total taxes) that
goes to subsidize swine production, fisheries management, etc. Money is
fungible, it is said, and the taxes paid go into a pool so that no one
individual's contribution can be said to pay for any particular expenditure
and therefore no religious conflict exists.Hobby Lobby and its
employees pay insurance premiums into a pool along with thousands of others.
Neither Hobby Lobby nor its employees is compelled to buy or use contraceptives,
only to carry a policy that includes contraceptive coverage. Their premiums are
fungible. They are no more buying contraceptives (or abortifacients, which
seems to be the real issue) than a Quaker is buying a Tomahawk missile.
If someone wants birth control as part of their insurance, let them add a rider
policy at their own expense. Business should not be forced to provide that
coverage.Additionally, I agree that Viagra should not be required
for any insurance policy. If someone wants Viagra, let them pay for it.
Don't force me or anyone else to pay for your Viagra or birth control.But just because Viagra is covered, at this point, should not mean that
I have to pay for someone else's birth control or pregnancy coverage.
Instead, lets drop the Viagra from coverage.
"And I paid for the $4 trillion dollars of the Iraq war."I
am geniunely impressed I thought Bill Gates was the richest man in America.
Pagan: Can I see the $4 trillion check you wrote for the Iraq War?This is a simple issue that is being made complicated by the haters of
religion. No one is forced to work at Hobby Lobby. If you want insurance that
covers birth control, work somewhere else or pay for it yourself. It is a
product, not a right. If no one applies for work at Hobby Lobby because of
their employment practices, then they will have to adjust them or not have
employees. Somehow I think that Hobby Lobby will do just fine.This
is called freedom of choice. Unformtunately, our society now
operates on a hypocritical form of equality, based on what the far left agrees
@JPLet's take this a bit further. What if a business owner's
religion believes being gay is a sin and does not want to hire gays? What if
the owner's religion believes that being black is a mark of Cain and does
not want to hire blacks?Where does a business owner's religious
freedom stop? When it impinges upon another's freedom.
Businesses that have stock for sale on the stock exchanges, i.e. publicly traded
firms are treated differently in tax and regulatory law than companies like
Hobby Lobby which is wholly owned by a single family. Treating them differently
in this issue would be logically consistent with those other treatments.
Personally as a middle aged male, and my wife, a female of similar age group, I
don't need insurance for pregnancy. I'm pretty darn sure that
she's not going to get preggers. Frankly, we don't need that added to
our insurance. Someone ought to sue about that since Obama Care mandates make
me carry maternity coverage as part of my insurance.
@Pursuit_of_Knowledge "What if the business is owned by certain Christian
sects that believe only in faith healing, not medicine? Should that business be
allowed to avoid providing health care?"Yes, they should. And
people looking for work can then decide for themselves whether or not they want
to work for that company. That's the great thing about freedom.
This is a slippery slope.What if the business is owned by
Jehovah's Witnesses? Can the business owner only provide medical insurance
that does not pay for blood transfusions?What if the business is
owned by certain Christian sects that believe only in faith healing, not
medicine? Should that business be allowed to avoid providing health care?The list goes on-and-on as many religions have differing beliefs in what
is allowed by God and what is prohibited.
'Nice comments. But the AHA is asking business owners to pay for
another's decision. ' And I paid for the $4 trillion
dollars of the Iraq war… and, men to be covered by Viagra. If you use religious arguments against something…
why do you ignore the fact that some are not, part of that religion?
Businesses are not living, breathing entities. They are not people. They do
not have any freedom except that which governments grant them. Businesses do
not have religious freedom; nor should they; ever!
my counterpoint is that I will never get pregnant.Why should I have
to subsidize women that get pregnant? Insurance is a pool of coverages, and of
people. You cannot exclude the features that you don't like.If
I could exclude features that I don't like (in government) I would exclude
funding for wars. I don't get that benefit. Taxes, like insurance, is a
pool of resources.
@New YorkerOur freedoms and rights a extends to however we as people
organize ourselves.All freedom and rights exist with the people. The
constitution guarantees those rights and freedoms it does NOT give them.Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly freedom of
privacy, etc. means nothing if it does not extend beyond the individual to
however we may organize ourselves.We as the people and however we
organize ourselves possess all rights and freedoms not explicitly given to the
government. Nothing perverted about that.
What an interesting conundrum. First the Supreme Court decides that corporations
have all the political right of people (campaign contribution issue). If
that's the now why would they have to even take this up. If individuals
have political and religious freedom, obviously corporations would also have
them by the Court's own perverted logic.
Pagan and Hutterite:Nice comments. But the AHA is asking business
owners to pay for another's decision. And if SCOTUS has ruled
that corporations and institutions have free speech rights, why shouldn't
corporations also have religious/conscience protections as well?
Pagan; If you want birth control pills, pay for them yourself! Your beliefs stop
at your person, not forcing any one else to accommodate your body!
Religious freedom has to start with all freedoms. That is, individuals first.
And individuals, whether singularly or in groups, should be empowered to decide
for themselves. But only for themselves.
Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. Your
beliefs stop at your person. Not someone else's body.